1984-12-10

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker. Before proceeding, since today is the final allotted day, since the House will later be going through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply Bill, and in view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the supply Bill which will go through all stages later today be distributed now?
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House takes note of the following United Nations Resolution:
REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONCLUDING DOCUMENT OF THE TWELFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 38/73 E ON A NUCLEAR-ARMS FREEZE
Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sweden and Uruguay: draft resolution Nuclear-arms freeze The General Assembly,
Recalling that in the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly, the first special session devoted to disarmament, adopted in 1978* and unanimously and categorically reaffirmed in 1982 during the twelfth special session of the General Assembly, its second special session devoted to disarmament, the Assembly expressed deep concern over the threat to the very survival of mankind posed by the existence of nuclear weapons and the continuing arms race,
Recalling also that on those occasions, it pointed out that existing arsenals of nuclear weapons are more than sufficient to destroy all life on earth and stressed that mankind is therefore confronted with a choice: halt the arms race and proceed to disarmament or face annihilation,
Noting that the conditions prevailing today are a source of even more serious concern than those existing in 1978 because of several factors, such as the deterioration of the international situation, the increase in the accuracy, speed and destructive power of nuclear weapons, the promotion of illusory doctrines of "limited" or "winnable" nuclear war and the many false alarms which have occurred owing to accidental reasons,
Noting also that the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi in March 1983, declared that the renewed escalation in the nuclear-arms race, both in its quantitative and qualitative dimensions, as well as reliance on doctrines of nuclear deterrence,
has heightened the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war and led to greater insecurity and instability in international relations,
Bearing in mind that in their Joint Declaration issued on 22 May, 1984, the Heads of Government of six Member States of the United Nations, coming from five different continents, urged the nuclear-weapon States "as a necessary first step ... to halt all testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems".
Believing that it is a matter of the utmost urgency to stop any further increase in the awesome arsenals of the two major nuclear-weapon States, which already have ample retaliatory power and a frightening overkill capacity,
Believing also that it is equally urgent to initiate or resume negotiations for the substantial reduction and qualitative limitation of nuclear arms,
Considering that a nuclear-arms freeze, while not an end in itself, would constitute the most effective first step for the achievement of the above-mentioned two objectives, since it would encourage the initiation or resumption of negotiations and prevent the continued increase and qualitative improvement of existing nuclear weaponry during the period when the negotiations would take place,
Firmly convinced that at present the conditions are most propitious for such a freeze, since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America are now equivalent in nuclear military power and it seems evident that there exists between them an overall rough parity,
Conscious that the application of the systems of surveillance, verification and control already agreed upon in some previous cases would be sufficient to provide a reasonable guarantee of faithful compliance with the undertakings derived from the freeze,
Convinced that it would be to the benefit of all other States possessing nuclear weapons to follow the example of the two major nuclear-weapon States,
1.	Urges once more the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, as the two major nuclear-weapon States, to proclaim, either through simultaneous unilateral declarations or through a joint declaration, an immediate nuclear-arms freeze, which would be a first step towards the comprehensive programme of disarmament and whose structure and scope would be the following:
(a)	It would embrace:
(i)	A comprehensive test ban of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(ii)	The complete cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(iii)	A ban on all further deployment of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(iv)	The complete cessation of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes;
(b)	It would be subject to appropriate measures and procedures of verification, such as those which have already been agreed by the parties in the case of the SALT I and SALT II treaties, and those agreed upon in principle by them during the preparatory trilateral negotiations on the comprehensive test ban held at Geneva;
(c)	It would be of an initial five-year duration, subject to prolongation when other nuclear-weapon States join in such a freeze, as the General Assembly urges them to do;
2.	Notes with satisfaction that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have already submitted the report requested in General Assembly resolution 38/73 E of 15 December 1983;

December 10, 1984
Supply
3.	Hopes that the other major nuclear-weapon State will find it possible to comply also with the request of the General Assembly before the closure of its thirty-ninth session;
4.	Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fortieth session an item entitled "Implementation of General Assembly resolution 39/... on a nuclear-arms freeze".
and calls upon the Government to adopt it as policy, thereby rejecting the position of the previous administration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments on this important debate in the House of Commons today by quoting an old Chinese proverb: "If we do not change our direction, we are likely to end up where we are headed". Nothing could be more relevant in terms of evidence supporting this quote than the direction which we in the world will inevitably take if we do not put an end to the nuclear armaments buildup. If we do not stop, Mr. Speaker, the odds are- and they are strong odds-that one day a nuclear weapon once again will go off. If that happens, the odds are depressingly real that mankind itself, and not just a part of mankind, will be threatened. It is time we in this world, we in this Parliament, took leadership to put an end to this nuclear madness.
On November 20, Mr. Speaker, there was a vote in the committee of the United Nations on the question of a nuclear freeze. Canada was among a small minority of nations, I regret to say, which voted against that freeze. To put into perspective what is going on in the world I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that since that vote took place there has been added to the nuclear arsenal of the world the equivalent in nuclear strength of 2,800 times greater than the bomb which went off at Hiroshima. I repeat, just since November 20 we have added to the nuclear arsenal of the world enough destructive power to exceed by 2,800 times the strength of the bomb which devastated the people in Hiroshima.
We have before us a resolution, Mr. Speaker, which calls upon the nuclear superpowers to implement a nuclear freeze. It is one which I submit is grounded equally on hope and on realism. The essence of this resolution, as I see it, is twofold; first, it is applied to both of the superpowers. If one does not act upon it, then the other is in no way obligated. That is a crucial and realistic aspect of any initiative which is to be taken in the real world. The second point which is imbedded in this resolution, and imbedded in the thinking of almost anyone associated with the resolution, is that it calls for verifiability. What this means is that if both of the superpowers come to their senses, accept the first point and obligate themselves now to stop the nuclear armaments race, then if down the road one of the superpowers hesitates in some way to provide access for verification and puts up roadblocks of any kind to discourage the examination of nuclear developments in the armaments field in any way, the other nuclear power is no longer obligated to act under the terms.
What we have, I repeat, is a resolution which is not only optimistic in the sense it would begin, if acted upon, to provide hope for those who are living and for those who will come after us, but it is also one which is grounded in realism. It is not pie in the sky. It is something which ought to be able to obtain the support of the most militaristically-oriented sectors of both the
Soviet Union and the United States, if they are doing what they claim, that is, acting in terms of self-defence of their own societies. And it is inextricably linked with the notion of verifiability.
In my comments this morning, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on all the horrors of the allocation of resources because of this terrible nuclear madness at a time when so many millions of people in the world are starving. Nor do I want to talk about the potential consequences of a nuclear war. That has been done before in this House and other speakers in this debate will no doubt discuss those profoundly important aspects of this question as well. What I want to dwell upon in my comments this morning is this new Government, which promised us change, new directions, particularly in this field, its attitude on this matter, and I want to indicate why it seems to me to be totally lacking in substance.
Last February the man who is now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), then Leader of the Opposition, said: "We need to restore this Chamber as an instrument for seeking national consensus on the challenge we face in foreign affairs". I thought it was a fine speech at the time and a fine sentiment that all of us could support. However, I say to the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who is here for the debate today, that if there was ever a national and international consensus on anything in the world, surely it is the consensus on the need for the United States and the Soviet Union to stop developing, producing and deploying nuclear weapons. The consensus is there.
I say to the Government House Leader that if he looks to his own country, church leaders of virtually every faith, union members, women's groups, peace groups-hundreds of them- veterans' associations, the young, the old, western Canadians, eastern Canadians, indeed 85 per cent of the population of this country indicated in the most recent Gallup poll on this question that they are in favour of a verifiable nuclear freeze. If we go outside of Canada and consider the world, every part of the planet, east, south, north, west, countries of every ideological stripe, are united on this important issue. They believe we ought to have a mutual, verifiable nuclear freeze applied to the superpowers. Indeed, more than one-third of the membership of NATO refused to vote against a nuclear freeze. The UN vote was 111 for a nuclear freeze and 12 against. As a Canadian I am ashamed to say that the Government of Canada was among the 12 against a nuclear freeze.
If we go outside of the international community as such, outside our own community as such, and go to the United States of America, so much the concern of the new Government, what do we find? We find that the U.S. House of Representatives has voted in favour of a freeze. Former NATO generals are in favour, as is the former head of the CIA. Business people of all kinds have recently come out in favour of the freeze. I refer the Government to a notable article in the November 19 issue of Newsweek in which a leading group of American businessmen go further in their
December 10, 1984

initiative than does the resolution before this House. Walter Mondale, former candidate for the presidency of the U.S., Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, all are for the freeze. Public opinion in the U.S. is overwhelmingly for a verifiable nuclear freeze. The reality is that in the United States almost everyone except Ronald Reagan is for a verifiable nuclear freeze. That is the reality.
This new Government, then, Mr. Speaker, if it had sought to act upon the commitment it made in the debate last February on the question of a consensus, did not even have to lead on the issue. All the new Conservative Government had to do was to follow the opinion of Canadians and Americans, indeed world opinion. Surely a Conservative, if he cannot lead, ought to be able to follow what the rest of mankind wants.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The new Government which promised the people of Canada change and innovation should not have voted against a verifiable nuclear freeze at the United Nations. Rather, having said it would help arrive at a consensus in the House of Commons, in the first week in the new session of Parliament, knowing that this matter was going to come before the United Nations, the Government ought to have brought this motion before the House of Commons. It ought to have obtained a positive vote for it and taken that attitude and spirit back to the United Nations and voted for a freeze. That is what it should have done.
In 1945 Albert Einstein said: "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking". If I were to apply the reasoning of Albert Einstein to the new Government, I am sure if he were here he would agree with the following sentiment: The unleashed power of evidence, reason and public opinion has changed everything but the Conservative Party's incapacity to think. I think that is the reality. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the Government is now not only ignoring Canadian opinion, it is, in its great determination to indulge in a permanent waltz with Ronald Reagan, ignoring American public opinion as well.
In that regard I would like to turn to some of the arguments which the Government has offered in defence of this lamentable vote at the committee stage at the U.N. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) admitted recently that public divisions among our allies have existed in the past on the important question of the freeze. He might have indicated in the same statement, as I did just a minute ago, that more than a third of the membership of NATO is in disagreement with President Reagan on this issue. Our new Secretary of State for External Affairs, who promised initiatives and change, said that Canada should not add to tensions with our major ally to the south. On the weekend he was quoted as saying the following: "We have to define ourselves and not let ourselves be defined by notions that others might have of us". I think that is a wonderful sentiment. There was a no better way
Supply
to define ourselves than by taking an independent stand on this issue rather than letting ourselves be defined at this point in our history by the man who happens to be the President of the United States. That is precisely what he ought not to have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: This kind of so-called reasoning, which I regret to say is so characteristic of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is not thought at all. It is simply the refusal to think. It is not the course of an independent ally. It is really the easy acquiescence of the timid.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Don't blame me. I am not the vice-president of Socialists International.


John Edward Broadbent: You will have your chance, I hope, to apply more cogent arguments.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What about President Mitterrand?


John Edward Broadbent: The Government House Leader is obviously a little defensive. He ought to be, having heard the ridiculous arguments offered by his Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The second point I want to deal with, Mr. Speaker, concerns another argument provided in such a cogent and brilliant way by our Secretary of State for External Affairs on the weekend. He said that the Secretary of State for the United States, Mr. Shultz, and the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko, have agreed to meet next month. I am glad that he picked that up. It is true that they are going to meet next month. He went on to say: "We have to be careful that we do not do anything to throw it", meaning the meeting, "off course". He said; "We ought not to throw it off course by voting in favour of a nuclear freeze". How silly can one get?
His own disarmament ambassador to the United Nations revealed for me a more cogent line of reasoning as an explanation for what is now taking place among the superpowers than that demonstrated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday in Vancouver, Mr. Roche pointed out that the United States and the Soviet Union are now responding to mounting world opinion against the arms race. He said that discontent will eventually pressure the superpowers into reaching an agreement.
I want to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Mr. Roche has it right. The superpowers are beginning to respond to pressure that is being exercised by other nations and by other groups within their own society. I also want to suggest to the new Secretary of State for External Affairs, whose Government has promised change, that we don't create pressure on one of the superpowers by always agreeing with that power, we don't lead by following and we don't bring about nuclear disarmament by voting against a verifiable nuclear freeze at the United Nations.

December 10, 1984
Supply
Let me shift to another argument, to use the term loosely, that was provided by the Secretary of State for Externa! Affairs in this matter which is even more bizarre than the other arguments. He said that Canada was opposed to this resolution because it wants an immediate resumption of negotiations rather than the declaration of the freeze. What sort of Alice in Wonderland thinking is that? A freeze and a resumption of negotiations are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the UN resolution which we now have before the House underlines the urgent need to resume negotiations. The resolution points out that such a nuclear freeze would constitute a first important step in the process that would include negotiations and eventually nuclear disarmament itself. The point is that action on this resolution would prevent the further escalation, both in quality and quantity, of nuclear weapons, while the negotiation for eventual nuclear disarmament takes place. That is why the members of my Party and Canadians all across the land are in support of this resolution.
The article in the November 19 issue of Newsweek to which I referred a moment ago was written by businessmen, including the heads of Bell International and a half dozen other major international corporations which I will not list now. This article underscores the point that it is business groups in the United States as well as democratic party politicians and other segments of American society that are in favour of a nuclear freeze. One reason among others that the writer of the article gave for taking such a position at this time is that there is the mutual capacity of the Soviet Union and the United States to kill each other many times over within the context of a freeze. When there is that balance of terror, as it has been called, he said that they were apprehensive about a costly and dangerous competition that neither side could win but that both could lose. He is dead right.
Those words and the thoughts behind those words are what this Government should be paying attention to. If we are to leave a world in which our children can grow up and live without fear of annihilation, we must rid this planet of nuclear weapons. If we are to do this we in political life must seize all the occasions which make it possible, acting with realism and with hope. The motion before us, which is a motion before the United Nations, is just such an occasion.
I conclude with this thought. Humanity's urgent quest for peace requires leadership. Leadership can and must come on this matter at some point from the superpowers. But in the meantime it must come from others, and it should come from Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? Debate, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the motion which the House has before it today addresses a matter which is of the deepest concern to Canadians, and indeed to all members of the human family, the need
to halt the dangerous and ever-increasing nuclear arms race which threatens the very survival of this planet as we know it.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the gravity of the situation. United Nations Resolution L-32, which the House is being asked to consider today, is useful in that it stresses the urgency of reducing nuclear arsenals and calling on the superpowers to commence constructive negotiations. The number of nuclear arms in the possession of the two superpowers runs into tens of thousands, the equivalent of about 5,000 times the explosive power used during the Second World War or 100,000 times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
There are other examples or comparisons that could be used, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate and bring home to us the destructive power and the horror of nuclear weapons.
Inevitably, these images of the devastation of which man has become capable are always present in our minds when we consider ways of achieving durable peace and security. [English]
The motion of the New Democratic Party calls upon the Government to reverse its own position and indeed, in the words of the motion, reverse the position taken by my Government and former Liberal Governments on a question of fundamental importance to Canada and to the NATO alliance, of which Canada is a founding member. In addition, in view of the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union announced on November 22 their intention to meet on January 7 and 8 in Geneva to consider negotiations on a whole range of weapons issues before them, an announcement which I and the members of our caucus welcome whole-heartedly, I find it surprising that the New Democratic Party would now want the Government to adopt as policy a resolution which has as its objectives, first, the resumption of negotiations and, second, prevention of continued increase in and qualitative improvements of existing nuclear weaponry.
The first objective of the motion has now been met with the announced meeting of Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gromyko. The second objective will be the substance of their meeting. It is quite conceivable that progress can be made.
In my view, this motion and the resolution on which it has been based have been overtaken by events. The motion draws attention away from the fact that the New Democratic Party does not support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and indeed is committed to taking Canada out of that alliance. NATO is an alliance of democracies. When it was established in 1949, the founders agreed that it was to be a political alliance as well as a military one. Its existence has led to the longest period of peace in Europe this century. This motion presumes that the foreign policy supported by successive Liberal Governments and by the Canadian people has been unsuccessful and wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I should like to take this opportunity to talk about some of the steps which the Canadian Government has taken over the
December 10, 1984

years to further the cause of peace and to put before the world many of the ideas that are now included in the resolution before the House.
Canada's geographic location between two heavily armed superpowers is an obvious reason for concern by Canadians about nuclear war. From a domestic point of view, although Canada has the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, a political choice has been made not to do so. In 1969 this country decided that it was no longer appropriate for the Canadian Armed Forces to be equipped with nuclear weapons. The phase-out which began at that time has been completed this year. This is a major achievement of Liberal Governments and one which I think all Members of the House support.
Consistent with this policy and as a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, Canadian safeguards on the sale of nuclear technology are among the most stringent in the world. The non-proliferation treaty came into effect in 1970 and is subject to review in 1985. It governs the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and includes binding commitments against the use of that technology for military purposes. As recently as last year, my right hon. predecessor, Pierre Trudeau, called for remedial action to shore up the non-proliferation treaty in order to bring pressure to bear upon those who have not signed that treaty, thus preventing further horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In 1978 at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, Mr. Trudeau first proposed a strategy of suffocation. At that time Canada called for a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing, a halt to the flight testing of all new strategic delivery vehicles, a cessation of the production of fissionable materials for weapons purposes, and a limitation and eventual reduction of military spending for new strategic weapons systems.
The intent of this strategy was to suffocate new weapons systems in the laboratory, thus eliminating the need for countries to continue to outdo each other in evolving new weapons systems. It is important to note that these were not proposals for unilateral action. It was always intended that they would be the subject of mutual agreement. When these proposals were not acted upon and when the Soviet deployment of the SS-20 missiles in eastern Europe continued, Canada supported NATO's 1979 two-track decision to instal missiles in western Europe and to plan to pursue disarmament negotiations simultaneously.
In 1982 at the Second Special Session on Disarmament, Mr. Trudeau incorporated into the earlier policy a policy of stabilization which had two complementary components-the suffocation strategy and negotiations aimed at qualitative and quantitative reductions in nuclear arsenals designed to achieve a stable nuclear balance at lower levels. At that time Canada noted that the treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space had become obsolete. Although it prohibited nuclear weapons in space, it did not deal with anti-satellite or anti-missile laser systems, the so-called "Star Wars" concept. Since such systems would have a destabilizing effect, Canada proposed a treaty to prohibit development, testing and deployment of all weapons for use in
Supply
outer space. It also called for the international community to address the verification question seriously in the 1980s.
Mr. Trudeau's peace initiative has a direct bearing on present developments between superpowers and also contains the grounds upon which I am proposing an amendment to this motion.

The central concept of Mr. Trudeau's peace plan consisted in adding a new and reinforced political will to disarmament negotiations. This new political will was to be reflected in a calming down of the political rhetoric engaged in by the two superpowers, and to a lessening of tension in both camps. As far as that goes, Mr. Speaker, we see that today there is a definite improvement over the situation that existed a year ago.
The peace plan also included a number of more technical elements, which I shall touch upon very briefly. First, the creation of a tribunal for negotiating global limits to be set on the arsenals of the five nuclear powers. Second, reinforcement of the non-proliferation treaty. Third, re-opening of negotiations on conventional forces in Europe, in order to bring them down to mutally acceptable levels. Fourth, measures that would pursue and update the suffocation strategy, namely, the ban on high-altitude testing and development of anti-satellite systems.

The present Government has made a commitment to continue and to expand on this initiative. My caucus and I expect concrete action by the Government in the very near future.
Among the initiatives undertaken by my predecessor was the creation of a peace institute. The object and purpose of this institute is to inject fresh ideas and to develop new and better solutions for a world troubled by conflict and uncertainty. In my view, a five-power summit of nuclear weapons states to negotiate global limits on their nuclear arsenals is an objective to be pursued by the new Government. In other words, the initiatives undertaken by my predecessor set a climate in this country and throughout the world. It reinforced the action by previous Liberal administrations in advancing the cause of peace.
The motion, which attacks that position, is one that is unacceptable to this part of the House. The motion before the House encompasses UN resolution L-32 which is to be voted on shortly. In committee Canada voted against the resolution. It did so in the company of some of its best friends and allies, including Belgium, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.
It is the wish of our Party and my own personal wish that there be not simply a freeze but a significant, balanced and verifiable reduction in the level of nuclear arms in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We put it in this way as an item in negotiation because we believe that this is the

December 10, 1984
Supply
realistic way in which to put it. Part of that reality is the simple but important notion that arms control agreements can only be based upon a mutual security allowing each signatory to feel secure in the commitment it makes.
Most of our major allies cannot accept the type of freeze envisaged in this resolution which, among other things, would crystallize the current imbalance in the European theatre. The very real problem of refining and improving nuclear weapons verification techniques must be addressed. An efficient verification system is indispensable to any effort to stabilize East-West relations.
I should like to remind not only the NDP but also the Government that the practicality, consistency and morality of this realistic approach have contributed to the fact that world tensions have been considerably reduced from this time a year ago. At that time Mr. Trudeau urged the superpowers to stop shouting at one another and enter into a dialogue.
All Canadians deeply desire a reversal of the nuclear arms race. Canadians want the Government and Parliament to take every sensible step possible to end the threat of a nuclear holocaust. Therefore we should not support a resolution which can, however unintentionally, weaken Canada's heretofore very credible role in the search for peace. We have achieved the highest international respect and have maintained world influence disproportionate to our population precisely because Liberal Governments have properly reflected and propounded the Canadian sense of thoughtfulness, decency, practicality and common sense.
[DOT] (M40)
I know that millions of thoughtful Canadians might well want to support the resolution before the House. At the same time, millions of Canadians will feel that this resolution, while laudable in its attempt, is not constructive at this time in the sense that it does not recognize that the solution has to be negotiated. The issue is not one of commitment to peace. The issue is how best to maintain peace and eventually bring an end to the nuclear arms race.
Recognizing what the goals are for the country, recognizing what the goals are for peace, understanding that those goals in terms of a freeze and a reduction must be pursued within the context of a negotiated settlement, recognizing that the resolution before the House notes a situation in the United Nations which is already outdated because the superpowers have signified a willingness to come together at the beginning of the New Year, we feel that the amendment which we will propose to this resolution suggesting an agenda for the superpowers, recognizing that that agenda provides the basis for negotiation, achieving what we believe Canadians seek and desire in their hearts, is the best way to honour the fears and fulfil the hopes of Canadians from one end of this country to the other. Therefore I propose, seconded by my colleague from Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words following the words "on a nuclear arms freeze" in the second to last paragraph of the motion and substituting the following:
"This House further takes note that the resumption of arms talks by the Soviet Union and the United States in Geneva in early 1985 announced by the superpowers on November 22, subsequent to the presentation of the above resolution at the United Nations, significantly alters the political situation on which the resolution is based and constitutes an effective first-step in the achievement of the two objectives to be attained in the declaration of a nuclear freeze;
and calls upon the Government to urge on behalf of Canadians that the meeting of the two nuclear superpowers have on its agenda the negotiation of limits on their nuclear arsenals, a mutually verifiable freeze and significant reductions; a strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; a renewed emphasis on the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna; the encouragement of political emphasis on the Stockholm conference; a moving up of the date of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament now scheduled for 1986; an international agreement to ban the testing and deployment of high-altitude anti-satellite weapons; and the refining and improvement of nuclear weapons verification techniques".


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) will understand, given the length of the amendment, that I might have to wait a few minutes to make a decision as to its admissibility. Pending that decision, we can continue with the debate, if that is agreeable.
Questions and comments? No question and comments? Further debate. Is the House ready for the question? Is the House ready for the question? Further debate, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam. Excuse me, the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina).


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to detract from the seriousness of the debate, but I understood the Speaker to recognize another Member before recognizing the Minister. I just wonder whether this is a departure-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member also knows, I am sure, from her experience in parliamentary assemblies that it is normal whenever possible to alternate between Parties. I saw the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam. Before I finally recognized her, I realized that another Member was rising in her seat at the time. I thought it was more reasonable to recognize the alternate party system as best we could.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is very pleased to have this opportunity to explain Canada's position on the nuclear arms freeze.
We would like to make it clear why Canada voted the way it did in the United Nations on November 20 of this year, when, faced with a number of unrealistic and incomplete proposals on a nuclear arms freeze, it voted against these proposals. It is heartening to see that today, Members of all parties will be able to express their views on the serious issue of international security and arms control. As we commence the debate, I hope first of all, that no one in this House will question the fact that Canadians and the various governments that have represented them since the beginning of Confederation have had the same desire for peace that is part of our tradition. It is one of our
December 10, 1984

national attributes, an attribute that has been recognized the world over.

I hope too, since the discussion we are having here today concerns the lives of our daughters and sons, of our grandchildren and in fact the future of mankind, that nobody in this House will try to transform such a difficult discussion into a partisan debate where one side will try to gain political advantage. Such an attitude would be irresponsible. It would be done at great cost to real progress toward nuclear arms reduction and to peace itself.
1 note that today's motion refers to only one of three resolutions on a nuclear freeze that were presented in the first committee of the United Nations and voted upon on November 20 this year. One was presented by the Soviet Bloc, the second by India alone and the third resolution, the one before the House today, by a number of neutral and non-aligned countries, including Sweden and Mexico. For the time being, I would like to comment on the resolution presented by Sweden and Mexico, though of course many of my comments will be applicable to all three resolutions on a nuclear freeze.
Canada fully recognizes the fact that the freeze concept has a great symbolic value, since it expresses the desire of mankind to be free of the threat of nuclear war. The idea of stopping the nuclear arms race and reducing the enormous quantities of nuclear arms present in weapons arsenals is attractive because of its simplicity, and it is also a general objective that, I am sure, is shared by both nuclear and non-nuclear countries.
Let there be no doubt about Canada's position on the nuclear arms race. This Government, speaking for all Canadians, is firmly in favour of significant, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear arms levels throughout the world.
Many Canadians, including some of my own constituents, consider that the present level of nuclear armament is a threat to life on our planet. However, just making statements in favour of a nuclear freeze does not constitute a valid response to this threat. We prefer immediate resumption of negotiations on the reduction of nuclear arms. We have said many times, and I say it again today, that Canada wants the present dangerous levels to be reduced through immediate and unconditional resumption of negotiations on arms reduction.
That is why the Canadian Government finds it very encouraging that bilateral talks will soon be held by the United States and the Soviet Union in Geneva. We hope that subsequently there will be substantial negotiations between these two countries, without prior conditions being set, the aim being to reduce nuclear arsenals significantly, while at the same time considering both parties' legitimate desire for security and seeing to it that they both respect any agreements made to reduce nuclear arms levels.
Supply
In his statement to the United Nations General Assembly, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) made it clear that Canada would use its influence to reverse the direction of the arms race and reduce the threat of nuclear devastation. This objective will be an ongoing priority of Canada's foreign policy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to enumerate a number of practical, concrete and realistic initiatives in the area of arms control that would help achieve that objective. These initiatives included achieving further progress towards a complete test ban treaty, preparations for a successful conference on the Nonproliferation Treaty, which will be held next year with a view to preventing horizontal proliferation of nuclear arms, and the conclusion of an agreement on mutual and balanced reduction of conventional forces in Europe, which will reduce the threat of nuclear escalation. We feel that all these measures are practical and realistic ways of avoiding the threat of nuclear war.
I would like to repeat that a nuclear freeze, as requested at the United Nations, is neither a realistic nor a practical way of controlling armament and disarmament. Canada sees major deficiencies and serious shortcomings in all three nuclear freeze resolutions that were presented recently at the United Nations.
I would like to elaborate on our serious doubts about the practical aspects of the resolution presented by Sweden and Mexico. All agreements on arms control must reinforce mutual security if they are to achieve their basic goal. That will not be the case if present imbalances are maintained in the European theater, as provided in the freeze proposals. It is exactly because of these imbalances and the absence of an arms control agreement that we support NATO's two-track policy.
This policy is incompatible with the freeze concept. It presupposes the deployment of medium-range nuclear forces, which, however, could be withdrawn at the appropriate time.
The resolution presented by Sweden and Mexico asks for a ban on all further deployment of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles. For us to agree with this resolution would be to perpetuate the present dangerous imbalance in Europe, without the assurance that this imbalance would one day be corrected. In fact, it would mean rewarding the Soviet Union for having destroyed the balance for its own benefit by installing SS-20 missiles and for having broken off subsequent negotiations on this type of missiles.

Canada shares the position of its partners in NATO. Canada knows that it is this alliance which is responsible for the relative peace which Europe has known for nearly 40 years.

A global freeze like the one being requested would also have the effect of sealing in the destabilizing components of the

December 10, 1984
Supply
present strategic situation. Today, both superpowers have a large number of high precision nuclear warheads mounted on a small number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that are fixed and thus relatively vulnerable. We feel this is an unstable situation, since the warheads may benefit the side that strikes first. That is why we should encourage the United States and the Soviet Union to design arms that are less vulnerable and threatening, as opposed to freezing their present systems.
Both parties must agree on the rules to be observed so that each side can be sure the other will honour the agreement. Statements as proposed in the resolution do not provide such guarantees. The verification provisions proposed in Sweden's and Mexico's resolution do not go far enough with respect to some freeze-related elements. For example, stricter verification procedures would be required to guarantee compliance with a ban on nuclear weapons and delivery systems production and, if possible, on fissionable material production. Nobody has been able to explain to our satisfaction how it would be possible to control to what extent a production ban might be enforced. It is common knowledge that the U.S.S.R., a freeze proponent, still rejects any kind of valid on-the-spot inspection.
The same resolution advocates as well a full ban on nuclear tests. We commend that initiative for what it is worth, but we think it falls short of the target and does not feature a provision to make it possible to resolve the issue of nuclear tests which, although conducted for peaceful purposes, might have destabilizing effects.
Canada was joint sponsor of a resolution on the urgent need for a nuclear testing full ban treaty which was adopted by the United Nations first commission: 109 voted in favour, none against, and there were 26 abstentions, including all nuclear powers. Canada's resolution strongly urges the Disarmament Conference to strike an ad hoc committee and resume immediately the proceedings on a complete ban on testing, including questions related to implementation, verification and adherence to the provisions, with a view to negotiating an appropriate treaty. It is much more direct and shuts the door which Sweden's and Mexico's resolution deliberately left ajar.
The resolution moved by those two countries also seeks a ban on fissionable material production for military purposes, but again it does not go far enough and ignores the problem of nuclear testing for peaceful purposes.
At the United Nations, Canada introduced another resolution urging-provided adequate verification means could be found-a stop of and a ban on fissionable material production intended for nuclear weapons and other explosive nuclear missiles. That resolution was adopted during the commission proceedings-125 affirmative votes, one negative vote and nine abstentions, including four out of five powers with nuclear armament. Canada's resolution therefore bridges another potentially dangerous wide gap which the Swedes and the Mexicans ignored in their resolution. It is deplorable that such
obvious gaps can still be found in this resolution on a nuclear freeze.
Imposing a freeze, as advocated in the resolution, instead of negotiating one would inevitably raise numerous and possibly insolvable problems concerning definitions, exclusions and inclusions. Besides, even if it were possible to negotiate a freeze, these negotiations would be just as difficult, complex and protracted as negotiations on reductions, and they would even detract us from efforts made to achieve a true reduction in nuclear arms levels.
As I said, all elements proposed in the resolution have already been the object of resolutions, or they are pending until valid bilateral negotiations resume. The over-all approach of arms and disarmament control advocated in the Sweden and Mexican resolution prejudges all the complex technical, scientific, political, legal and military questions involved in serious negotiations on weapons control. As proposed now, a nuclear freeze would hamper rather than pave the way for the necessary negotiations. It would introduce a factor of instability and unbalance, whereas a balanced reduction is what is needed for constructive peace promotion.
After serious examination of the various consequences of a nuclear arms freeze, Canada decided to vote against the resolution proposed by Sweden and Mexico, as did most of its NATO allies. I should add that our six partners of the Economic Summit also joined us. These include not only the United States, but also the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, France and Japan.
Our vote should not be seen as a wish on our part to agree that nuclear armaments be kept at present levels or continue to increase. Rather it reflects Canada's continuing firm commitment to look for means to reduce nuclear armaments. It is this commitment, not a freeze of nuclear arms at the present levels that we view as our priority.
The Canadian Government shares the wish of mankind to be rid of the threat of a nuclear war, and it has given clear evidence of this fact. Nothing in our effort is intended to detract us from making this wish come true. Our objective is to try, not only within the United Nations, but also at every level of negotiation, to meet the goal we have set for ourselves, that is a reduction in nuclear arms.
We therefore have three major objectives in the field of nuclear arms. We believe that Canada has a real opportunity to play a positive international role, which we have already begun to develop.
The first objective is an immediate and unconditional resumption of talks between the United States and the Soviet Union. Canada has pursued this objective within NATO councils and at the United Nations. We continued to do so on the occasion of our most recent periodical consultations with
December 10, 1984

Soviet officials. In the interests of mutual security, these talks must be resumed in the very near future. It is for the purpose of supporting the negotiation process that we intend to pursue this objective with determination.
Our second objective is a renewal of the commitment made by the international community toward non-proliferation. Our success will depend to a great extent on the period of preparation before the third review conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty to be held in 1985. In spite of the differences of opinion between the super-powers, there is a community of interests, as the American Secretary of State, Mr. George Schultz, emphasized in a recent speech on this issue. However, he noted that this community of interests cannot be taken for granted, even when the super-powers agree; consequently, the tasks which await us at the review conference on the NonProliferation Treaty will be arduous and their success is far from certain. This was the unequivocal message given by Mr. Mohamad Shaker of Egypt, who was recently elected chairman of the conference.
Canada's policy of positive internationalism can be and is being applied in practice. In Geneva, Canada took the initiative of searching for a new consensus of non-proliferation; in Vienna, Canada was at the forefront of the efforts made to strengthen the garantee systems of the International Atomic Energy Agency; in London, we consulted many countries, both from the East and the West, as well as neutral countries, which export nuclear material or techniques to ensure the safety of these exports, while pursuing the noble objective of co-operating with recipients of these exports. Within the United Nations, we continue to fight with determination for non-proliferation.
The third objective to which Canada's positive internationalism is and must be applied is the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We can all be glad that the three powers in possession of nuclear weapons, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R., have accepted to stop surface nuclear arm testing. We can also rejoice that these tests have been limited to 150 kilotons. However, it is not enough. Talks among these three countries have been suspended and are now continuing in the larger context of the Conference on disarmament in Geneva.
One of the major questions at the Conference still is verification. And Canada is doing her share in that regard. Along with other nations, we are currently taking part in the international exchange of seismological data. If successful, that project will be a major contribution to what I would call the "verifiability" of a treaty banning nuclear arms testing. But we want to go still further. Last fall, in the United Nations, we co-sponsored a resolution calling upon all parties to ban nuclear testing. The combination of public positions and private endeavours in the area of practical negotiation that such a co-sponsorship entailed seems to me to be a creative example of Canada's positive internationalism.
Supply
These three goals-a resumption of superpower discussions, non-proliferation, and a test ban-are feasible. They give Canada an opportunity to use her influence and take initiatives.
Canada has the eminent responsibility of contributing to arms control and disarmament measures, and this Government is committed to setting up a system that will provide genuine collective security.
At about the same time last year, Mr. Trudeau launched his peace initiative, the goals of which were endorsed by all Canadian men and women. More recently, Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney described the nuclear arms problem as a serious problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister to conclude her remarks.


Monique Vézina: I therefore urge all Members to support their Government, and abstain from undermining in this House our constant efforts towards peace and a reduction of tensions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, without trying in any way to diminish the new Minister's importance, I would have hoped to see on such an important resolution the Right Hon. Prime Minister and/or the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in attendance. And this, I repeat, with due respect and without in any way diminishing the importance of the Minister's intervention. This I repeat with due respect, because good manners have still their place in this House.
I should like to ask the Minister whether she has had the time to examine the amendment moved by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and whether her government intends later today, first of all, to support this amendment which is obviously quite acceptable-I do not see why not, since she herself referred in her remarks on several occasions to the essential elements of this amendment. I shall begin with this simple question.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that elegance fits in well with the customs of this venerable chamber. 1 take into account your remarks and comments which I do not dare describe openly, although I certainly reserve the right to describe them for my own benefit.


George Albert Proud: I do not understand.


Monique Vézina: Your reference to the fact that the minister responsible for the government is not the one which the House wishes to hear.


George Albert Proud: I never said that.


Monique Vézina: As to the part-

December 10, 1984
Supply


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis rises on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: One is either elegant or one is not. I did not look down on the minister. I only mentioned that the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) were absent from the House. That does not reflect in any way on the importance of her statement on this very important issue. That is all I meant to say. Just the same, she would have had the opportunity to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. I will therefore recognize the Minister of External Relations.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, to regret a situation merely means that the situation is not as one would hope-


George Albert Proud: Pretty obvious!


Monique Vézina: Then, to come back to the question put to me-


Mr. Chretien:: Where is the Prime Minister?


Monique Vézina: Unfortunately, I did not examine the amendment because I was delivering my speech and referring to the position which the new government intends to take with respect to the freeze following the discussions this morning. We will consider it and, as soon as this afternoon, we will take whatever steps are needed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister was reading her speech and therefore did not have a chance to hear the amendment. Could she confer with her colleagues and tell us whether the Government would be prepared to support such a clear and concise amendment as has been put forward by the Liberal Party?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this issue is quite important, but it is not such a vital emergency as to make it necessary for us to interrupt our proceedings in order to announce our intentions this afternoon. Let us proceed with the debate, and this very afternoon we will make our intentions known to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Rossi:: I have a comment, Mr. Speaker. The Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) has admitted herself that this debate is of extreme importance. How come then that neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), nor the Secretary
of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), nor the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) are here in this House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should remind the Member that it is not our practice in this House to mention specifically the absence of any minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the Hon. Member relates to a basic right. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders of the House may prevent the government or the Opposition from raising the same issue twice in the same session. This happens to be one of the major problems now facing this country and which is of great concern to millions of Canadians, churches and all intermediate groups. The point which my colleague is trying to get across to the Minister who is acting as a stand-in today in the House, and the point we want to make is that, in such an important debate, it is unacceptable that neither the Prime Minister, nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs, nor the Minister of National Defence are here to defend the government's position. That is the important point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would respectfully remind the Hon. Member that his remarks do not constitute a point of order. I believe the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) had made a comment. Would the Minister of External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) like to reply?


Monique Vézina: I do not really want to defend anyone. It so happens that previous engagements had been made. It happens that... I am acting as a representative of my government, and we are prepared to answer all your questions and give consideration to any proceedings related to today's debate. I fail to see the purpose of that interrogation.


George Albert Proud: Since the Hon. Minister tells us that she is willing to reply on behalf of the Government, I would like to ask her whether she favours, supports or endorses the five points proposed by the former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau. First, does she endorse these five major points?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members seem to be in a great hurry this morning. In my opinion, as a newly elected Member, I should be the one who has to learn the ways of debate in Parliament, but to my knowledge, any decisions to be made will be taken at the end of the day when a vote will be held if necessary. I therefore do not have to state what is the position of my government before the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Minister to say she was not prepared to take a position on either the amendment or the main motion. If so, then obviously the comments
December 10, 1984

by my colleagues with respect to the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) indicate that we have in their place a Minister who is not even prepared to state what the Government's position is on this question. What is the Government's position on this very important question?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to tell the Hon. Member that if she had been here during the 20 minutes when I explained the position of the Government, she would now know the answer-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) for a short question.


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister will know that this is the age of telecommunications. I was here in the Chamber and I was also watching her remarks on television in the lobby. She will be aware of the fact that there are Members who watch from the lobby and I heard all the remarks she made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair rules that this is not a question of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not a question of privilege. As a result, the period for questions and comments is now over. The 10 minutes are up.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, about five minutes ago I understood the Chair to state that it was not the right or privilege of any Member to comment upon the presence or absence of any Member. It seems to me this is exactly the case in point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has ruled that the period for questions and comments is now over. We shall now resume debate with the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Ms. Jewett).


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) are not here. That underlines-


Mr. Bradley:: And there are three NDP.


Pauline Jewett: -and I say that more in sorrow than in anger, the real reluctance of the Government to present to Canadians any new or fresh initiatives on the most crucial matter facing humankind.
Supply
The speech the Minister was given to read to us in the House really did not address the nuclear freeze motion that the UN will be voting on next week except in a very narrow, technical sense. I wonder if the people in the Department of External Affairs think they are dealing with an issue when they nit-pick it to death. That is not facing up to this peril that the whole planet is facing. I started taking a few notes as the Minister was reading the speech but I stopped because, again, there is no sense of urgency on the part of the Government and only a little more on the part of the Official Opposition. They sort of say: Well, we have not had a nuclear exchange or nuclear war for 40 years. Where is their historical sense? Forty years is a very short time in the flow of history. Therefore it is not enough for us to congratulate ourselves that somehow or other this 40 years has made it possible for us to avoid the nuclear peril and to continue to avoid a nuclear exchange of either minor or major proportions.
Instead of nit-picking the resolution, Mr. Speaker, why do Members of this House, all of us, not look back over the last few years and all the deadly gambits-and some of you will, I hope, have read Strobe Talbott's book called Deadly Gambits-and realize that the reason world public opinion demands a nuclear freeze is exactly because you have to freeze the production and deployment and testing of nuclear weapons in order to bring about reductions in nuclear weapons. As the old saying goes, you must stop the car before you put it in reverse.
Hon. Members in both of the other Parties do not seem to realize, although the Canadian public thoroughly realizes and understands, that the increasingly sophisticated galaxy of nuclear weaponry that is constantly coming on-stream from both superpowers, usually, in all but one case, led by the United States, is making the chance of a verifiable nuclear freeze close to impossible.
One of the reasons we so opposed Canadian complicity in the development of the Cruise missile is that its numbers and locations are almost impossible to verify. Every military strategist has told us for years that we cannot have arms reductions if the location and number of those arms cannot be verified. People seem to forget this. The whole point of the freeze, which seems to have been lost in all this nit-picking, is to prevent the development of any more unverifiable nuclear weapons by both sides. If we have more unverifiable nuclear weapons we will never have a negotiated arms reduction that is verifiable. I wish some of the Members in the House would address this extremely serious matter which they seem to have lost sight of.
I recall when we had the reference on security and disarmament in the standing committee about which several of us made a minority statement. One of the most senior strategic analysts in the country, Harriet Critchley, appeared before the committee and stated explicitly what I have just stated. She said that the Cruise missile, the testing of which by Canada had just broken in the press, was virtually undetectable and

December 10, 1984
Supply
hence unverifiable. That was not some dove saying that; it was a highly respected strategic analyst who said it. That can be found in the minutes of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence in March of 1982.
One hundred and eleven nations of the world voted for the Mexico-Sweden freeze proposal at the United Nations because of their great concern that, if the development of new generation nuclear weapons is not frozen now, we will never be able to get adequate, verifiable arms reductions in place.
The Official Opposition seem to miss this point in their amendment. I suppose the one good thing one could argue about it is that they at least say they want to have the two superpowers put a nuclear freeze on their agenda. Since the Soviet Union has already voted for a nuclear freeze, they are basically saying that they want the United States to put a nuclear freeze on their agenda. I suppose that is a step forward, but it certainly is not the kind of step which we are asking for in our motion, which is for the House now to support a nuclear freeze in order to bring about the kind of massive, verifiable reductions we all want.
One of the favorite arguments of Hon. Members in the Government and the Liberal Party is that we would be freezing imbalances in Europe. The fact is that there is a rough global balance. Some would argue that the American side is still ahead globally. When the American military people are asked whether they would exchange their nuclear hardware for that of the Soviets, they always say no. There may be imbalances in certain weapons in parts of certain theatres. However, when you are talking about nuclear weapons nowadays, it frankly does not much matter whether you have a little imbalance in one theatre as compared to another. This nitpicking has caused Members to lose sight of the fact that what we now have can destroy the planet 50 times over. There is no longer any distinction to be made on a rational basis between an intermediate range and an intercontinental range nuclear missile. These distinctions have been meaningless for several years now.
For a long time we have been calling for a merging of the talks on theatre and intercontinental or strategic weapons because the differences between them have become so artificial. Nowadays everything is either short-range, medium-range or long-range. If the Department was doing any real thinking about the problem, that would have been a meaningful thing for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to have called for. The differences between the two sides have become meaningless. The difference between a destabilizing and a less destabilizing nuclear weapon has also become meaningless. People get into this kind of military talk and feel they are being terribly informed and are throwing light on the question somehow. Frankly, it is a red herring. It is just a way of avoiding the real question which, as I say, is fundamentally the one presented in this United Nations motion in which we are asking the House to support a nuclear freeze.
Many years ago the former Prime Minister asked for a strategy of suffocation. I remember asking him in the House if a strategy of suffocation was a mutual freeze. He replied that
the two are the same thing. His emphasis, of course, was on suffocating in the laboratory. The freeze would suffocate in the laboratory, on the production line, and in deployment. The first step is suffocation in the laboratory; no one has any question about that. He then pressed that strategy of suffocation. He admitted that the freeze was, in his words, the same. We found that he was not able to bring himself to support a nuclear freeze resolution or have the Government support it at the United Nations last year. I presume that it is still the position of the Liberal Party that it cannot support the strategy of suffocation, that is a freeze, after having advocated it. Of course, the present Government is simply following the advice that the Department gave the former Government.
We were told that the new Government would be open and would consult widely with the Canadian public. While the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) did not reiterate this, one reason given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for not supporting the freeze was that the Government's policy was still unfolding. It is to have a policy review next year that would be carried out by a special committee of the House or by the standing committee. This special review of policy will include hearings with Canadians in order to give them "a means of allowing Canadians a say in foreign policy formation". That was one reason given for not moving now on the freeze.
However, Canadians have wanted a say in foreign policy formation for some years now, particularly in the area of a nuclear freeze and no Cruise missile testing. We are well aware that they have been expressing their views on these matters for the last three years. I suggest it is rather phony for the Government to say that it must listen to Canadians on this particular matter. Why does it not read what Canadians have already said in this respect for the last two or three years?
I suspect that the Government's emphasis on the consultative process is merely an attempt to kid us into believing that it will take seriously what Canadians have to say. It is only continuing the kinds of policies which the previous Government had in the field of arms freeze and Cruise missile testing. I believe it is simply a delaying tactic or part of its new "civility" when the Government tells Canadians that what they say will matter. It has not mattered to the Government yet. The views of Canadians about the nuclear freeze or Cruise missile testing did not matter to the Government when it was in opposition.
I am becoming disturbed by the Government's promises to be open, democratic and consultative when it does the exact opposite with respect to matters on which Canadians have already stated their position. If this is going to be the case in all aspects of our external relations, why does the Government bother having this rather phony set of hearings? If it will not pay any more attention to what Canadians have said on the matter of Cruise missile testing and a mutual, verifiable nuclear freeze, why does it bother to have these hearings?
December 10, 1984

The Government makes many arguments to excuse not voting for the nuclear freeze. Let me point out another "picky" argument that it uses. It is that the negotiations to secure a freeze would be as lengthy as the negotiations on reductions. It says that this would hinder the negotiations on reductions.
No one has ever suggested that negotiatons on a mutually verifiable freeze would not be lengthy, but that is no reason for not proceeding with such negotiations. All those who have advocated a freeze have said that these negotiations should be followed by massive reductions. That is what this resolution says. I cannot emphasize too strongly that while negotiations must take place for both, a freeze must come first. The massive reductions come later.
I believe that until Canada follows its friends in NATO, its friends in the United Nations and the ANZUS Pact, all of whom have seen the logic and reason for voting in the United Nations for a freeze, this country will not really be facing the nuclear peril.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, while the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) concentrated particularly on the Cruise missile in her remarks about nuclear weapons systems, I am sure she would agree that the same would be true of nuclear battlefield weapons such as artillery shells and mines. I believe she stated that the location and numbers cannot be verified with respect to those weapons. She has indicated that many nuclear weapons cannot be verified and I agree with her.
I think she will agree that she could amend that statement to include "without on site inspection". In other words, if both sides would permit on site inspection, we could verify all nuclear weapons. However, the Soviet Union will not permit on site inspections, which confirms her statement that the location and numbers of these weapons cannot be verified. If that is true, how can she and her Party advocate the logic of calling for a mutually verifiable freeze? How can she call for a verifiable freeze when she also stated explicitly that verification is impossible? Would she not agree that it is better to call for progress where progress is possible rather than advocating what is clearly impossible, according to her own arguments? Would we not be better off to advocate progress and strategic arms reduction, to start talks where verification is possible?
Would it not be more wise to advocate, as Mr. Trudeau and members of our Party have advocated in the past, that we try to make progress where progress is possible? A verifiable situation is idealistic and she stated accurately that verification is impossible under the current policy of the Soviet Union. Why advocate the impossible when we can perhaps achieve progress by advocating the possible?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Hon. Member was present during all of our hearings on verification. Therefore, he did not hear some of the arguments made by people such as Harriet Critchley. The difficulty is that even if all nations agreed to on site verification, it still would not be possible to make that verification. That verification would be difficult, particularly with the submarine-launched Cruise mis-
Supply
sile. Even if there was agreement, there are no technical or other means to verify the numbers and the locations. It is too easy for either side to cheat and that is my point.
As far as ground-launched missiles are concerned, which are easier to verify, we are moving toward an agreement with respect to on site verification. My point is that even if both sides agreed in principle to on site verification, according to most expert opinions I have read we would be unable to verify in practice something like the submarine-launched Cruise missile. Neither side would be able to know the numbers or locations for sure. That was my point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for a question or comment.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, it would be for a comment-
I have a comment and then a question, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt that I regret very sincerely that the resolution of the New Democratic Party was couched in a way which extremely embarrassed many people. The New Democratic Party knew that by blaming the past administration the Official Opposition would not support an amendment like that when a good percentage of the people here, including myself, were part of the administration, and supporters of the administration in the case of back-benchers. They cannot blame themselves for what they did yesterday. My colleague has a different vocabulary; he calls it cheap politics. But I would rather say that I regret sincerely this resolution.
I know my esteemed colleague the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) worked very hard in the Standing Committee of External Affairs and National Defence. She said earlier on: "On the committee of security and disarmament we put forward a minority report". I would like her to attest to the fact that she did support the report as her colleagues did. We all supported a diluted report, I admit, but she supported it because in order to be "more liberal" in our approach, for the first time we allowed a minority report to be part of the majority report. I want to be clear and I want the record to be clear, for future reference by students and readers, that the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam did sign and accept the report on security and disarmament. The Hon. Member only added a minority view. I want to be clear even for myself.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, taking the Hon. Member's points in reverse order, the practice is that when a majority does agree to a matter in a standing committee the whole committee is listed. It is as if it were a unanimous report: all committee members are listed. That is the practice. Therefore, I was listed along with five others. The only route we had to go was to issue a separate statement which we called a minority report.


George Albert Proud: It was in addition.

December 10, 1984
Supply


Pauline Jewett: We had to issue it to show that we were not in entire agreement with the majority statement. Our motion calls upon the Government to adopt the United Nations resolution as policy-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Stop there.


Pauline Jewett: -thereby rejecting the position of the previous administration.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That has nothing to do with the resolution.


Pauline Jewett: It has. It makes it very clear that the Canadian House would be taking a position for the first time that is contrary to the position taken-because these resolutions have come to the UN every year-by both the previous Government and this Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are playing politics and you know it.


Mr. Deans:: That is what you do.


Pauline Jewett: Maybe it is politics, but I think it is very important for all of us in this House to make a fresh start on this issue. The best way to do it is to vote for the UN resolution that we have presented.


Ian Deans: Why do you not move to amend it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) for a question or a comment.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I had a brief comment to make. The NDP does exactly what I said it did a while ago, namely criticizing for the sake or it. With this resolution, the NDP wants to prove once more that it is on the side of virtue. Most often, this virtue remains undefined, but when we look at something like this resolution, it becomes quite clear that the NDP motion is already outdated. In other words, far from leading the way, the New Democratic Party is lagging behind. In addition, the Official Opposition plays its official role quite well and shows itself as it really is because, while agreeing on the balanced position taken by the Government, it criticizes the form rather than the substance of this position in the absence of certain people. It does so through the subtle remarks made by Members of Parliament and former Members. This really shows the Opposition as it really is, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, if I may, I would like to tell the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) that her balanced position could not have been better explained, expressed and defended than it was by the Hon. Minister herself, and I am quite proud of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We shall now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, first with all due respect to the junior Minister, I think she is to be congratulated for being here and for doing her best under very difficult circumstances. I think it is a tragedy that the Government elected with the largest majority in Canadian history is sitting here today with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) absent when we are debating a motion that affects the very lives of the people of this world. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) is away at meetings and has been away at meetings, so I do not criticize him in the same way in this regard.
I have known the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) for a number of years. I have great respect for her, but I would like to say to her that no person and no political party in this world has a monopoly on all the answers. I do not think that the subject should be projected in that manner.
The Hon. Member also talked about nit-picking. Any political party or any leader in the world today who works sincerely for peace is not nit-picking. They are seriously discussing all the parameters of the issue and searching for a solution. I think it is unfair to say just because people are discussing a subject that they are nit-picking. This is far too serious for that type of language. This is a complicated and tough issue and is one that will not be settled tomorrow.
I would like to say to the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam that if she learned more about the military community of Canada she would have a better appreciation for the work it does not only in Canada but around the world. The actions of the military have saved a great many conflicts in this world.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: What has that got to do with the motion?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In the motion today the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam said that Russia is already moving toward a freeze. Why not? The Russians have all their SS-20s in place in Europe and the NATO powers are only in the process of installing their Pershing IIs to upgrade our missiles. It is very easy when fully armed to the teeth to say: "Boy, I am all for the freeze, I am all for peace, and I want the world to know it". If a freeze came about today, the fact of life is that the free world would be in danger of being walked over right through Europe. Then we could imagine what would happen to North America.
This issue is a very complex one. There is no simple answer. However, there must be a solution toward which we must all work together. Einstein said something years ago which is very applicable to this motion and to the debate today. He predicted that the day would come when the human race would focus its attention on mankind rather than on arms. Virtually this is what is happening in the world today. Naturally there are different viewpoints as to how to arrive at a safe society for the
December 10, 1984

peoples of the world. Einstein was right. When the lives of every individual on the face of the earth are in danger, the eyes of the world are on humanity and on peace. They are not on armaments to the extent of looking to the future in that direction. They are on reduction of armaments which must come about verifiably and realistically.
The fact that two major world powers will come together in the New Year is most significant. Hopefully it will be successful and productive. We should do everything we can as a nation respected around the world. We should talk to the other middle powers. We have an obligation to talk to the Third World and to bring pressure to bear upon the two major powers to come to an agreement and give people in this world the right to live and to raise future generations.
Human beings as a whole have not taken arms seriously until now. Until recently they did not know that the capacity to destroy the world existed. The capacity to destroy the world not only exists but without disarmament, without verifiable controls and without political will and goodwill, it could happen.
Verification is always emphasized. It is outlined in SALT I. It had limited verification through satellite and electronic devices. SALT II also had verification in part. There are limitations to verification through satellite and electronic devices to gain a reading, but electronic and satellite devices cannot survey the factory floor. They cannot penetrate the research laboratory. Verification cannot be done by science up there alone. There must be on-ground agreements as well. Verification becomes a difficult problem when it comes to a state of perfection, but it must be the major part of any disarmament agreement. Otherwise an agreement will not be worth the paper it is written on. We have seen such agreements in past history.
We have looked back today at the founding of NATO. It is now comprised of 16 countries. We should think of the great statesmen of that day, such as Mr. Acheson, Canada's own Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and others. Contrary to some negative comments which we have heard even as early as this morning about NATO, I do not buy them, largely because of the NATO alliance, its success and diplomatic relations along the way. Because of these facts we are now in our fortieth year of world peace. All one has to do is study the last 40 years of history. I agree with what was said before, that 40 years is but a small piece of history. Nevertheless, it is an important piece of history for those who lived during those 40 years and for those who will follow hereafter. Thanks to NATO this has been possible.
I want to emphasize that NATO is indeed a peace organization. There is no one in the world who wants war. We want agreement and goodwill. We want good faith at the bargaining table. We want controls on the scientific armaments which are in place and can destroy the world many times over. That is our objective as mankind and womankind.
Many military people are condemned by some because they are military. Mr. Speaker, you and I have heard them.
Supply
Because they are military, people think they are warlike and are there to create war. Some of our military personnel are the greatest diplomats. To a degree they are politicians because they deal with people of other nations and are defenders of peace. The Pershing II missiles were to be deployed in Europe starting in 1983. Many people called that year the year of the missile. I totally disagree because in 1977 the Soviet Union placed SS-20s on and behind the demarcation line in Europe. That is what brought about an upgrading of NATO alliance missiles and the establishment of Pershing II missiles. That is still ongoing. It is not complete. As I said before, the Soviet Union has had its SS-20s in place for a long time. If we were in that position, we would be going for a 100 per cent freeze as well.
Let us look at this matter in realistic terms. Let us look at what has happened in the western world to put us in the position we are in today. The fact is that the free world has not kept pace with conventional arms. Because we have not kept pace, as a group of allies we are virtually outnumbered three to one in heavy armoured tanks on the Warsaw Pact-Nato line in Europe. That is one of the problems. We must upgrade our conventional arms in order to lower the threshold of nuclear threat. No nation on the face of the earth has the moral, political or egotistical right to hold the rest of the world up for ransom. An outright freeze without disarmament and good faith in verification is simply the signing of another piece of paper with nothing to back it up. No nation is supreme on the face of the earth, whether it be by armaments, intelligence or whatever.
I should like to say something now which has been seldom been said on the floor of the House. As we are in the middle of this debate, I think it should be said. Einstein said that the day would come when man would have to think about mankind, not about arms. We talk about supreme nations. There is only one supreme person in the world: God is supreme. We are debating this issue today and it has been debated at the United Nations. As the two major leaders-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. He has some time left for this afternoon. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
December 10, 1984


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, today we remind ourselves of our commitment to the fundamental principles of individual rights and freedoms for all people. Today is the third anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sadly, we continue to witness violations of these high principles around the world, particularly in the Soviet Union and countries under its influence. Today is an appropriate moment to focus on the compliance with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Agreement, adopted by 35 nations in 1975, including Canada, the United States, the Soviet Union, and countries of western and eastern Europe.
The signators pledged to respect "fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief'. Of vital importance are the clauses on freedom of human contacts and the rights of reunification of families.
In preparation for the'Ottawa conference review on human rights next May, and on this special day, it seems appropriate to bring to the attention of this House the worsening situation of Soviet Jews who wish to emigrate to rejoin their families, or to be allowed the right to maintain their religious identity in their homeland. It is important that our Canadian representatives impress upon the Soviet Union the urgent situation and the need to curtail the proliferation of official anti-semetic material. Jews are being harassed, not for what they do but who they are. December is the month of world-wide solidarity for Soviet Jewry. They need our Canadian support, our voice.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I too bring to the attention of the House and the nation that today is one of significance to people of the world who acknowledge and value the rights of all individuals who collectively make up the human race. In this context, I make a statement on behalf of persecuted Hebrew teachers in the U.S.S.R.
December 10 is the anniversary of the signing of the international Declaration of Human Rights to which the Soviet Union is a signatory. On this human rights day, nine Soviet Jews stand accused of the crime of teaching Hebrew. This basic human right to transmit one's own language and culture is denied only to Soviet citizens of Jewish nationality.
Concerned Canadians across the country fast today in solidarity with hundreds of Soviet Jews who are now protesting with rotating hunger strikes, a courageous response to the Soviet authorities' latest campaign to destroy Jewish culture.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Minister of Industry (Mr. Stevens) unveiled a new program called Investment Canada. He said this country would now be open for business. I want to give him some words of advice this afternoon. I hope he does not model this after Saskatchewan. Grant Devine, the Conservative Premier of our province, has a plan which he calls "Open for Business" as well.
What has happened in two and a half years has been a disaster for the people of our province. Unemployment has doubled in two and a half years, and the number of people on welfare has skyrocketed. Between April, 1982, and September, 1984, the number of people who are on welfare because they cannot find work in our province has gone up by some 73 per cent. The total case load of everybody on welfare has gone up by 22 per cent; 29 per cent in Regina, 33 per cent in Saskatoon, and 40 per cent in the city of Yorkton. Housing starts last year were down by 46 per cent. In agriculture, farm bankruptcies are up and farm income is down. In my province it is not open for business but closed for business because of this new program under the Conservative Government.



INVESTMENT CANADA


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard recent cries from opposition benches since forming the Government about jobs, jobs, jobs. As the reins of power are being handled with more and more gentle control, many young Canadians are wondering whether a new job creating confidence is evolving.
The pool of investment capital in our country is not deep enough to allow federal, provincial and municipal public sector appetites as well as private sector institutions, to swim successfully in it together. There will be no howls from Canadians who get back to a productive, meaningful life as fulltime workers when German, Japanese, British, Italian, French, American, Dutch and many, many more companies again feel that Canada is going to become a fitter place for investment.
There will be howls, with the very positive signal by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the introduction of Bill C-15, the Investment Canada Act last Friday, that we are selling our souls to foreigners. One single word is what the unemployed youth of this nation have to bank
December 10, 1984

on, one single word that will take the burden off the public sector to be the great provider in a country that was built on the spirit of entrepreneurism. That word is investment. I say, let it come.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the cries of outrage over the cancellation of the Summer Works Program continue in full force. I recently received a letter from the chairman of the Public Library Board in my city of North York which I believe reflects the level of indignation felt over the regressive cut.
Last year alone the Board sponsored seven summer projects across North York, hiring approximately 40 students in the process; 40 students who had a job to help them pay their next year's school tuition fees, 40 students who acquired on-the-job training and experience, 40 students who received an opportunity to understand better and acquaint themselves with their communities and their neighbours, 40 students who provided a valuable public service to the community.
In my younger days I too participated in several Summer Canada projects. It is more than just a job. It is an extremely valuable life experience and an education. As a result of this government cut, what will the Government tell students in North York this coming summer? What will it tell the parents and the community organizations expecting assistance through this program?
The Government would be wise to reactivate the Summer Works Program quickly. In addition, I issue a challenge to those Members on the Government side who represent ridings in North York to show the calibre of representation and leadership they promised their constituents, apply collective pressure and less cheer-leading in an attempt to right a serious wrong. I look forward with much eagerness-


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



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is a part of human nature that, rather than countenance adversity ourselves, wherever possible we try to pass it on to someone else. Therefore, when a deputy minister is instructed to reduce staff or expenses, it is not his own staff or expenditures that are reduced. He passes the message on to the assistant deputy ministers, who in turn pass it on to the regional directors or the director general, and so on, all down the line. The cuts tend to
take place at the lowest level which, unfortunately, is the level of service to the public. It is the hospital ward orderly or the grader operator who ends up getting fired, and the patient and the motorist who suffer.
This is the wrong way to go about things. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), in whom we all can have confidence to wield the pruning knife deftly and deeply, ought to bring his dexterity to bear on the managerial and administrative side of government where there is a luxuriant growth which would not suffer from a thorough trimming. The objective of the exercise has to be to make government Departments more efficient and effective by reducing the bureaucratic elements, while delivering a high standard of service to the public.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada were deceived on September 4 by a group of perhaps well-meaning but obviously equally deceived Conservatives running for Parliament. Where on the public record were Conservatives espousing the values of firing wildlife biologists, dismissing the only wildlife pathologist in the country, closing off Canada's first center of toxicology, shutting down the herring gull egg project, smashing the project to monitor the effects of forestry pesticides on songbirds and migratory birds in New Brunswick?
From coast to coast there were no such statements. In fact we are forcefully reminded by the press that many members of the new Tory Cabinet, for example the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), in opposition condemned the Liberals for neglecting Arctic research and cutting funds for the Arctic biological station at Ste. Anne de Bellevue. The same Tory now says that cutting deficits is a higher principle.
Each and every cut in the environment sector is designed as a signal to the corporate sector that the extreme hardline right wing of the Tory Party is in control. Let the Canadian voters beware. The Union Carbide crowd in the corporate sector are the determining factor for environmental decisions under the Mulroney administration. We can expect more endangered species, greater public health risks, fewer regulations on industrial activities that use the environment as their dump. Canada is on the road now somewhere between the Love Canal and Time Beach. We have the Canadian equivalent of Anne Gorsuch as Environment Minister.

December 10, 1984



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the peoples of Canada come from every country in the world. Joining the Indians, the Eskimos, and the Inuit were the early settlers from England, France, Belgium, Italy, Yugoslavia, Spain; indeed, from all countries of Europe; from China, India, Japan and all parts of Asia; from Central and South America, and Africa; from Iceland, Greenland, and the Philippines; from the U.S.A., and Israel, Lebanon and the Arab States. They all held their heads high as the Citizenship Judge said: "Now you are a Canadian".
They came, many with only the clothes on their backs, for many reasons, including the right to worship as their heart dictated, the freedom to build a home on land that they owned, and in the minds of all of them was the desire to build a heritage for their children. They brought with them the art and literature, the dances and expertise developed over the centuries in their homelands, which they gave freely to their adopted country. They all wanted to contribute in the building of a great young nation that had "freedom" as its watchword.
The PC Party of Canada recognizes the sanctity of every Canadian of whatever creed or colour. It is building a nation that respects the differences of others. From east to west and from north to south it is bringing harmony in diversity. A new spirit is spreading across our land, a spirit of unity and respect recognizing the rights, dreams and ambitions of others. Under the PC Government a strong, united, happy and buoyant Canada will reach its greatest potential.
Viva the PC Party! Viva Canada!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, on December 7 I had the honour of receiving from the students of Pierre de Coubertin School in Saint-Leonard a cheque for $547 for the starving in Ethiopia.
Accompanying the cheque was a letter from Patrizia Gagliardi, a grade six student. I would like to read to the House two passages from this letter. It reads;
We thought that since we have everything, including a beautiful home in a first world country, we should help the needy people in the drought stricken country of Ethiopia. 1 personally can't imagine not having anything but a rag to cover myself and few days of life. I am sure I'm speaking for all my classmates.
The letter continues:
God gave us that beautiful thing called love and it should be shared and spread throughout the world. We felt that it was our duty as Canadians, Christians, and as human beings to save someone's life.
The students of Pierre de Coubertin School raised $547, with the expectation that the Canadian Government would match that amount. We should be proud of our children, who by their thoughts and deeds express the joy of being Canadian, always ready to love and help.
I am touched by the kindness of these students, and I stand here today to thank them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, members of the National Farmers Union felt that the cavalier attitude of the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) amounted to an insult to farmers across Canada.
The Minister failed to reply to letters inviting him to address the fifteenth annual convention of the NFU in Charlottetown, despite repeated efforts by the Union to get some sort of response. When the federal Minister of Agriculture failed to appear at the convention, a resolution was passed unanimously expressing the delegates' indignation and concern.
The resolution stated "that this convention go on record expressing its concern and indignation over the casual attitude of indifference and lack of communication" shown by the Minister in not responding to the invitation. It is the first time in 15 years that a federal Minister of Agriculture has not addressed the Farmers Union convention.
The resolution further noted that the serious problems confronting the family farms across the country, and the Minister's "indifference and casual attitude", do not bode well for the survival of Canadian food producers.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY


Mr. John V. Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, after years of slowly and methodically regaining control over our economy, the Tories are poised to halt and probably reverse the mattre chez nous process through the creation of Investment Canada. The Tories should have named it "Sellout Canada".
The lack of concern among Tories for Canadian independence and Canadian sovereignty, whether political or economic, should not come as a surprise. The Tories have never been able to shake the "master-slave" mode of thinking. In the early years of this century the Tories were determined to keep us bound to Britain. Arthur Meighen said: "Ready, aye ready," to Lloyd George during the Chanak crisis. Now we have
December 10, 1984

"branch-plant Brian" saying: "Ready, aye ready", to Ronnie Reagan and the captains of U.S. industry.
It is hardly a coincidence that the Government should make the announcement of FIRA's demise on the eve of the Prime Minister's "cap-in-hand" speech to the Economic Club of New York. I am sure he will make the corporate boys at the Iron Ore Company misty-eyed with pride.
On the whole, FIRA was good legislation. It had the effect it was intended to have. With the exception of the recession years, foreign investment in Canada increased annually from 1974 on. But, the investment was responsive to Canadian needs. In every major sector of the economy there was a reduction in the amount of foreign ownership. One need only consult the figures for foreign control of Canadian industry from 1971 to 1981. Mining went from-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During the election campaign, as well as during the debates last year about the peace mission of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that they welcomed that initiative, and that they would support any initiative of that nature.
Is it still the policy of the Government to maintain that same type of policy, to try to initiate on our own, as Canadians, some peace policies around the world? Or are we to take for granted the statement in The Toronto Star of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said that the peace mission was no longer valid for the Prime Minister of Canada?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the views of the Prime Minister and of this Party were fully expressed during the debate which occurred immediately prior to the rising of the House last June, when we had, before the House, the debate on the Bill to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace. Indeed-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And Security.


Erik Nielsen: -and Security. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said since that time that those initiatives will not only be followed but will be increased.
Oral Questions


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, do I understand from the Deputy Prime Minister that the statement reported over the weekend, that the peace initiative was not valid because Canada was taking a course of its own and that in the future the policies of the administration would be to do exactly as the Americans would do, was apparently made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as quoted in The Toronto Star on Sunday?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is not deliberate on the Hon. Member's part to distort the Prime Minister's position on this matter. I have not had the advantage of reading what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, but certainly I know it to be the intention of the Prime Minister and of his Government to work very closely with countries throughout the world in an effort to bring about that peace which is so highly desired by all of us in Canada, and, indeed, all of us throughout the world.


INQUIRY WHETHER CANADA WAS CONSULTED
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he inform the House why, in an interview given by the U.S. Secretary of state on the weekend, Mr. Shultz stated that he was consulting the allies of the United States before meeting with Mr. Gromyko and failed to indicate that Canada had been consulted? Has Canada been consulted? If not, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that Canada's voice is heard by the United States before it meets with Mr. Gromyko?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Prime Minister will seek every appropriate occasion to generate vigorous discussions, not only with the United States but with the leaders of other countries in the world, to pursue the objective which we all commonly hold in the search for peace.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question along the same line, and as the Minister of Defence is in his seat perhaps he is the most appropriate person to answer.
On November 30 I raised a question in the House concerning the serious threat to the whole North American defence system occasioned by the major deployment by the Soviets of Cruise missiles on submarines and bomber aircraft. The Secre-
1054

December 10, 1984
Oral Questions
tary of State for External Affairs said he would consider raising that matter with the Soviets and the Americans as part of the agenda at the Geneva arms talks. That has now been rejected. If the Government has rejected that approach to try to provide a ban on the deployment, what is the answer, and what is the position of the Government in relation to that major new threat in the whole area of arms escalation?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the real answer to the Hon. Member's question is the reduction of nuclear armaments in the world. I believe that is what the Secretary of State of the United States, and the Foreign Minister of the U.S.S.R. are going to be meeting about in January, and I believe that is what the Foreign Ministers at the NATO meeting are going to be discussing this week.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the Hon. Minister. However, if that is the case, why is the Government refusing or rejecting any representations to either of the superpowers in order to make that case, and to express on behalf of the Canadian people our concern about that threat and that we would like them to put the question of banning the deployment of Cruise missiles on the agenda for the Geneva talks? Why, Sir, is the Minister not making that representation on behalf of Parliament and of the Canadian people?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, we are making every representation possible for the reduction of nuclear armaments in the world. I would ask the Hon. Member if he would give the Secretary of State for External Affairs some support-


Lloyd Axworthy: I did.


Robert Carman Coates: -rather than putting obstacles-


Lloyd Axworthy: He rejected it.


Robert Carman Coates: -in the way of his achievements in that direction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FOREIGN INVESTMENTS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
On his trip to the United States, why did the Minister discuss with Americans the changes the Government intends to make in the Foreign Investment Review Act?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I understand the thrust of the question put by the Hon. Member. We discussed in very general terms the whole question of foreign investment policy, industrial policy, and the approach we were going to be taking on deficit management. A wide range of things was discussed. I am not sure that I understand what the Hon. Member is driving at. However, the purpose of these meetings is to have a broad understanding of the policy direction between the two countries.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let me be a little clearer. We are talking here about major changes which have taken place, which were tabled in this House last Friday, with respect to foreign investments. Reports after that presentation indicated that the Minister had discussed-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Steven W. Langdon: Would the Minister please confirm that the details of some of those changes had been discussed with the American authorities on his visit to the United States before that Bill was tabled?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no to that question. I did not discuss the details. I discussed the general direction in which this Government is going regarding the whole policy on foreign investment, but not the details.


EFFECT OF CHANGES
Steven W. Langdon: Would the Minister tell us whether in the course of those general discussions he managed to receive any assurances from the United States that, in fact, such changes in law as you were talking about in Cabinet at that stage would lead to any new jobs or new investment here in this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has to understand that neither the Government of Canada nor the Government of the United States orders the private sector to invest or not invest. Those are decisions which are taken by the private sector in response to the general policy environment. What we are trying to do, and what the Americans encouraged us to do, is to improve the environment for private sector investment, because that is the way we can create permanent jobs. The only way we are going
December 10, 1984

to solve the unemployment problem in this country is through private sector job creation.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environement. I would like to ask the Minister, one week after the Bhopal tragedy, whether she can assure this House, and all Canadians, that there is no manufacture or storage of lethal gases, including methyl isocyanate, in this country? If she cannot give us that assurance, would the Minister be prepared to produce a map indicating the locations, for the benefit of both municipal and provincial Governments?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. colleague's question, I would like to point out I already said that the substance responsible for the tragedy in Bhopal is not manufactured in Canada. We do, of course, manufacture thousands of hazardous products.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET PROVINCIAL COUNTERPARTS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Minister has answered my question in full. However, in view of the importance of this issue, and the importance of preventive measures for the protection of Canadians at large, would the Minister be willing, before her departure for Europe, to meet with her provincial counterparts and discuss a long list of preventive measures which can only be implemented by the municipal and provincial Governments together?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to meet my provincial counterparts to discuss this matter before I leave for Europe. However, I repeat that I have asked my senior officials to meet with their counterparts in the provincial governments and industry. They are experts in this field and I have asked them to reassess the series of emergency measures we have designed to cope with crisis situations, and I have every confidence in their judgment.
Oral Questions


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Is the Minister aware that Canada has more foreign ownership and control per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world? Does he know that of the top 50 companies in Canada, the greatest number of lost jobs over the past two years was due to U.S. owned companies? Does the Minister also know that in the year 1983 Canada had a deficit of $9.4 billion in interest and dividend payments primarily due to the United States?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, I would remind him that in much of the period back to 1976 we had our experience and experimentation with FIRA. There has been a net outflow of direct investment in this country, and tens of thousands of Canadians are now jobless today, thanks to that experiment.


AGENCY ELIMINATION-EFFECT ON INVESTMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister care to explain how eliminating FIRA will in any way influence investment in Canada by Canadian companies, which do not have to go through FIRA, if they already exist here, in order to decide whether to invest or not?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in answer to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, I would remind him that reinvestment of retained earnings by non-Canadian companies in Canada is one of the more positive factors in our country's investment program at the present time. However, we in this Party believe that the over-all amount which is invested in new plant and machinery must go up dramatically if we are to get Canadians back to work.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It is staggering for the future of our country that people who are researching the continued existence of indigenous animals in our environment, in co-operative research with the United States and the provinces, are being laid off. Will the Minister re-examine these cuts which have decimated the Canadian Wildlife Service?

December 10, 1984
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I have explained many times-I think we have a serious communications problem in this House, because my hon. colleagues opposite do not seem to understand what I am saying-I have explained many times that we are continuing to shoulder our responsibilities under our federal mandate which concerns threatened species and migratory birds, and that we are withdrawing from areas under provincial jurisdiction which concern other animals.


TERMINATED POSITIONS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is a problem of communication because this is rampant and flagrant irresponsibility on the part of the Government. Will the Minister table the 84 job descriptions of positions which have been terminated in the Canadian Wildlife Service, so the people of Canada can really see what the Government thinks of the environment?
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, since we have decided to make budgetary cutbacks as a result of the incredible deficit we inherited from the previous government, I do not intend to bring back to the Department the 84 positions mentioned by my hon. friend.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Science and Technology. In view of the fact that many foreign companies when they came into Canada had much of their research and development done by their parent companies, can the Minister tell the House what he proposes to do to stop this practice or control it in the future?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, of course the new Government intends to make it more attractive for those companies to do research and development in Canada, through a variety of incentives which will become evident to this House in the coming months, including the more active use of world product mandates than has been the case in the past.


FREE ECONOMIC ZONES PROPOSAL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister how far the Government is prepared to
go to attract foreign investment? Do those incentives include what the British Columbia Social Credit Government proposed, that is, free economic zones which apparently will take away trade union rights, cut back on wages and benefits to employees, and so on? Is the Minister prepared to rule that out? Will he not go that far?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the NDP is prepared to rule out the concept of free economic zones. We have not yet ruled out that possibility.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I want to welcome him back after his being away from the House for two weeks. My question concerns the farm debt crisis which is facing many agricultural producers today. Over a month ago the Minister instituted a moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures, but he has really taken no action to relieve the problem during this last month. Is the Minister preparing to bring in legislation before the Christmas recess, because the moratorium ends on January 15? If he does not, it is going to be seen as a cynical move to avoid farm bankruptcies during the Christmas recess.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I take some satisfaction in the fact that the Hon. Member knew I was absent. The Hon. Member's allegation that nothing has been done with respect to the suspension of farm foreclosures by the FCC after January 15 is false. Since that time I have made an announcement concerning the utilization of the FCC appeal boards across the country. If FCC clients wish, they can appeal their cases to the appeal boards.
As well, in keeping with a campaign commitment, we are going forward with a pilot project involving the FCC, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, farmers, farm organizations and, indeed, traditional lending agencies. In addition to that, I made an announcement-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Minister. Thank you.


PROPOSED UNITED STATES PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, over two months ago the Government of the United States instituted a set-aside-program to help active and productive producers get through the debt crisis. Are this Minister and this Government willing to institute a similar program for Canadian agricultural producers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the legislation to which the Hon.
December 10, 1984

Member refers is not yet law. However, as I attempted to indicate in my response to the Hon. Member's first question, I made an announcement concerning lowering of FCC interest rates.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and pertains to the expiration of the Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program, which is to come about on June 30, 1985. During the election the Conservatives promised the shipbuilding industry would receive top priority from their Government. Is the Minister prepared to co-operate with the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association and major shipbuilders by extending that program for at least two years through to June 30, 1987?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under review. I assure the Hon. Member that we are giving it a top priority. In fact my officials and myself have met with representatives of the shipbuilding industry, and I can assure the Hon. Member that we will continue to give it a priority with a view to working out a long-term satisfactory arrangement for the shipbuilders of this country.


EFFECT ON VESSEL CONSTRUCTION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is of course aware that this industry is going through the worst recession since World War II, with an enormous loss of employment. There is currently a builder operating in the-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect.


Raymond John Skelly: Is the Minister aware that a vessel to be built in Vancouver if the SIAP Program is continued will be built in Korea if he does not make an announcement very soon on this matter?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the vessel to which the Hon. Member refers. That has, of course, been reviewed during some of the discussions we have had with the industry.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister acting for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that late last month arrangements were made for a donation amounting to $82,000, from Mr. Juthani of Sarnia,
Oral Questions
Ontario, to be given to the Missionaries of Charity headed by Mother Theresa in Addis Ababa. The money is currently in a trust fund in Addis Ababa and the arrangements were for the Canadian ambassador to make the donation at the embassy. My question is-leaving some out-could the Minister tell me the status of this donation? If it has not yet been given to Mother Theresa, when will the arrangements be made by the ambassador?


Hon. Jim Kelleher (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the Hon. Member's concern emanating from his constituency. I am advised that the Department is presently endeavouring to get the money to Mother Theresa, and is doing all it can to expedite the transfer of this money.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services.
In his answer of December 6, 1984, the Minister stated that he had administrative records through which he could gather the data necessary to satisfy government requirements. Since questions 7 and 27 of the 1986 census for the first time concern natives and disability, can the Minister indicate precisely where the administrative records he referred to originated from, as far as natives and disability are concerned?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated that Statistics Canada has a wide variety of data gathering methods. The census is one, and that will be held at least every ten years for sure. There are statistical surveys, administrative data, and a whole host of other means by which Statistics Canada can gather the necessary information. I want to assure the Hon. Member that Statistics Canada will provide the necessary data so that these important policy questions can be addressed, based on the most accurate data possible regarding the question the Hon. Member raised.


REQUEST THAT 1986 CENSUS BE REINSTATED
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the past the Minister promised that the cancellation of the census would be reviewed. In view of the fact that a number of Statistics Canada employees assigned to the census will be transferred January 1, only a few days away, why does the Minister not now admit that the cancellation of the census was a mistake? Why can't he and the Minister of Finance immediately withdraw, and reinstate the 1986 census?

December 10, 1984
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, on the one hand, seemed to welcome the suggestion that there was going to be a review. He now suggests that we should not review it but should make a unilateral decision. He should make up his mind.


FORESTRY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. I am sure he is aware that there are over one million hectares of unsatisfactorily restocked lands in British Columbia, and that a proper program of reforestation would create 200,000 person years of employment. Will the Minister confirm that if the NSR lands are left untouched there will be a loss of at least 62,000 forest related jobs in British Columbia over the next three to four years?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, after having visited the area I am certainly aware of the concern of the people in the forestry industry regarding NSR lands in B.C. I do hope that the Government will be able to deal with this issue through the signing of a federal-provincial forest agreement very shortly.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister is aware that if he proceeds and signs the $30 million per year Canada-B.C. reforestation agreement which he seems intent on signing, no NSR lands will be replanted in British Columbia, none of the backlog will be dealt with, and at least 62,000 British Columbians can kiss their jobs goodbye as a result of the Minister signing that inappropriate agreement.
 * *
[ Translation)


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Communications, but since he is not in this House, I hope there will be someone on the government side to answer. It concerns reports that some 900 people might be laid off by the CBC as a result of the drastic cuts announced by the Minister of Finance. Since thousands of Canadians are concerned about losing their jobs, I would ask the Government, if not to give us details of the number of people who will be laid off, at least to tell us if indeed there will be 900 layoffs as rumoured.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Communications has indicated previously in the House, it will be appropriate for the
Hon. Member to wait patiently for a few more days. The matter is still subject to consultation. In fact the President of the CBC is to make a recommendation to the Board of Governors shortly. When that recommendation is received, I am sure the Minister will be acting.
[ Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, does that answer mean that there will be a larger number of layoffs? Indeed, why did the Minister announce last Friday a new policy to make retirement easier by encouraging early retirement? Does this not mean there will be a massive layoff?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat that the Hon. Member should await the announcement of the Minister as to the areas in the CBC where these savings will be achieved.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. During the past two years, the Auditor General's scrutiny of Government expenditures was often made almost impossible because of essential and factual documents that were considered confidential Cabinet documents. In view of the open policy announced by his Party during the election campaign, could the Deputy Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the Government will remove such obstacles in future?


John Edward Broadbent: Just say yes, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly say yes because the hon. gentleman has smuggled premises into his question which are quite false. There are no obstacles now to the Auditor General pursuing the fulfillment of his statutory duties under the Act which enables him to do so. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that we are prepared to go well beyond that. May I ask the hon. gentleman how much more open we might be than to suggest that Mr. Hopper appear before the Public Accounts Committee? How much more open can we be than to suggest that the chairman consult with her colleagues on that committee with a view to permitting Mr. Dye to ask any questions that he pleases of Mr. Hopper, with respect to that transaction?
December 10, 1984


AUDITOR GENERAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister please indicate to the House how he expects, in a one and one-half hour committee session, that the Auditor General can investigate a $1.7 billion take-over? Why should the Auditor General not be able to have the specific documents to work from, rather than being shut into a committee session to ask a few questions?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as we have heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reassure the House, the Auditor General has received all of the documents that it is possible for the Department to give to him in order for Mr. Dye to accomplish his audit. If Mr. Dye has any other specific requirements, I am unaware that he has made requests for any such specific documents.


Michael Morris Cassidy: He is going to court to get them.


Erik Nielsen: I have read the pleadings in that court case. The specifics which Mr. Dye has gone to court for are a full range of Privy Council documents. As far as the Petrofina-Petro-Canada audit is concerned, he has had everything the Government can possibly supply him through the appropriate Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. I will let him get back to his seat.


John Napier Turner: Did you rehearse it, Perrin?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Minister indicated publicly that the Government was out $1.5 billion by virtue of R and D investment credits. That would indicate about $3 billion worth of R and D investment which would not normally have taken place. What effort is the Minister making to ensure that that R and D investment actually takes place? Is he actually going to be going after people who improperly use that investment credit? What action is he taking on that matter?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I had known that was the question, I would have spoken to the Hon. Member when I was down at that end.
The Government does indeed have a concern with regard to R and D tax flips. An enormous volume of them have gone through. The Government is looking at them to ensure that any which are claimed are legitimate, and that people are not
Oral Questions
abusing the system. In any case where we find that fraud exists we obviously take the appropriate action.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been for the Secretary of State. In his absence I will address it to the Minister of Justice, that very relaxed, carefree, and careless Minister who does not read the factums that are before the court in his name. Has he read the factum in the case of the appellant, MacDonald, with regard to the right of English-speaking Canadians to have documents of the courts served on them in English in Quebec? My first question is whether he has read the document.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has read the document, but he still knows nothing about it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that is what I meant by a slip-shod Minister. He does not even know how to answer a question.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, by his own admission the Minister has not read the document. Will he at least withdraw it? That is arrogance that the Minister just displayed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is only frustrating himself in his attempts to make a mountain out of a legal mole-hill. The hon. mole is not being very successful.
The intervention in the MacDonald case to which the hon. gentleman keeps referring was decided upon back in 1983. I have made myself familiar with the factum and the legal position the Government is taking. The legal opinion of the Department of Justice in this matter has not changed in the last five to six years. It is the same position that we advanced in the Bilodeau case in Manitoba that was accepted by the Court of Appeal for Manitoba, and it is the same in the particular case be is talking about.
As a matter of policy, I believe that tickets should be issued in both languages in Montreal but, as a matter of law, according to Section 133 of the Constitution, it is our opinion that they are not required to be in both languages, but just in one of the official languages. There is a difference between what the law is and what the law should be.

December 10, 1984
Oral Questions AIR SAFETY


MAINTENANCE OF ONTARIO GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given the recent scathing report of the regional Director of Aviation Regulations for Transport Canada which pointed to serious deficiencies in airworthiness, maintenance, and inspections of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources air fleet, what plans does the Minister have to ensure that the Ontario Government will maintain its aircraft in proper and safe working order and that the province's restraint program will not jeopardize air safety?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that matter is being investigated by Transport Canada officials. Of course the Ontario Government, as everyone else, will be called upon to conform to the air regulations and standards.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PROVINCIAL MINISTER
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree with his Conservative colleague, the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, who said, in responding to questions about this matter: "The Department of Transport should be doing more with its time than trying to cross-analyse another government agency". Will this have any bearing on the Minister's action?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the matter is being investigated by Transport Canada officials. I will report on the outcome when it is completed.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last weekend Premier Levesque indicated that his Government is planning a major overhaul of the Quebec Pension Plan. Would the Minister indicate to the House if he has met with his provincial counterpart to ensure co-ordination between any changes that are planned to the Quebec system and those that would follow suit in terms of changes to the Canada Pension Plan?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, a meeting which I had planned with my counterpart in the Province of Quebec was to take place two or three days after his resignation. Thus, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with him.
I am very conscious of the concerns raised by the Hon. Member and I will keep them very much in mind when we do get together.


TIMETABLE QUERY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Is the Minister prepared to indicate to the House if the Government is prepared at this time to give a timetable on changes and improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, which I believe all Members of the House agree are long overdue?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared at this time to give a precise timetable. I can indicate to the Hon. Member that it is an area with which we are quite concerned and with which we want to deal. Matters related to pension reform will be addressed in the budget, I would hope, but it is very difficult to give a specific timetable on the full range of pension reforms at this time.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. According to Saturday's Montreal Gazette, the Secretary of State for External Affairs recently withdrew a $6 million CIDA contract awarded to a Quebec consortium by his Liberal predecessor and has given it, instead, to a consortium in British Columbia which was the original winner in the CIDA competition.
Will he assure the House that all CIDA contracts will now be awarded on the basis of the point system developed by CIDA? To help ensure this, will the Government table contract bids and evaluations in the relevant standing committee?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the account in The Gazette to which the Hon. Member refers. I shall do so, and I will consider the rest of her question as representation and give the appropriate consideration thereto.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S CONSIDERATION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister is giving consideration to the point system that CIDA uses and the tabling of contract bids and evaluations, will he also consider-particularly when he says yes to those two requests-abolishing the Tory committee that advises who should get bids?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such Tory committee, and I believe I would if there was one. In any event, I will take the Hon. Member's representations under very serious consideration.
December 10, 1984


AIR CANADA
Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
As the House is aware, starting January 15, Air Canada will be flying to Singapore. 1 found out not long ago that the flight will originate from Toronto International Airport, with crews from Montreal. I would like to ask the Minister first of all, whether it will be possible to have this flight leave from Mirabel International Airport which was built and designed for this purpose, and second, whether he is prepared to let 100 employees, all Air Canada flight attendants, be moved to Toronto without their having a say in the matter?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, we have taken the question as notice. We shall make enquiries to find out why this flight will originate from Toronto instead of from Montreal, and we will pass on the appropriate information to the Hon. Member.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the debate on peace and the nuclear arms freeze which started this morning and will continue this afternoon, I would like to know why neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs nor the Minister of National Defence have been in the House to take part in this debate on an issue that is of vital importance for this country and for the entire world.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Prime Minister is in New York today engaged in the business of the country. As she knows, or should know, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Brussels at very important meetings, on behalf of our country, in that part of the world.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been on the Order Paper since last Friday, and we have known about it since last Wednesday. If the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of National Defence will not participate in the debate, will the Government at least provide a Minister who is prepared to put forth the position of the Government on this issue, which was not the position put forward by the Minister this morning?
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will contain herself and be patient, I am sure she will probably hear the most brilliant, outstanding contribution to the debate this afternoon which will be made by the Minister of National Defence.


AUDITOR GENERAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, before I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, I am glad to hear that the Minister of National Defence will change his approach.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: My question arises from an answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister to an earlier question from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. In his response the Minister asked for suggestions about more openness for the Auditor General. Considering that the Auditors General in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are given continuing right of access to documents considered by a previous Cabinet, will this Government live up to its commitment to openness and give those powers to the federal Auditor General?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Prime Minister has met with the Hon. Member and with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to that particular aspect and several other aspects of the problem. However, the facts are that the Auditor General, in connection with the case at hand, Petrofina-Petro-Canada, has been provided with all of the documents through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that he needs to complete his audit. What he is asking for now may well be available through Petro-Canada.
Petro-Canada, in the form of Mr. Hopper, is going to be appearing before the Public Accounts Committee. I would suggest, in that spirit of openness, that Mr. Dye be invited. If I were a member of that committee, I would put the proposal forward that he be invited to question Mr. Hopper, but not for an hour and a half. We have seen committees sit in this House for days and weeks, and weeks on end, and if Mr. Dye needs that much time with Mr. Hopper in order to satisfy himself, then members of that committee could surely accommodate him.
Privilege-Mr. Allmand PRIVILEGE

December 10, 1984


REPLY OF MR. CROSBIE DURING QUESTION PERIOD ALLEGED FALSE
Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that I am in receipt of a question of privilege in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege, of which I gave you notice on Friday.
On December 6 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cros-bie) to tell the House who in the Government approved the Government's factum in the Duncan MacDonald case before the Supreme Court. Duncan MacDonald of Montreal is asking the Supreme Court to confirm that under Section 133 of the Constitution of Canada he has the right to have a court summons in Quebec in the English language.


An Hon. Member:: What is the question of privilege?


Mr. Allmand:: I will get to that in a minute-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Hon. Member will start, please, with the question of privilege.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I need some explanation. The question of privilege, very briefly, is that the Minister in answering my question on December 6-and I have to put the question again to the House-said that I should have been aware that the factum had been presented to the Supreme Court denying MacDonald's contention because it was approved by the Government of which I was a member. I quote his answer, Mr. Speaker:
-the hon. gentleman should know about that. He was part of the government when it was approved.
Immediately after the Question Period I checked the factum. I found that the factum was dated November, 1984. I also discovered that the factum was only approved after the present Government took over in September. I checked further with the former Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), who held that portfolio until September 17. He never approved of such a position.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that this Minister of Justice rose in this House to give an answer to my question without any thought to the question whatever and made a completely false statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it, with due respect to the Member, that we have a dispute with regard to facts arising out of an answer given to a question in Question Period. The Member fully knows the citations which indicate very clearly that no question of privilege can arise out of an answer given in Question Period.


William Warren Allmand: That is not my point.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is not the Member's point, the Member has now had three minutes to introduce a question of privilege
and is saying that what I have just recited as his question of privilege is not his question of privilege. Does the Member have a new question of privilege?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if we had a bit of time to explain our question-


Mr. Speaker:: May I say very carefully to the Member and to all Members that the question of privilege is the ultimate parliamentary question. That is precisely why long speeches in advance of presenting the case for a prima facie case of privilege are not allowed. Therefore one must begin with a clear statement of the question of privilege that it is being claimed has been breached. I invite the Member to do so.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege, and 1 will put it as succintly as possible, is that if this Question Period is to have any meaning, then the Ministers on the government side must give serious attention to the questions asked and make an attempt to answer a question seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the Member, please-


George Albert Proud: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to recognize a Member on a point of order during a question of privilege. I think the Hon. Member knows that. Does the Member have some submission he wishes to make with regard to this question of privilege?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Mr. Speaker:: No, with due respect. Let me make this very simple. I will explain why. There is no question of privilege here.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have the right to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of privilege, I repeat to Hon. Members, is the basis of all of our privileges and should not be treated lightly. May I refer Members to Citation 19(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads as follows:
The failure of a Minister of the Crown to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege.
The refusal of a Minister to answer a question on the grounds of public interest cannot be raised as a matter of privilege. 1 can go on with citation after citation. If a Member is dissatisfied with the answer to a question, the same principle applies. This is, in effect, the failure of a Minister to answer a question to the Member's satisfaction. If a Member believes that an answer contains an error of fact, this is not a mater of privilege. If the Minister agrees there has been an error of fact, it is open to him to correct it. If he disagrees, it becomes a matter of debate, not a matter of privilege.
Misunderstandings regularly occur-I will take a minute to explain this, if I may, for the benefit particularly of new Members; I presume others know this-with regard to the matters which constitute questions of privilege, and Members in the past have regularly tried to raise questions of privilege
December 10, 1984

arising out of answers to questions. I think it is important to state for the record that the answers to questions have nothing to do with parliamentary privilege. If a Member is dissatisfied with an answer, he should pursue the matter in some other way. For example, by raising it on the adjournment motion or, as the Member well knows, if there are other accusations or concerns that he has, he has remedies open to him. I therefore find there is no question of privilege.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have a point of order from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, is it your ruling that if in answer to a question a Minister uses unparliamentary language or accuses the person of knowingly misleading the House-


Ian Deans: That is hypothetical.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -then that cannot be raised?


Mr. Speaker:: The answer is coming from the far corner of the House. No Speaker would ever dare try to give an answer to that question because it is purely hypothetical. I can assure you the Speaker would be indulging in what lawyers know as obiter dicta, and every Speaker who tries that has got himself in trouble. This Speaker is not going to give answers in advance to questions that are hypothetical, with due respect.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I appreciate the ruling you made with respect to differing with the Minister's answer, if there is a dispute on a question of fact or if he does not answer a question. I must say I would look for direction from the Chair on what an Hon. Member must do when he has been misled-it is not just a question of fact-in the House on a very sensitive point in the Province of Quebec among English-speaking people.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take that as a serious matter and suggest to the Member that what he should do is put the matter down for the adjournment motion. The Member knows he has an obligation to do that on the day of the question. However, under the circumstances, given that this is the first time we have dealt with this matter in this way in this Parliament, I am prepared to assume that I have received a notice from the Member with regard to that question and answer if he so chooses.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman is making false statements in this House about positions I have taken.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is absolutely false. I will not say "knowingly false" because he does not know enough to say anything.


John V. Nunziata: Is it any wonder you are not the Leader?
Privilege-Mr. AUmand


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I guess every Speaker is going to have a day like this!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am sure with patience on both sides, from the Chair and from the House, we will get to know the rules much better. The Hon. Member just said that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. AUmand) misled the House. I would like your direction. If this is not a question of privilege, what is a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: If a Member uses language which causes disorder in the House or language which is unparliamentary, it is the Speaker's obligation to require that that language be withdrawn. Or if it is brought to the attention of the Speaker by another Member, it is the obligation of the Speaker to require that that language be withdrawn.
The word "false", if one cares to consult Beauchesne, is a fascinating word. It has variously been ruled in order and out of order, if one reads the chapters and the rulings very carefully. If Members want a small lecture for the rest of the day on what a Speaker has to do with his hours of reading Beauchesne, I will give it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: However, turning to the issue of when the word "false" is used, if the word is used normally to say that a Member has stated a falsehood in the sense that one believes what he is saying is wrong or is not true as a matter of fact, then that is parliamentary. Now I am indulging in an obiter dictum. Watch out! However, those are basically the rulings which have been made on that basis. If someone were to say that a Member had knowingly uttered a falsehood-in other words, had challenged his character-one would be in a different situation. I heard both Members say that each was speaking falsehoods. They were saying things which they believed were in disagreement. That is what I heard. Now that we have dealt with this question of privilege and have given the Member what I believe is advice as to what he should do with it, I suggest that we should leave this matter to the late show-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think someone took me the wrong way on that! With respect, I think we should leave this matter to the late show if the Member cares to pursue that remedy. Presumably both Members would then have the right to debate the matter.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, could we leave this matter here and proceed?

December 10, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since you are responsible for budgets in this place, I submit that there has been a serious misappropriation of funds. This Minister is paid to do his homework and he has not been doing it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Dingwall:: A point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, this is verging on real disorder. Could we just leave it here, please?


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order arising out of Question Period, specifically the questions asked by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). In Beauchesne it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that you are responsible for decorum in the House. I submit that it cheapens the House for Members to wear political buttons in the Chamber.
I suggest this with reluctance because it is obvious that Ottawa Centre, as a provincial riding, deserves better representation than it has had in the past. Also I do so with reluctance because, if that Hon. Member were to wear that button and ask more questions, we would win the election for sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Keeper:: What was the name on the button?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How do you spell her last name?


Mr. Speaker:: May I say with respect that new Members have just had a small lesson on how to sneak in a political point through a phony point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Privilege, Mr. Speaker!


Mr. Speaker:: Privilege, privilege, privilege. Actually, that is between all of us as old friends. May I respond to the point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a rule to which the Hon. Member is referring about displays in the House. I take it the Hon. Member was basing his point of order on that. I had seen the badge and had already looked up the citation to determine in my own mind, if it was raised, what was the answer. Citation 333 in Beauchesne's reads:
Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber.
I have checked the precedents. They have referred to a number of other matters in the past. Since most Members are expected in fact to wear pins on their lapels to indicate that they are Members of the House, I would be in some difficulty if I were to rule that a lapel pin was a violation of the House. If I were to rule that some other pin was improper, I would be creating a problem for Members required to wear pins to get themselves into the building. Therefore I cannot find that there has been a breach of the privileges of the House by the wearing of the badge.
I would remind Members of the practices which occurred in the last Parliament during both leadership conventions. I see other Members rising to put pins on. On the basis of the precedents, this is a matter for which the Speaker has some difficulty finding any other solution other than to say that it is not a point of order. Members may wish to have the matter of wearing other than parliamentary badges dealt with in the usual way by the standing committee of the House.


George Albert Proud: On this point, Mr. Speaker-


Ian Deans: On this point-


Mr. Speaker:: I have already ruled on the point. It cannot be on this point.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rose for clarification; that was all. I just wanted to be clear. Was the button the one that read "Elect Evelyn Gigantes"?


Mr. Speaker:: Lesson two! Can we proceed?


USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking some guidance. On a number of occasions, both from the Speaker's chair and from the government side of the House, there have been declarations that this is not Queen's Park. Could the Speaker in fact clarify for the House just what are the regulations in this august Chamber with respect to the issue of truth? It seems to me that when a Member accuses another Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I admire the ingenuity of the point and I take it as sincere. Therefore I refer the Member to the rules and to various books, if one wants to look at them-Beauchesne, Erskine May, and Bourinot if one wants to go back that far-and to the rulings given by previous Speakers on the use of what is parliamentary language and what is not. I think that is all I can do today.



December 10, 1984



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly. Besides outlining the civil and political rights which characterized traditional codes of human rights, the Universal Declaration went further by including economic, social and cultural rights. It became the initial document in what was to become the International Bill of Human Rights.
The importance of the Declaration lies in its provision of a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations and in its effectiveness as a yardstick to measure the compliance by governments with the international standards of human rights.
I think it is important to note on this anniversary that in countless disputes the United Nations has referred to the Declaration, whether in dealing with allegations of forced labour, racial discrimination, customs inconsistent with the dignity of women, or other abuses of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Today, 36 years after the proclamation of the Universal Declaration, I am pleased and privileged to recognize Human Rights Day, 1984, which is so justly chosen to coincide with the birthdate of this historic document.
It was Dag Hammarskjold who said:
Only on a scrutiny of truth, can a future of peace and justice be built.
During the past year Canada's reports to the United Nations on our implementation of civil and political rights and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination came under scrutiny by all appropriate UN bodies. Canada was commended for the thoroughness of our reporting.
In the coming year Canada will be taking yet another important step in enhancing the human rights protection of individual Canadians with the coming into force of the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17, 1985.
The Government of Canada is also committed to joining with other governments throughout the world in undertaking special efforts such as support to the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons and the Second Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.
I should like to highlight two of the special international events in which Canada will be an active participant in 1985. The first is the designation of 1985 as International Youth Year by the UN. This year will see a wide range of international, national and local activities being undertaken by young people in countries throughout the world focusing on the themes of participation, development and peace. These themes
Human Rights Day
have very differing aspects in various parts of the world. One can consider, for instance, that in some countries the bridge between infancy and adult responsibilities is sudden and cruel while in developed countries the transition is more gradual.
The second event is the World Conference on the UN Decade for Women which will be held in Nairobi next July. Canada strongly supports the attainment of full equality for women at home and abroad, their participation in the search for international peace and co-operation and their full integration in economic and social development.
We also encourage the increasing recognition for the critical role that women play in developing countries, particularly in such vital activities as the production of food. It is certainly true that women have often suffered most in times of natural disasters such as famine. Women in drought-stricken countries often give up their meagre scraps of food so that their children may live. Sometimes it is a vain sacrifice.
I think that all Canadians would like me to draw particular attention to the acute food shortage in Africa, as hunger clearly has a bearing on the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. Freedom from hunger is without doubt an essential element in the realization of the dignity and worth of the individual. An ongoing program to help others to feed themselves by improving methods of production, conservation and distribution of food is a high priority in our efforts to assist developing countries; but drought and famine are natural disasters which require an immediate and more direct humanitarian response.
To this end, the Government of Canada has created the post of Canadian Emergency Co-ordinator for the African Famine and has pledged $50 million to help alleviate this critical situation. The broad and compassionate response that countless Canadians have made to the crisis in Ethiopia is particularly laudable as it springs from individual initiatives and concern.
Human Rights Day provides an opportunity for all Canadians to reflect on the efforts we have made both at home and abroad to promote and protect human rights. I am, therefore, pleased and privileged to address the House on this day and to use this occasion to reinforce for all Canadians their Government's commitment to upholding the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are the foundations of a civilized and caring society.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in this activity today for the purpose of marking the thirty-sixth anniversary of the proclamation of which my hon. friend had spoken.
This Declaration of Human Rights has provided a benchmark to peoples and to countries of the world when it comes to setting standards with respect to basic human rights. It is also important that we rise in the House today to make these statements, as we are doing, because, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has said, tomorrow is Human Rights

December 10, 1984
Human Rights Day
Day 1984. It could be argued that every day should be human rights day. At the same time, there is some value in singling out a particular day of the year to pay special attention to a subject as important as basic human rights. Unfortunately, even in a country like Canada we need to be reminded from time to time about the importance of the concepts and provisions enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
While every day should be human rights day and while those of us in this House of Commons have a special responsibility to support the existence of and in fact to strengthen basic human rights for all our people and the peoples of this world every day, it is useful to set aside a special day as we are setting aside Human Rights Day 1984.
I am very proud to have been part of a Government that enshrined in the Constitution of Canada the Charter of Basic Rights and Freedoms. This Charter of Basic Rights and Freedoms is consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It can be said that in many ways its provisions have been inspired by this Universal Declaration. In enshrining in the basic law of this country the kinds of rights and freedoms found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Government of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau did something that was widely supported eventually on all sides of this House and by people all across this country. Speaking of its being enshrined in the basic law of this country, I can say again that it is a step which is consistent with the importance and the thrust of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As I recall the Declaration, it contains provisions not only for the strengthening and maintenance of what we commonly refer to as human rights, the basic right to speak, worship, make decisions for ourselves in terms of expression and ideas, but also talks about the right to food, shelter and education, matters important to our ability to live on this earth in peace, in security and dignity.
In conclusion, in marking the thirty-sixth anniversary of the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we in this country, as well as reaffirming our commitment to what we commonly look upon as human rights, should also reaffirm our commitment to the kinds of basic rights such as food, shelter, education and good health, those rights to be able to live in peace, harmony and dignity in this country and this world, which are so important to the people of this country and to all humankind.
I am pleased on behalf of the Official Opposition, of my Party, to join in the marking of the important occasion of which the Deputy Prime Minister spoke. The declaration in question helps to confirm the essential value of human personality, the essential value of humankind. If we forget this value, certainly we in this House and the people of this country are forgetting what is important to ensure not only the future of humanity but of the very earth itself.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this thirty-sixth anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Perhaps at the beginning it is important to recognize that our world has broadened its understanding of what human rights are since 1948. I would like to give two brief examples.
If we were writing the Declaration today, I am sure that we would use more sexually inclusive language. The first article states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". If we were writing this declaration today, I think we would also want to include the word "sisterhood". The philosopher Wittgenstein once said: "The limits of my language are the limits of my world". Language that discriminates against women leads to action that discriminates against them. Therefore, it is important that we have inclusive language. That would go for something such as the Declaration of Human Rights.
If we were writing the Declaration today, we would also want to include an article to the effect that everyone has the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. This is especially underscored since last week's Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, India, where thousands of people were killed or maimed. We do not need to go to India to see the importance of that issue. In the seventies, high mercury levels on the English-Wabigoon River system destroyed the health and economy of local Indian communities. We have seen and heard of the destruction of the environment and the livelihood of the Lubicon Indians and the concerns of the Fort McKay band in northern Alberta about the pollution from the oil sands developments in Fort McMurray.
As we look at human rights, we must do so both globally and nationally. Globally, it is important, especially today when we are having a debate on a nuclear freeze, to remember Article 3 which states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." It is important that we, as a world, come to terms with the whole question of nuclear warfare in order for Article 3 to have some meaning and substance.
Globally, we face a situation of widespread denial of rights which most people in Canada take for granted. Article 15 states:
Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be deprived of his nationality.
It is something which Canadians take for granted. Why do they have to bother putting it into a declaration of rights?
There was an interesting report on the radio this morning regarding Bishop Desmond Tutu, the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. When he met with President Reagan, the Bishop told the President that he did not travel on a South African passport but, rather on a travel document which describes his nationality as being "undeterminable at present". He told President Reagan that his people were being turned into aliens in the land of their birth. Even the right to a nationality is something which cannot be taken for granted in South Africa.
December 10, 1984

To raise the issue of human rights is a dangerous practice in many countries. The 1983 report of Amnesty International
states:
Some governments have made it a criminal offence to publish information about human rights violations in their countries or to send such accounts abroad. Human rights activists have become prisoners of conscience as a result in the German Democratic Republic and China as well as in other countries. In the U.S.S.R. members of unofficial groups monitoring the state's adherence to the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which the U.S.S.R. signed in 1975, have been inprisoned and sent into internal exile in remote and harsh parts of the country. In El Salvador people attempting to publicize human rights violations have themselves become victims of "disappearances". Relief workers working with refugees in Honduras have been arrested, tortured, and in some cases killed.
The report goes on to point out the hypocritical use of human rights issues in order to make political propaganda. It continues:
Governments, news media and other institutions have used human rights issues in polemical attacks on other nations while deliberately giving inaccurate assessments of progress on human rights by their allies. Selectivity in human rights work has poisoned many discussions in the United Nations.
Amnesty International calls for a scrupulously non-partisan approach. All Canadians should be concerned, not only about global issues, but also about local Canadian issues. I refer specifically to the treatment of Japanese-Canadians. There should be a specific apology made to them and a redress mechanism should be provided. We must deal with the question of discrimination against Indian women. We should mark Human Rights Day not only with speeches, but with action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PARITY PRICES FOR FARM PRODUCTS ACT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: for leave to introduce Bill C-215, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill on parity pricing is to provide a parity price to farmers based on a cost of production formula for wheat, oats and barley for human consumption within Canada and to establish voluntary marketing commissions for pork and beef. In addition, its purpose is to lay the groundwork for parity prices for those producers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 20 and 33.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: There are nine lawyers assigned to the Department from the Department of Justice.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Will tenders be called for the construction of the Maritimes Forest Research Centre in Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so, on what date?
2.	What is the present status of planning for the project?
3.	Were outside consultants, architects, or planners engaged and, if so, what
(a)	are their names (b) amount was allocated for their services?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Project tender call is anticipated to occur September, 1985.
2.	Present status of the project is:
(a)	The Master Plan Concept has been finalized and approved.
(b)	The Concept Design for the facility has recommenced as a result of program changes initiated to bring the project cost into line with available funding.
3.	(a) The architectural firm of Arcade Albert of Shediac, New Brunswick has been engaged to provide design, working drawings and supervisory services.
(b) The fee has been set at $2,200,000.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 10, 1984
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House takes note of the following United Nations Resolution:
REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONCLUDING DOCUMENT OF THE TWELFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 38/73 E ON A NUCLEAR-ARMS FREEZE
Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sweden and Uruguay: draft resolution Nuclear-arms freeze The General Assembly,
Recalling that in the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly, the first special session devoted to disarmament, adopted in 1978 and unanimously and categorically reaffirmed in 1982 during the twelfth special session of the General Assembly, its second special session devoted to disarmament, the Assembly expressed deep concern over the threat to the very survival of manking posed by the existence of nuclear weapons and the continuing arms race,
Recalling also that on those occasions, it pointed out that existing arsenals of nuclear weapons are more than sufficient to destroy all life on earth and stressed that manking is therefore confronted with a choice: halt the arms race and proceed to disarmament or face annihilation,
Noting that the conditions prevailing today are a source of even more serious concern than those existing in 1978 because of several factors, such as the deterioration of the international situation, the increase in the accuracy, speed and destructive power of nuclear weapons, the promotion of illusory doctrines of "limited" or "winnable" nuclear war and the many false alarms which have occured owing to accidental reasons,
Noting also that the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi in March 1983, declared that the renewed escalation in the nuclear-arms race, both in its quantitative and qualitative dimensions, as well as reliance on doctrines of nuclear deterrence, has heightened the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war and led to greater insecurity and instability in international relations,
Bearing in mind that in their Joint Declaration issued on 22 May, 1984, the Heads of Government of six Member States of the United Nations, coming from five different continents, urged the nuclear-weapon States "as a necessary first step... to halt all testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems".
Believing that it is a matter of the utmost urgency to stop any further increase in the awesome arsenals of the two major nuclear-weapon States, which already have ample retaliatory power and a frightening overkill capacity,
Believing also that it is equally urgent to initiate or resume negotiations for the substantial reduction and qualitative limitation of nuclear arms, Considering that a nuclear-arms freeze, while not an end in itself, would constitute the most effective first step for the achievement of the above-mentioned two objectives, since it would encourage the initiation or resumption of negotiations and prevent the continued increase and qualitative improvement of existing nuclear weaponry during the period when the negotiations would take place,
Firmly convinced that at present the conditions are most propitious for such a freeze, since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America are now equivalent in nuclear military power and it seems evident that there exists between them an overall rough parity.
Conscious that the application of the systems of surveillance, verification and control already agreed upon in some previous cases would be sufficient to provide a reasonable guarantee of faithful compliance with the undertakings derived from the freeze.
Convinced that it would be to the benefit of all other States possessing nuclear weapons to follow the example of the two major nuclear-weapon States,
1.	Urges once more the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, as the two major nuclear-weapon States, to proclaim either through simultaneous unilateral declarations or through a joint declaration, an immediate nuclear-arms freeze, which would be a first step towards the comprehensive programme of disarmament and whose structure and scope would be the following:
(a)	It would embrace:
(i)	A comprehensive test ban of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(ii)	The complete cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(iii)	A ban on all further deployment of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(iv)	The complete cessation of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes;
(b)	It would be subject to appropriate measures and procedures of verification, such as those which have already been agreed by the parties in the case of the SALT I and SALT II treaties, and those agreed upon in principle by them during the preparatory trilateral negotiations on the comprehensive test ban held at Geneva;
(c)	It would be of an initial five-year duration, subject to prolongation when other nuclear-weapon States join in such a freeze, as the General Assembly urges them to do;
2.	Notes with satisfaction that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have already submitted the report requested in General Assembly resolution 38/73 Eof 15 December 1983;
3.	Hopes that the other major nuclear-weapon State will find it possible to comply also with the request of the General Assembly before the closure of its thirty-ninth session;
4.	Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fortieth session an item entitled "Implementation of General Assembly resolution 39/.. . on a nuclear-arms freeze".
and calls upon the Government to adopt it as policy thereby rejecting the position of the previous administration.
Mr. Speaker:: Before hearing the Hon. Member for Ren-frew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), I am in a position to consider a matter previously raised regarding the admissibility of the amendment before the House. I gather that the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) would like to make a submission at this time. As I heard no submissions earlier on this matter, I take it the Hon. Member for Windsor West is rising to make his submission on the matter now. On that point of order, I will recognize him.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind what happened when a question of privilege arose the other day, I felt that I would get to my feet quickly and put on the record my submissions with respect to the matter which you are ready to rule upon. In this case it is the admissibility of the amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to the motion currently before the House. I would argue that the amendment is properly acceptable and I would do so by bringing to the attention of Your Honour a number of citations.
December 10, 1984

I would first like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Citation 425 of Beauchesne, which states:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original which must, however, be relevant to the subject of the questions.
I would submit that the amendment offered earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition certainly makes the motion much more acceptable to Members of the House who form part of the Official Opposition. I would also submit that the amendment in question, while being an alternative to the original, is certainly relevant to the subject of the motion itself. It is not simply the kind of amendment which has been dealt with on other occasions by other Speakers; that is an amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived. We have an amendment which takes note of a situation in the world political community which has developed since the United Nations resolution-which is quoted in the motion-was brought before the United Nations. The amendment calls upon the present Government to take steps to urge the superpowers in their forthcoming meeting to consider a number of matters, including a verifiable freeze and the reduction of nuclear arms. In this connection, this amendment, if accepted and adopted, along with the adoption of the main motion, would certainly carry the policy of the Government beyond what it was in the past.
I would also like to submit that the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is acceptable because Citation 428 of Beauchesne states:
(1) A motion may be amended by: (a) leaving out certain words; (b) leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) inserting or adding other words.
Therefore, if some thought should be given to the possibility that the amendment is not in order because its basic thrust is to delete certain operative words in the motion offered by the New Democratic Party and to insert other words, then it is still, by virtue of the citation in question, in order.
I conclude with a comment, Mr. Speaker, on the point which I anticipate may be raised against the acceptability of the amendment, that is, that the amendment may be one which proposes a direct negative or will produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived. I have dealt with the latter point. I again and further submit that the amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition is not simply to negate what is in the motion presented by the New Democratic Party. It is not intended simply to produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived. In that connection, I draw Your Honour's attention to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 431, which reads as follows:
An amendment to alter the main question, by substituting a proposition with the opposite conclusion, is not an expanded negative and may be moved.
I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that in my respectful submission, the amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition is not intended to offer simply a totally opposite conclusion, but to move the policy of the Government forward
Supply
from what it was in the past. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the various reasons I have given, I submit that the amendment which was proposed earlier this day by the Leader of the Opposition is acceptable and should be allowed to be brought before the House for a decision.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to deal with three questions quite quickly. To begin with, Sir, I would ask you to find that the amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition is not in order. It is not in order for a number of reasons perhaps but one reason in particular I find peculiar. You will note, Sir, in the original motion as contained on page 9 in today's Order Paper and Notices, the final paragraph states:
-and calls upon the Government to adopt it as policy-
In fact, that is the most relevant phrase within the motion. What we have asked is that the House of Commons look at a motion which is currently before the United Nations, and we have reproduced that same motion. We are asking that the House of Commons vote today to require the Government to adopt that motion as policy. The amendment put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition eliminates that motion in its entirety. Therefore, it leaves a motion before the House of Commons the end direction of which is quite unclear. There is no directive to the Government. What we would have would be a statement reproducing the motion of the United Nations, together with a statement by the Official Opposition with regard to an agenda which it would like to see, without the House having before it in actual fact any question upon which to vote.
I suggest that if on no other ground, the amendment we have before us should fail on that ground. There has to be a motion to put and the motion we have is that the Government adopt the resolution of the United Nations as the policy of the Government of Canada. That, in fact, is what the Official Opposition has failed-and I hope inadvertently-to put within the context of its amendment.
I would like to say further that I can well appreciate what the Official Opposition is attempting to do. I do not quarrel, in the main, with the addition of many of the directives which the Official Opposition has offered as an agenda for the arms talks, which presumably may take place some time in the year 1985. I am not arguing that there is no place for that particular suggestion within the motion which we have offered. Not for a moment am I suggesting that. We put our motion on the Order Paper many days ago. I would have been prepared on behalf of this Party to enter into discussions with the Official Opposition during that intervening period in order to incorporate, or to agree in advance that the various and many suggestions which it has put forward might be incorporated in the over-all motion when it is put to the House.
There is one final point I would like to make. I can appreciate that perhaps the Official Opposition does not like the idea in the final paragraph in which we have said:
-thereby rejecting the position of the previous administration.

December 10, 1984
Supply
I would like to say to the Official Opposition that in the interests of putting together a motion which would be acceptable to the House of Commons, a motion which would gain wider support, I would be prepared on behalf of my Party to , offer to withdraw those last two lines, if that were acceptable by unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the point the Hon. Member is trying to make. However, I believe we are moving quite a long way away from the adminissibility of an amendment into an area which really is properly a matter for debate or negotiation somewhere else. Would the Hon. Member conclude his argument with regard to admissibility, please?


Ian Deans: Therefore, in order to tie it up, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe the amendment put before you is not acceptable. I believe, in fact, my hon. colleague and friend, the House Leader of the Opposition, probably made my point better than I could in his references to Beauchesne. He did not go quite as far perhaps as he ought to have gone in indicating what was acceptable and what was not. However, I want to point out that Citation 425 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, as I read it, by itself would have made the amendment offered by the Official Opposition an unacceptable amendment.
I urge you, Sir, to consider that that particular amendment is not in order and to note, as no doubt you will, our desire to find an acceptable alternative amendment which will incorporate both what the Official Opposition wants and what we would like to see without any offensive language contained within it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will also try to be brief because I understand and appreciate the importance of allowing the maximum amount of time to enter into a substantive debate with respect to a very important issue in terms of our position on this most important topic. I believe, Mr. Speaker, since the matter has been raised and since the House Leader of the Opposition has indicated by his intervention that he himself has some concern about the admissibility of the amendment, that I should attempt to assist, if I may, with respect to this particular point of order.
It seems to me that the amendment which is proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) appears to be at variance, in my estimation, with the established practices of the House in at least two respects. First, it has been long recognized, Mr. Speaker, that any amendment which has the effect of being a direct negative of a motion then before the House is out of order. The House Leader of the Opposition has alluded to this. This rule applies both to a simple negative of the whole question and to an amendment which approves part of a motion while disapproving the rest.
Citation 436 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition outlines the practices of the House with respect to amendments which negate all or part of a motion. Citation 436(3) in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition provides a reference to a Speaker's ruling of October 20, 1932, which is found at pages 47 and 48 of the Journals for that day. The motion which was before the House
on October 20, 1932, called for the approval of a trade agreement. An amendment was proposed thereto which expressed approval of portions of the agreement while disapproving certain other aspects thereof. The Speaker declared the proposed amendment out of order.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that, as in the 1932 case, the proposed amendment which is before us now would have the effect of negating a portion of the main motion. By deleting the last paragraph of the main motion, the proposed amendment would have the effect, if passed, of causing the House to adopt a nuclear arms policy which is significantly different from the one proposed in the main motion. Indeed, the amendment proposes that the House should endorse the policies of the previous administration, and thereby it flies in the face of the last paragraph of the main motion, which calls upon the Government to adopt it as policy, thereby rejecting the position of the previous administration.
The other practice of the House offended by the amendment proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is outlined in Citation 482 of Beauchesne's, which reads as follows:
On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of Supply, an amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that proposed in the original motion.
That citation provides references to two rulings by the Chair which support the general principle outlined in that citation. There are certain words contained in those rulings which, in my view, have a direct bearing on the issue before you at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I would like to cite briefly from those rulings. On June 1, 1972, when faced with an amendment to an opposition motion, the then Deputy Speaker had the following to say, as reported at page 2767 of Hansard:
Certainly, there are times and circumstances when a motion on an opposition day is amendable. Indeed, the Chair has allowed amendments, if not in this session, in the last session of this Parliament. On opposition days, however, we must look very carefully at amendments and the circumstances . . . because if they change the direction or the impact of the motion, they are not acceptable. I think it would be unfair to opposition parties if such amendments were acceptable. This is, of course, in the interest of all opposition parties and the interests of fairness.
That was based on a similar ruling given in March of that year which I will not quote now. However, clearly the amendment proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would both negate in its form the motion moved by the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and, if allowed to be put to the House, would provide a basis, I suggest, for an entirely different debate from that which has been proposed in the original motion. In my submission both equity and established parac-tice require that the amendment proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition be ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will need to have an investigation conducted into how various speakers who have preceded me got hold of my notes.
I say to the House Leader for Her Majesty's Official Opposition with respect, that it is my view that Citation 482 of
December 10, 1984

Beauchesne's applies directly in this case. The effect of the motion put forward by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to change the subject of the debate so radically as to offend against the traditions of Supply days. This is always a difficult matter for the Speaker, but I think that Hon. Members know we have strong traditions about motions put forward for debate on days allocated for Supply.
Maybe I should just enunciate those two principles in brief before I make a final ruling. The Government House Leader referred to them. The first principle is that the amendment must not change the direction or impact or thrust of the main motion. The second is that the spirit of fair play, which has been ruled on in this matter before, requires that the allotted days should not be taken away from the mover of the motion by means of another Member moving and amendment. Those are the two principles followed by this House for some years on allotted days.
I might also add, when deciding whether an amendment is in order as an amendment, notwithstanding whether or not it negates the motion, there is another test that can be used as a simple rule of thumb, that is, to see whether the amendment could stand alone as a separate motion and be debated separately. That, it seems to me, applies in this case. The motion as moved could form an additional motion for another day. However, on balance I find that Citation 482 does apply directly and 1 must therefore indicate, with all due respect, that the amendment is, in my view, out of order.
We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I understand that when I was interrupted at one o'clock I had about six minutes left. At that time I said I was going to mention something which has very seldom been mentioned in this House. I was talking about superpowers. In making the statement I am about to make I do not want to seem self-righteous because I would like to think that my sins are no greater, and hopefully no lesser, than those of my colleagues on either side of this House. But when we talk about superpowers and get tied up in this debate at the humanitarian level, I would like to say to my colleagues that there is only one superpower, only one Supreme Being on the face of the earth. God is supreme. Certainly in this debate, when we talk about saving humanity, that must come into play. Our Maker created us all. He gave us talents, understanding and the ability to communicate. It is up to us to make use of those abilities. Both Mr. Chernenko and President Reagan have said that a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought. We hope that this will be the attitude when these gentlemen meet. We hope also that what follows will be a greater emphasis on the reduction of conventional armaments. Today veterans of the two World Wars and the Korean war will tell us that conventional wars are no picnic either.
In the interests of the coming talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we as parliamentarians should suggest that in all places of religious worship, people, regardless of creed or culture, set aside a special day of world-wide prayer for the success of the coming
Supply
disarmament negotitions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. This will emphasize the importance of this subject to all people, as it must be emphasized.
We are all children of the same Creator. If there ever was a time when we all need spiritual guidance and moral and political commitment, and political will, it is now. If we do not use all our human talents, all our moral and political will, to promote a solid solution, something other than just a piece of paper, then we are not keeping faith with those who died in previous wars, those whom we honour every November 11. In a debate such as this, we should say that in our minds every day of the year must be a November 11.
We must also think of our own generation and of the generations to come, Mr. Speaker. I have before me a book on the Chamberlains. I was going to read a paragraph spoken by Neville Chamberlain to the nation on radio at 11.15 a.m., on Sunday, September 3, 1939, when the Germans entered Poland. I do not have time to do that, but I do want to read what he said to the House of Commons that afternoon. He said:
This is a sad day for all of us and for none is it sadder than for me. Everything that I have worked for, everything that I have hoped for, everything that 1 believed in during my public life has crashed into ruins.
I say to the people in every democratic nation and every nation of the world that now is the time for us to take that speech seriously because none of us wants to be guilty of contributing to the ruins that would be far-reaching and far beyond anything ever dreamed of on September 3, 1939.
We look back today to the great leaders in foreign affairs, such as the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his peace mission, and to many others who have contributed greatly through the United Nations and other organizations. We in the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, are proud of the background of those people who have done so much. It is our commitment to work toward good diplomacy and solid agreements and to work with our friends throughout the world.
I would like to refer to the last sentence in the motion before us today which reads: "thereby rejecting the position of the previous administration." This is the motion of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time is up.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to put forward and explain yet again for the benefit to the NDP the Government's position on the nuclear freeze. Simply put, we do not favour proposals for a U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. nuclear freeze at existing levels. Mutual security is not enhanced if current imbalances are locked in, as they would be in Europe. At the same time, as

December 10, 1984
Supply
our Ambassador for Disarmament, a former and distinguished colleague in this House, Mr. Douglas Roche, said at the United Nations last month, we recognize that:
Many Canadians believe that the present level of nuclear weapons endangers the continuation of life on the planet. But mere declarations of a freeze are not a meaningful response to this danger. Rather, we want immediate resumption of negotiations on reductions. Canada has said this many times. I want to repeat our demand: Canada wants the present dangerous levels reduced by immediate unconditional resumption of negotiations on reductions.
The Government's reasons for voting against the three nuclear arms freeze resolutions in the United Nations last month are well laid out in the explanation for the Canadian vote given by our Ambassador for Disarmament. Ambassador Roche pointed to the major flaws seen by the Government in the three resolutions in New York, and I shall not repeat them here. I would, however, like to address some further flaws in the resolutions we have before us. They are of two sorts: political and technical.
On the technical side, the resolution ignores the reality that a freeze raises the same, if not greater, problems of definition and verification as do reduction proposals. Developing an effective and verifiable freeze would not be a simple matter. It would involve long and complicated negotiations. The time and energies of both sides would be better spent negotiating reductions, and that is the call we hope to see emerge from next month's meeting between Secretary Shultz and Foreign Minister Gromyko. We want the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. to do much better than a freeze.
There are many other flaws in the resolution and I will mention just one other. We do not agree that reliance on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has heightened the risk of nuclear war, as asserted. On the contrary, one can only regret that the rest of the world to which the NDP has drawn attention has not been as successful in avoiding war over the past 35 years.
In political terms, adoption of the proposal would conflict directly with Canada's support for NATO's two-track decision which calls for the deployment in western Europe of INF missiles in the absence of concrete negotiated results obviating the need for such deployment, and with Canada's undertaking to permit the flight testing of unarmed Cruise missiles in Canada. It is probably not too much to say that it is these purposes which have given rise to the resolution. The House knows the position of the NDP on NATO and NORAD. It would have Canada withdraw from both. While sheltering under the United States' nuclear umbrella, they would have Canada go it alone.
There is a curious irony in a proposal which would attempt to influence NATO policy coming from a Party which would have Canada withdraw from that organization. The more so, because not only would the result be a loss of our military security, it would also remove us from the mainstream in the search for progress toward a more stable relationship between East and West, which is the other purpose of the alliance. The NDP position would remove Canada from all consultation and participation in the major arms control issues of today; strategic and INF nuclear arms control, the mutual balance force
reduction negotiations on conventional arms, and the Stockholm Conference.
There is another curiosity to be found in the NDP proposal. Members will have noted that the Soviet Union has been applauded for providing its views on a freeze to the U.N., which is no doubt a worthy act. The United States, on the other hand, has been singled out for not having complied so far with the U.N. resolution in question. On the question of the resumption of nuclear arms reduction negotiations, however, the NDP resolution is strangely silent when it comes to identifying which country walked out of the negotiations in the first place. It was the U.S.S.R. and not the United States of America. That choice of example tells us something.
Last week I attended the December meeting of NATO's Defence Ministers. I took the opportunity to say something about the totality of the Canadian defence effort and the direction the Government intends to take in the years ahead. Our objectives, which are to enable Canada to better contribute to and play its part in the common defence, were very well received by all my colleagues. It was also a great pleasure for me to join my alliance colleagues in reaffirming, by way of our communique, that:
NATO preserves the peace and security of its members through the maintenance of military forces sufficient for deterrence and defence and through the continuing attempt to develop a stable East-West relationship.
It is a statement that the framers of the motion before us should ponder. It is through solid work, not empty declarations, that progress will be made. I also told my colleagues that in the period ahead we must stay steadily on the course we have set for ourselves to ensure that effective deterrence is maintained, to increase our capacity for conventional defence, to modernize and to increase our forces' ability to survive and to respond to attack, and to ensure that our forces are demonstratively ready should they be attacked and will be able to fight if they are forced to fight.
Some examples of the improvements I identified are: increases in our land and air forces in Europe, full-scale exercise in 1986 of the Brigade Group which we have committed to the defence of northern Norway, and protection of our European airfields and troops by low level air defence. We are moving forward in Europe. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in the House on February 9:
You can't have it both ways. You cannot echo support for NATO and consistently neglect support for our Armed Forces so that our alliance commitments cannot be honoured. Nor can we continue to flail at the nuclear umbrella and not be prepared to enhance the conventional deterrent.
A concrete example of what good relations with allies can achieve is to be found in the presence today in Canada of the United States briefing team on defence procurement. Secretary Weinberger and I have agreed to use the steering committee of the Defence Production Sharing Arrangement to monitor the work of the briefing team. The business community in Canada can be assured that Ministers take this initiative seriously. We will guarantee that their participation will be followed up.
December 10, 1984

Secretary Weinberger and I will assist the business community in every way to achieve both their and our objective, which is, additional defence procurement for Canadian industry. We are talking about new, permanent, long-term jobs that will make our present industry more viable in the days ahead.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to enter into this debate this afternoon on our motion, which one might say, is a carbon copy of a motion that was passed by an overwhelming majority of member states in a political committee of the United Nations a short time ago.
I rise to speak today on what is a unique opportunity for this country and indeed the Government. Today, there is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate real change, which is, after all, what helped to bring the Conservative Party to power. Although we have seen many flip-flops from the Government on election promises, I ask today, on this one crucial issue, that the Government show Canadians how it is different from previous Liberal Governments.
I will not denounce the Government. Instead, I will invite it to join with those of us on this side of the House to support the motion. I want the Government's co-operation. I want it to state publicly what many sitting on the Government benches privately believe, namely, that we must end this nuclear madness and that now is the time to begin to do it in earnest.
1 want the Government to join with other Governments in NATO, such as that of Denmark, which have found the courage to support nuclear freeze initiatives at the United Nations. I want it to realize also that this will not shatter the alliance.
I want the Government to join the growing support for a nuclear freeze because, as I recall someone saying this summer, "Together, we can be better".
I want to explain why I think now is the time for us to support the United Nations resolution on the nuclear weapons freeze. As some Members of the House may know, I spent many years exposing many young people to the lessons of history. Indeed, that was my chosen profession before I came to serve here in the Commons some 14 years ago. I often quoted to those young people the words of a wise man who said that those who do not learn from history are condemned to relive it. I realize that it is a quotation that is often used today, but it still rings true.
I want to remind the Government of some of the lessons of history. I hope it will be as open to those lessons as were those young people. However, I will not take the Government back too far because I know that some Members opposite do not have such great memories. Indeed, I often wonder why so many government members cannot even remember what they promised the people of Canada last summer.
I will only take the Government back to the turn of the century. That should suit the Government well. Many members of the Government look back to that period with some warmth. Some say that the Government's legislation is an attempt to take us back even further.
Supply
Let me focus on just one issue that confronted the world in those days. It was an arms race similar to the one that confronts the world today. Of course, the countries and weapons involved were different. In those days, it was Britain and Germany who were involved in a naval arms race. But the circumstances were remarkably similar. Both sides felt threatened by the other. Both sides were engaged in what was in those days massive military spending during peace time. Both sides felt that they had no option but to compete in the arms build-up to preserve a balance of power. Both sides professed that they did not want war. Yet, as we all know, war did occur a short time later. Those weapons were used in World War I. The lesson I wish to point out is simple. More weapons did not prevent that war, they only heightened the tensions.
That lesson is repeated many times in history. There has never been a weapon constructed which has not been used. That is true of all weapons, from the bow and arrow to the atom bomb.
Some people believe that the power of nuclear weapons make their use unthinkable. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki know differently. Another lesson to be drawn from this is that professed good intentions are not enough. As long as weapons and the threat they represent exist, wear is not only likely, it is inevitable.
Any accident can set off a war. In the case of World War I, who could have predicted that one impassioned activist with a bomb could have dragged the world into a war by assassinating the Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Yet that is what happened.
Today, there is a whole new generation of what are called threatre nuclear weapons which are capable of striking their targets in just minutes. That means that the world can be brought to the brink of destruction before there is any chance for diplomacy to work on a political solution. The arms race has escalated to the point where the side that perceives itself under attack and in danger of losing will have to go nuclear. That is why NATO has what it calls its flexible response. It reserves the right to go nuclear.
A third lesson to be taken from history is that deterrents cannot put off war forever. After the horror of trench warfare and mustard gas had ravaged a generation of young men, people called World War I, "The war to end all wars". They were wrong, tragically wrong. The next war was just 20 years away.
After World War II had ravaged the globe and ended with those mushroom clouds over Japan, veterans called it "The big one" and people assured themselves that the atom bomb made war unthinkable. They were wrong. We have the Diefenbunker to prove it.
Nuclear war is indeed thought about every day. Otherwise, where would this whole new generation of nuclear weapons be coming from? Somebody must be spending a lot of time thinking about nuclear war. Indeed, some people right here in Canada must be thinking about it, I am sad to say. What other

December 10, 1984
Supply
conclusion is there when we are helping to develop and to test the Cruise missile in Canada?
I want to clear up a misconception that some people have about Canada in this regard. I recently read in the paper that Canada is now free of nuclear weapons because the Genie nuclear missiles have been made obsolete by the introduction of the CF-18 with its conventional missiles. That is not quite true. Canada's hands are not entirely clean.
Just last week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) confirmed that the Cruise missile will once again fly over Canada in 1985. That is sad news to our Party. In fact, the aid and consent that Canada lends to the testing of this weapon casts a shadow much further than Cold Lake, Alberta. It casts doubt on Canada's role as a peacemaker and makes a mockery of that same Minister's consideration to ask the Americans and the Soviets to ban Cruise missiles from their arsenals.
Not only do we help test the Cruise, we helped to build it. The Defence Production Sharing Arrangement between Canada and the United States allowed a Canadian company to help build the guidance system for the Cruise missile. The Canadian Government helped to make the development of that guidance system possible with aid to Litton Systems under the Defence Industry Productivity Program.
Even now, a group of Pentagon officials are touring our country, with government encouragement and assistance, telling Canadian companies how to follow in the footsteps of Litton Systems. The Government of Canada is directing investment dollars from other areas such as education and health care, which as studies show, would create two to three times as many jobs as investment in weapons production. The Conservative Government is helping sow the seeds of our own destruction and is passing it off as job creation. It is sad hoax and it has to stop.
That is why I am calling for the Government to show that real change for which it was elected. I want the Government to join with the thousands of Canadians who support the nuclear weapons freeze. I want the Government to join with those people who showed their resolve by signing petitions supporting the freeze and sending them to this House.
I want the Government to join with our neighbours to the south in the U.S. Congress, who also support a nuclear weapons freeze. I want the Government to join with those who realize that there is a rough parity in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union. Even President Reagan recognizes that both sides have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. After all, it was he who campaigned this fall a few weeks ago by saying: "America is back. America is strong". So even he realizes that the West is strong enough to negotiate an arms agreement. And, after all, who in the Conservative Government would argue with President Reagan?
I am asking that the Government join with NATO allies, such as Denmark who have the wisdom to support a nuclear
weapons freeze without fear of losing their allies. I ask that the Government show the courage of the Belgian Government, which has had the wisdom to reconsider its position on nuclear weapons. I ask that the Government join with those on its own benches who privately support the nuclear weapons freeze. Finally, I ask that the Government join with us in taking one small step toward peace.
If Canada takes that step and supports this motion for a mutual, verifiable nuclear weapons freeze, then just maybe it will have some effect. Maybe the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union will take notice. Maybe it will tip the balance while there is rough nuclear parity and signs of an East-West thaw. Maybe. We may never know. But we will be able to say that today, Canada has done its part. Canada will have shown the world that it is indeed a strong, independent voice for peace.
There are certain assumptions upon which I believe our defence policy is based. Certainly in the public domain there are some assumptions, and I do not agree with them. I do not believe for one moment that the next war, heaven forbid if there should be one, will be simply or exclusively a conventionally fought war.
Second, I do not believe there is any such thing in practice as a limited nuclear war. We are being very foolish if we think for one moment that if either side is backed to the wall in a conventional war or a limited nuclear war, known I think as a theatre war, it will not push the final button and let everything go.
Third, there is only one kind of war, and this follows from my other two points, and that is, a total nuclear global holocaust. Despite the relative importance and potency of the weapons during the hot summer days of July and August 1914, the great powers still went to war over a single shot fired in a little town in the Balkans called Sarajevo. It can happen again, only this time ending up in a total nuclear holocaust.
Then there is the assumption that the nuclear deterrent has kept us at peace for 40 years. We were reminded this morning that 40 years is but a fleeting moment in time. Even if it has kept us at peace for 40 years, Mr. Speaker, do we all realize what that means? It means that the nuclear deterrent will never fail. That is what it means.
In view of the fact that we are only human and historically we have always only been human, and in view of the fact that man has always gone to war and that we have had so many sophisticated non-nuclear deterrents in the past, is there any human being in this Chamber who honestly believes that the nuclear deterrent will keep us at peace for ever and ever? That is madness. That is why we have to begin today, not tomorrow, not next week, to rid the globe of all nuclear weapons. This motion merely allows us to take one tentative step.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments?
December 10, 1984


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in the debate this afternoon in order to resolve a number of procedural problems that were raised earlier. 1 intend to make a speech, and I have no questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Very well. Debate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Thank you Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to say that it bothers me somewhat that, at least as far as 1 know, we are not going to have more than one debate during this session on a subject as important as this one. We were advised Wednesday of today's debate, and I think it is incredible that, considering the fact that this will be our sole opportunity to discuss a problem that millions of Canadians see as the most important issue facing our generation, neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) could find the time to be in the House. I remember when they were both in the Opposition and were asking us every day for a debate on the subject, and now that we do have a debate here in the House, they have found other, more pressing business to attend to. I also remember that the Prime Minister, in his first speech as Prime Minister which he made when he visited his alma mater in Nova Scotia, a few weeks after he was sworn in, I remember that he said that for him, nuclear armament would be his number one concern during his mandate. Today, we have a debate on this issue, and normally we will not have another before the end of this session which may last until June or even later, and I therefore consider it entirely unacceptable that neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs are present in the House today.

I think the speeches made so far today have given an indication of how serious the problem is. I could go on about all the disasters the world could face if ever some error were committed by the two superpowers using the arsenals in their possession. The U.S.S.R. has 1,398 intercontinental ballistic missiles in land-based silos hundreds of thousands of times move powerful than the atomic blast at Hiroshima. The same is true of the United States. The Americans have 1,037 intercontinental ballistic missiles, which represent the potential for thousands of Hiroshimas.
We know that on June 3, 1981, a computer malfunctioned in the United States. We came within minutes of having a decision made by a very responsible general, General James Hartinger, that would have affected life. He was informed one moment that a technological problem and occurred and he was faced with making a decision based on a technical error.
I am sure everyone will recall a film shown on television not long ago and, as a result of it, how emotional the youth in universities around the world became. People were frightened and preoccupied by this film. Many felt they had no future because of the continuing escalation in nuclear armaments by the two superpowers. Today we are confronted with the prob-
Supply
lem of expressing the views of Canadians on the matter. I am surprised that there are so few Members in the House and no government leaders to express their views today.
Of course, we all want peace and disarmament. However, I am quarreling with the proposition of the NDP today. I am glad the House Leader of that Party, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), recognized that there was a political element in the motion before the House. He asked to delete, if it were possible, some of the words of the motion because he felt that they offended. That is why my Party cannot vote for the main motion. It is basically because it introduces politics into the matter. It calls upon the Government to adopt the motion as policy and thereby reject the position of the previous administration. That injects an element of politics of an unacceptable nature into the motion.
We in the House unanimously supported the peace mission of Mr. Trudeau when he was Prime Minister. We felt that it was extremely important for the voice of Canada to be recognized around the world as that of a country that tries to find new solutions to the fundamental problem confronting humanity. To introduce a motion today which will deny the validity of the peace mission of former Prime Minister Trudeau, which was supported by all three Parties in the House, introduces politics into this debate. I am glad the House Leader of the NDP had the courage to recognize that these words were too many. Despite the fact that we could debate the main motion, some elements of it made it impossible for members of my Party to subscribe to the motion, at least on that point.
There is another flaw in the resolution of the NDP. It has been overtaken today by what has happened in the world. When the resolution was proposed at the United Nations, the intent of it was basically to induce the superpowers to start negotiations, to agree on a freeze of nuclear armaments and when the freeze was agreed upon to reduce the arsenal.
We all want peace. The problem is the process. However, now there is a new element in the process. The Leader of my Party rose in the House this morning and indicated that on January 7 and January 8, 1985 the two superpowers have decided to meet without preconditions to review the situation on nuclear disarmament. We should welcome this opportunity. I am sure the people who proposed the resolution at the United Nations had that in mind. They wanted to ensure that the superpowers came together and made a move which would give some relief to the anxiety of the people of the world.
When my Leader rose this morning, he made a proposition indicating that we should give to the superpowers an agenda which will lead to peace and disarmament. It was a very good move to which we are happy to subscribe. I am sure all Members of the House are able to subscribe to it.
There is massive new development. It was not easy for us in government to agree to the policies of the past. With the build-up in the U.S.S.R. and the deployment of SS-20s in Europe, the western world was suffering from a lack of

December 10, 1984
Supply
deployment. We accepted the two-track policy after the suffocation policy of Mr. Trudeau was not accepted. We realized that we had to let the Pershing and Cruise missiles be deployed in Europe. Now the deployment has taken place, the U.S.S.R. realizes that NATO countries can be together when it is important. We are in a new era as a result of what happened in the last month when the two major powers decided to return to the negotiating table.
This is why we offered in the amendment we proposed on behalf of Canadians an agenda for freezing acceleration in nuclear armament and an agenda which will lead not only to a freeze but to the eventual goal which we all have in mind- disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament which is so threatening to the world.
I should like to propose a new amendment to the House this afternoon in an attempt to obtain as much of a consensus as possible. As my Leader said this morning, we would like to propose an agenda for the peace talks which will start again in January. In our anxiety to put forward a new agenda, and not wanting to deny all that had been said, we proposed a motion, which unfortunately the Speaker ruled out of order. My new motion will guarantee that our intentions are all-inclusive. We subscribe to the intention of the motion of the NDP. We want disarmament. We want a bilateral freeze, not a unilateral one. We want the two superpowers to agree to a freeze. A freeze has to be verifiable, otherwise it does not exist. That was the intention of the United Nations resolution. However, if we express that ourselves, it has to take a realistic form. The realistic form has to be in the agenda which the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) proposed this morning.
I should like to reintroduce in an acceptable fashion the motion which my Leader presented this morning. Hopefully it will be acceptable. I will explain it later if I have some time remaining, but now I will read it for the record. I propose, seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray),:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words following the words "on a nuclear arms freeze" in the second to last paragraph of the motion and by adding the following:
"and, noting that the resumption of arms talks by the Soviet Union and the United States in Geneva in early 1985 announced by the superpowers on November 22, subsequent to the presentation of the above resolution at the United Nations significantly alters the political situation on which the resolution is based and constitutes an effective first-step in the achievement of the two objectives to be attained in the declaration of a nuclear freeze, calls upon the government to adopt as policy the intent of the whole resolution by urging that the meeting of the two nuclear superpowers have on its agenda the negotiation of limits on their nuclear arsenals, a mutually verifiable freeze and significant reduction; a strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; a renewed emphasis on the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna; the encouragement of political emphasis on the Stockholm conference; a moving up of the date of the United Nations special session on disarmament now scheduled for 1986; an international agreement to ban the testing and deployment of high-altitude anti-satellite weapons; and the refining and improvement of nuclear weapons verification techniques."
Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the amendment in French, which I would like to submit to the House.
I feel that the Official Opposition is actually proposing a new agenda that addresses the situation as it is today without concentrating on past problems. Personally, I think we now have a chance to review our positions in the light of this new development. Who would have thought six months ago that the superpowers would be meeting in January 1985 to make a fresh start? And why should we, in Parliament, not be willing to look at a new approach to disarmament? I think that is what Canadians want. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has been very positive on that point in his speech at Antigon-ish. This is the only debate we have. In my opinion, the House missed a golden opportunity to say clearly to the Canadian people that we want, as soon as possible, to see an end to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in this stupid race which does not appear to end. It cannot be done without prior conditions. That is why we are proposing in the resolution that the first item on the agenda of the superpowers that are to meet in January be a freeze acceptable to both parties and verifiable as well by both parties.
That would be the starting point of negotiations in other fields of disarmament. But if the agenda of the two superpowers could be accepted in the words proposed by the Leader of the Opposition-it faithfully reflects the intent of the resolution introduced at the UN, but it also advocates something positive for the future-I think we now have before the House an agenda which is much more positive and much clearer, and which is consistent with the new situation which did not exist at the time of the UN resolution, when the wish expressed was that the superpowers meet and offer the world a new solution.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the motion I have just proposed will be accepted, for the issue is so complex that we want the same resolution to reflect the intent of the UN resolution, but we also want to add a concrete mechanism, in keeping with today's reality. I would suggest that, if the House were to adopt the proposition of my party, I mean the motion of the New Democratic Party as amended by the Leader of the Opposition, we would be making a worthwhile contribution.
During the last election campaign and the few months before, because of certain events you are familiar with, I met with hundreds of Canadians during my party's leadership race and during the election campaign in my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I have to say that the disarmament issue was raised all the time. More fascinating and more important still, the issue was invariably raised first by younger people in our society, students who were concerned about the future of both Canada and the whole world. We can spend hours and days in the House trying to find ways to reduce inflation by one or two points or lower the unemployment rate by five or six points, but all that will prove fruitless unless we find a way to eliminate the danger which is threatening all nations the world over.
As I pointed out earlier, both sides now have nuclear arsenals which are more destructive than thousands of times
December 10, 1984

the Hiroshima striking power. If ever there should come a day when, through error, indifference or inadvertence, a nuclear war breaks out, we will have failed in our responsibilities. That is why I think this debate was very important, and I would urge both the NDP and the government to endorse our motion which does take full consideration of the intent of the UN resolution, but in a concrete, positive and challenging agenda for the meeting of the two superpowers next January 7 and 8. I hope the House will accept the amendment I have just moved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Having had the opportunity to consider the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), I rule that it is in order. I submit it, therefore, to the House in the following fashion:
Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Gray (Windsor West), moved:

Shall I dispence?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) a question. He will know, of course, that the nuclear freeze resolution at the United Nations has come up each year. Indeed, in the last several years it has come up while talks were going on, either INF or START talks. I therefore wonder why he feels that somehow the whole idea of a nuclear freeze should not be pursued simply because talks are once again to go on. I just do not understand. We have had debates at the UN on the nuclear freeze every year. Indeed, the UN is debating the matter again. As the Hon. Member knows, it will be coming up this week or next week. I just wonder why he feels there is something so vastly different with talks beginning in January when we have had talks every year that we have been debating the nuclear freeze. We want a nuclear freeze.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my remarks that we are in favour of a nuclear freeze. If you read our amendment carefully, you will note that we mention a nuclear freeze, but only as a first step towards disarmament. And that is the problem we have been faced with whenever we have had to deal with the position of the NDP who feel that a nuclear freeze is the solution. It is not the solution, because we would end up with the same situation as we have just now. There are now too many nuclear weapons and we would give to the public a false sense of security if we insisted only on a strict nuclear freeze. There are just too many. With the existing weapons, we could all get killed a hundred times over.
And we refuse to give people a false sense of security. We mean to say ... I fully support the notion that we must begin somewhere. We now have a motion dealing with a resolution aimed at convincing the superpowers to use a nuclear freeze as
Supply
a first step toward disarmament, but we should not be satisfied with the idea, which I have too often met in my discussions with people concerned with this problem, that a nuclear freeze is the whole solution. The whole solution it is not, for it is only the first step toward the solution which is nuclear disarmament and not nuclear freeze.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister, because of his preamble to an amendment which has not yet been ruled on, argues that the announcement of talks possibly getting under way again significantly alters the political situation. I am saying to the former Minister that there is no significant alteration in the situation. The talks have gone on before. Let us face it, they were mostly deadly gambits. So why can the former Minister not accept the present United Nations resolution as he has already agreed it is the first step? Then, if we can get support for the intent, which he speaks of in his amendment, why can we not have the Government do what we have suggested, which is to support the resolution itself, not just the intent, but the resolution itself? Then, we can move on to all the other matters, many of which would be covered by a freeze. Why can we not have a straightforward support of the UN resolution, not just its intend, but the resolution itself?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the problem with which we must cope is the politicking of the NDP on the resolution, rather than having a clearcut resolution. The NDP introduced a political element in stating that it condemned everything which had been done in the past by the previous administration. It is very easy for the Hon. Member to get up and appeal to my best instincts, which are so numerous, but, she is just playing politics with terrible problems such as nuclear disarmament.
We have to cope with the problem which has been given to the House by the NDP which is playing politics with disarmament. My amendment has tried to cope with that political problem. The House unanimously approved the peace mission of former Prime Minister Trudeau. It was a denial of that end other initiatives which were taken, such as the suffocation policies, which were supported by the House. But, the NDP again wants to play politics with war and peace. So we proposed a resolution, which was within the intent of the UN resolution, to establish a positive agenda for future development in disarmament talks around the world.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, as a new Member I am having great difficulty in understanding the argument of the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien). He says the New Democratic Party was playing politics by the insertion-


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) said that this morning.

December 10, 1984
Supply


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am sorry. If the Hon. Member would listen to what I am saying, then perhaps we could debate what I am saying rather than some presumption of what I am saying.
It has been suggested, both in this House and outside the Chamber, that the only reason for rejecting the New Democratic Party's proposition was that in the last phrase it suggested that we reject the policy of the previous administration. That does not justify the complete butchering of the resolution. At this stage of the game we are dealing with politics superimposed upon politics, and the proper resolution is for us to adopt the resolution of the New Democratic Party.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was to be helped by this intervention! The NDP motion, in fact, could be put in three lines. One line would accept the resolution and the rest would deal with the problem of blaming the previous administration for many of its initiatives which have been supported. Now the Hon. Member is complaining because there is a procedural difficulty which was created by the NDP. It wants to make some political points in the debate. We had to deal with that situation this morning, when the amendment, which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, was rejected by the Speaker. We wanted to incorporate into the debate the agenda for future talks. It was the only way we could do it.
If the NDP, rather than playing politics earlier today, had limited its resolution to what the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) is asking at this time, that perhaps would have been a bigger problem for us. Now we have to cope with that. As we have done traditionally, we will come up with something positive rather than play politics. That is exactly what we have done, and the NDP will have to live with it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, one hesitates to enter a debate about political hypocrisy with the Liberal Party.
It seems to me that the motion which we have placed on the Order Paper effectively asks the House of Commons to do what no Government in Canada-whether that of the Liberal Party or that of the new Government of the Right Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Mulroney)-has been prepared to do, that is, to vote along with the great majority of other countries in the United Nations for the specific commitment to a nuclear freeze. I would ask the Hon. Member Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) if in fact he is not-in his attempt to obscure the past record of his Government-the one who is really playing politics with this issue.
The Liberal Party should be prepared to stand up, as it did when it was in power, and admit that it would not vote for the United Nations resolution. It is not politics on our part, it is the politics of that Party when it was in government. Does the former Minister not have the honesty to admit that it was the politics of his Party when it was in government and therefore it should be the position which it is forced to hold when out of government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is easy for me to reply

[Translation}


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I must remind the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) that he has only two minutes left.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Fine, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to limit myself with two minutes.

I would like to reply to the Member. It was not me who started to talk about the motion being too political; it was his own House Leader who said that in this House a few minutes ago. When he was speaking on the Speaker's ruling, he said that the last line should not have been there. It is not our doing. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) said the same thing. It is not I who said it. I am just stating what they said. We want disarmament. We want a freeze. We say that in our resolution. We want a freeze to be agreed upon immediately by the superpowers.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: You voted against it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No. If the Hon. Member read my motion, he would see that we are proposing-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Your motion does not say that. I have read the amendment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, I am sorry that I am not very good, but the Member must read the resolution. I am sure the Member has not read the amendment. Read it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He's just like Crosbie. He never reads the document.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, he is just like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) who never reads his documents. He can read it and after that he can ask his question. Again, the poor NDP is playing politics. It had a chance to do something positive but could not resist the perpetual temptation to play politics with everything including peace.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 begin by saying that this day had been quite an education for a new Member. It has been a day not marked particularly by courtesy in the House. It is a day when we seem to be more content with hooting and hollering than in addressing the significant issue which is before us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: Although I have been on my feet in the House before, this is my first opportunity to speak at length. I have looked forward to this occasion for some weeks.
Before discussing the resolution, I would like to congratulate the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on his return to the House. Thousands of Canadians were sorry to see him leave Parliament eight years ago, including me.
December 10, 1984

The issue before us is significant to all Canadians. It is an issue which was discussed at some length during the election campaign, and it continues to occupy our thoughts.
I hope I will be forgiven, since this is my first opportunity to say something about Guelph, if I inform this House of some of the background of my community. Such background will help Hon. Members understand the position I take on this and many other issues. Guelph is the county seat for Wellington. It began as an agricultural centre and, I am delighted to say, Mr. Speaker, that it retains much of that soundness and common sense today. Guelph is surrounded by an agricultural area and has a diversity which is envied by most people. It has a sense of history and is a place of beauty. We even have a correctional institution to house those people who come from other parts of the province. We also have a university which has been actively involved in this particular issue. Our university was the site of one of the main peace and disarmament conferences over the past 12 months.
I believe the people of Canada want an end to nuclear weapons. They want peace and they want disarmament. However, the natural caution of most Canadians dictates that we do not want a freeze which has the possibility of harming our strategic position.
I would like to address one specific element in this discussion, namely, verification. In an era of suspicion and uncertainty, nations are unlikely to accede to agreements affecting their own national security without some adequate means of assurance that other signatories will indeed live up to the terms of their agreement. An arms control agreement is essentially an agreement between states to undertake restrictive measures. Since the benefit to each state arises from the compliance of the other, there is, of course, mutual advantage. In simple terms, Mr. Speaker, verification is the means by which such assurance is given to the other states. Consequently, the nature of the verification measures associated with the arms control agreements is of vital importance. The Swedish-Mexican freeze resolution, unlike the other two freeze resolutions at the United Nations, does address the problem of verification in greater detail. The resolution calls for appropriate measures and procedures of verifications such as those which have already been agreed to by the Parties in principle in SALT I and SALT II.
Ignoring the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution is declaratory and thus does not envisage the necessary negotiations of verification measures, there are elements called for in the resolution which simply are not verifiable under the suggested verification procedure. The SALT I and SALT II agreements deal with anti-ballistics missile systems with intercontinental ballistic missiles and with heavy bombers. It is relatively easy to verify the deployment or testing of these major weapons systems by national technical means. Indeed, non-intrusive national technical means are generally adequate to monitor fixed ICBM sites, the number and locations of heavy bombers and the number of submarines actually
Supply
deployed. However, these methods are totally inadequate to monitor tactical nuclear weapons systems or dual use weapons delivery systems which we have today.
Furthermore, countries must still come to grips with how to verify submarine launch Cruise missiles and Cruise missiles which are deployed on surface ships. Stronger verification methods will be needed in order to ensure a ban on deployment and production of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
It is a fact of life, Mr. Speaker, that in the world of arms control and disarmament, the need for verification is based on suspicion. To imply that disarmament should be based on mere trust or confidence, or even on less than adequate verification measures, is not realistic. It is the view of this Government that the need for adequate verification in arms control agreements is too important for national security for us to accept the partial measures proposed in the freeze resolution.
I did not know last Thursday evening when I hosted the dinner of an international conference on the verification issue in the context of arms control negotiations in Europe, that the subject of that seminar would be raised in the House the following day. For two days last week, several persons from the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands and, of course, Canada, met to study this issue. Our own contribution to verification is an important one, one which I wish more Canadians knew about. We are interested in this area. We are active participants in the research on verification, particularly on what is needed to reach verification agreements between parties. We start from the assumption that no agreement will be lasting without an agreed upon level of verification, and those levels depend upon the technology available and the degree of intrusiveness allowed by participating countries. Not all verification, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, can be accomplished by technological means. Unfortunately, for some purposes, the verification must be an on-site inspection.
A freeze on testing, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps the most likely option to begin the nuclear reduction process. However, even here the verification means is only suitable for relatively large test units. It should come as no surprise to any Hon. Member of this House that we are indeed divided on this issue. Each of us approaches it from a different perspective. As a veteran of World War II, I want to work for peace while remaining strong. I do not look for a quick solution to this difficult and perplexing problem. It has taken us 40 years to get ourselves into this mess. It may well take 40 years to remove the weapons, the fear and the suspicion from all of our hearts and minds.
Let us not vote for United Nations resolutions which cannot be enforced. What compliance system could be used to verify a ban on production and delivery systems? I remind Hon. Members of this House that the Cruise, which we hear so often discussed, is a delivery system. People talk about it as if it were some kind of weapon in itself. The U.S.S.R. has repeatedly refused to accept on-site inspections. Yet we know that is what is required if one of these resolutions of the United Nations is to succeed. Despite the good intent of the motion, it does not,

December 10, 1984
Supply
in my opinion, provide the assurance of verification which Canadians demand.
A few days ago I brought to the attention of this House the recent statement of the Aspen Institute International Group called Managing East-West Conflict. It does not promote dramatic win or lose situations. It is a sober, simple, long-range statement that addresses the tensions of the world and how to reduce them. Surely that is what this debate should be about. Reduce those tensions and the rest will follow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rising on a question or a comment?


George Albert Proud: I must say I am very much impressed by the quality of the speech delivered by the new Chairman of the Committee for External Affairs and National Defence. This is a committee which is very dear to me, having been a member for 20 years and a chairman for eight years.
One of the questions I would like to ask my hon. colleague and new Chairman is this: Does he intend-not that I require a final answer today-but the Committee for External Affairs and National Defence has published a book that is most interesting for those who are concerned with disarmament and security. We worked for months, we heard witnesses from all parts of Canada, and also from abroad, including the Soviet Union-the Committee was keenly interested in Mr. Arbatov's evidence-and we made recommendations.
We did not have that much follow-up, because of all sorts of events, but I would like to ask the new Chairman of the Committee for External Affairs and National Defence whether he intends to follow up on the recommendations that were made directly to the Government, and especially to the foreign affairs commission-and, to give a concrete example, a followup on the United Nations' First and Second Conferences on Disarmament-to extract from the deliberations of that Conference the main resolutions and bring them back in order that there should be in fact not just a follow-up, but some concern on the part of Members of Parliament-I appreciate those matters are not of interest to all Hon. Members-but that we may have a follow-up because I am in total agreement with him.
Regardless of all our discussions today, Mr. Speaker, and apart from the fact that we are divided on the question of whether the previous administration should be blamed, or the policy changed, what is important is to get the two superpowers to sit down, irrespective of whatever may be done in this Parliament and in all other Parliaments in the world, if we cannot convince the two superpowers that, for the sake of world sanity, it is time that the two of them should get together, sit down, and discuss without preconditions.
What worries me is that President Reagan, our distinguished neighbour-because when we refer to the United States all the relevant qualifications must be added, our friends and so on and so forth; this is obvious, but still it must be said in case people have any doubts-however I am a bit frightened by the anti-Soviet rhetoric comparing the Soviet Union with the devil, with a monster, certainly does not help reduce world tensions. I am convinced of it. What we should try to do, and I do not want to take the Hon. Member by surprise by asking him a question without warning, even though I know that he already has an opinion on the matter, is to have the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence contribute to greater public awareness and understanding of the issue, first in Canada, and then world-wide, to bring the two super-powers to the negotiation table without imposing political preconditions.
This is indeed the wish of the International Parliamentary Union which I shall be presiding until tomorrow when a new chairman will be chosen. The International Parliamentary Union, to which we regularly send twice a year representatives of our various parties, has always supported for the past three years, that is since Budapest, Korea, Nigeria, Lagos, the Lagos Conference, the Seoul Conference, in South Korea, and the Budapest Conference, the wish of parliamentarians throughout the world that the two super-powers come to the negotiation table without imposing any preconditions. I wish every success to the new chairman of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and I hope that we shall be able in this Committee to discuss the issues I have just mentioned. My only question, which is quite short, would be to ask him whether he intends to look at these many resolutions.

If I may put it the other way, perhaps the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence could look back at its final report to the House of Commons, including the minority views expressed by some Members, so that they could be implemented by the, if I may say, Hon. Members' committee.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his good wishes. I hope I am slightly ahead of him in this matter. I have read the report, I have been in conversation with Ambassador Roche, and he has agreed to speak to the committee any time that we wish him to do so, and to review with us some of those recommendations and give us his good advice. I believe we will be doing that and, furthermore, if it is not part of the major foreign policy review, we will be doing it as a committee in any case.


George Albert Proud: Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. I spoke to the Hon. Member before, so I am not taking him by surprise. Does he have any news to announce to the House? Would this great and important policy review on foreign affairs be made by a special committee of the House of Commons or by his own committee?
December 10, 1984


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that at the present time. It is still a matter of some discussion. The committee has made its feelings known to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the chairman of the committee and the Minister are still in discussion on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I might just remind the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that the questions should be related to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard), not necessarily to what is going on in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I participate in this debate today and speak in support of the motion by the New Democratic Party. The motion asks basically two things. It asks the Government to adopt a position in support of a nuclear freeze and, in doing so, make a definite split with the program put forward by the previous Government. That program, if it was not schizophrenic, certainly worked against the wishes of many people in Canada, and I think it caused concern around the world.
The resolution supports a statement by the United Nations that basically asks for a nuclear arms freeze. It would be subject, of course, to verification and it would be for a five-year duration. In the process of asking the Government to adopt this particular policy, we want a very clear statement on the part of the Conservative Government that it accepts these goals and that it will rationally pursue them in Canada.
There are sound reasons for this, Mr. Speaker. After the Conservative Government authorized our representatives at the United Nations to vote against this particular nuclear freeze motion, the explanations given by the Government were rather schizophrenic. The Government's opposition, I think, is rather ill-conceived and ill-founded, and many people have expressed the same feeling. It is interesting that Mr. Roche made some comments about why the Government did it. He suggested that the reason it voted against the motion was not that it disagreed with it but, rather, that it was a question of the practicality of the concept. There was no point in supporting simply a declaratory effort at the United Nations; it would have no effect, and certainly would not lead to constructive alternatives. He also indicated that he was opposed to it because there was no provision for dealing with peaceful nuclear explosions.
This is complete nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Any declaratory effort or any effort whatsoever that moves the world one inch closer to nuclear disarmament is worth making. It is almost immoral not to take a position in support of this. It is incomprehensible that the Government should have authorized the country's representatives at the United Nations to vote against the motion unless one accepts the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). If we
Supply
accept his statement, we begin to understand why the Government voted against such a logical and important motion.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said he did not want to lose his influence in NATO. It strikes me and my Party and many people in Canada that we do not have any influence in NATO. The United States, in fact, reserves the right to act unilaterally in the defence of western Europe. If something arises in western Europe, we will not be consulted. If we are lucky, we may be informed after the event, but we certainly do not have the influence that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is attempting to suggest to justify this.
He is also suggesting that he does not want to lose his influence with the United States. Again, I do not believe that the Government has any influence with the United States. I think the United States tells the Government of Canada what to do, when to do it, and how much to do. I think the previous Liberal administration, run by the former Prime Minister, followed the same course of activity. There were occasional schizophrenic outbursts, with attempts at disciplinary action by the United States, then he would fall back into line. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the kind of influence that Canadians want within NATO. The United States would follow unilateral action without its NATO allies. The western European defence community has stated in the past that it will act unilaterally in defence of western Europe. Ultimately, voting against a nuclear freeze is not going to cause us to lose whatever influence we do have. I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Government authorized its representatives to vote against it.
The communication between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Government with the officials at the UN was obviously not very clear. That is an extremely unusual thing to do and I believe that the Conservative Government will pay dearly in political terms for this. There is an enormous number of people in the country who want to have a nuclear freeze and nuclear disarmament. They go to bed at night in fear of what the end result of failing to take positive action on this is going to be. There will be political repercussions.
The briefings that they are giving to people at the United Nations would not lead Canadians to have very much confidence in what is happening. The ambassador for disarmament has stood up and made comments which are virtually ludicrous. He has stood up and said that there is no point in supporting a declaratory statement. He has said that we cannot vote for a declaration of a nuclear freeze because we are afraid of peaceful nuclear explosions and other technical details. That is complete nonsense. Someone, whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs or someone in the Prime Minister's Office, is not giving our officials at the United Nations a clear briefing on what is expected of them. The Minister must be prepared to stand up and take the political consequences of saying that if we vote for the nuclear freeze, the Americans are going to be mad at us and our NATO allies might be mad at us and we are therefore afraid to take a proper action. If they have not got the guts to stand

December 10, 1984
Supply
up and vote for something that is morally correct and appropriate given the times we are facing, then they should admit that they do not have the guts to vote for this because Canada is afraid of criticism.
Unfortunately, I do not think that anyone in the Government has thought out very clearly the approach that we should be taking. The motion put forward by the New Democratic Party today states very clearly what should be done. The Conservative Government should adopt as policy the motion put forward by the group at the United Nations. It should make a very clear statement that it is going to stop the kind of schizophrenic activity that the previous Liberal Government was involved in.
I would like to take a few minutes to review some of the activities of the previous administration because it ties into the amendment. The previous administration decided to test the Cruise missile. It took the flak for it across the country. I heard a Member of the Conservative Party say that this really does not involve nuclear weapons as it is only a delivery system. If it delivers a nuclear bomb which is designed to kill and destroy, then certainly it is a part of the nuclear freeze concept. Any weapon or any machinery that delivers or produces a weapon must be considered in a comprehensive nuclear freeze. The previous Liberal administration took the position that it was in favour of testing the Cruise missile. It allowed the construction of components of the nuclear weapons delivery system and, if I am not mistaken, of the weapons themselves. Today the Liberals talk of supporting nuclear freezes, but the past administration was not so inclined.
There are other aspects that were of serious concern. There were enormous demonstrations in Vancouver and other parts of the country. The presence of American vessels carrying nuclear weapons and the over-flying of Canada by American aircraft armed with nuclear weapons certainly are matters of serious concern. The previous Liberal Government of Canada was delaying to the point where it was ludicrous. It allowed the presence of American weapons on Canadian soil. A 1.5 megaton warhead on a Genie missile was fired from a Voodoo-an outdated aircraft, an outdated missile, and a completely outdated concept of defence.
It may pay to review how far out of touch that previous administration was, as were administrations prior to it. A Voodoo dating back to something like 1954 and this Genie missile with the 1.5 megaton warhead were thought to be useful in shooting a missile into incoming fleets of Russian bombers that were flying in formation over the north. Later on it was pointed out that there was only one propeller-driven Russian aircraft that was even capable of making that particular flight. It does not happen that way anymore. A committee in the United States Senate pointed out years ago that the concept was completely obsolete and that it obviously was there for alternative motives. Unfortunately, that administration adopted and continued with what essentially was an obsolete defence system. It was supportive of the manufacture of components into nuclear weapons delivery systems and nuclear weapons. It permitted nuclear armed aircraft to fly
over Canada and nuclear armed American vessels to enter Canadian harbours. Finally, it agreed with the testing of the Cruise missile. These facts should be placed clearly on the record. So I welcome the change in position of the present members of the Liberal Party, a change that advocates support for a nuclear freeze.
I believe, however, that the House should adopt our motion so that this Parliament can make a new start that will be divorced from the positions taken by past administrations. That new beginning can start with the support of a nuclear freeze. The members of the Official Opposition have ample opportunity to support the motion before us today in this new session of Parliament. In our motion we demand that the Government support a nuclear freeze and all its subsidiary requirements. In our motion we ask for a definite Canadian policy on a nuclear freeze that would break from the previous administration's approach to it.
Let me comment on the proposed amendment. I suggest that this amendment put forward by that Liberal group today would change the complete intent of what we are trying to do here. The United Nations resolution makes clear what we want to support. The final statement of our motion calls upon the Government to adopt it as policy. We clearly set out who should adopt this policy and which agency is responsible for enforcing it.
Third, we make it clear that we want to reject the policies of the previous administration in relation to the nuclear freeze and its various aspects. I suggest that to adopt the amendment would destroy completely the intent to make a new beginning that Canadians would like to see Parliament achieve.
Our motion does not have a political intent but, rather, one that has the clear goal of establishing a new direction and beginning. I hear some Liberal Members muttering with discontent, but I suggest we have held out the olive branch for them to join us in a new beginning.
It is significant that the amendment was proposed by the artful dodger, the Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien). He stands up cunningly in the House to paint a picture that would make us believe that black is white and white is black. He has inferred that our Party is engaged in some political game, but I would refer him to debates which took place in the House when he was on the other side. He swore to one position then with regard to the Cruise missile debate, but we see him trying to adopt another position today.
Surely this amendment does not fit the circumstances and absolutely denies the intent of our motion. I believe that we have a valid and legitimate goal, which is to encourage the Government with the support of the Liberal Opposition, to adopt a policy of nuclear freeze that will mark a new beginning of change. It will signal that this is a different Parliament with a different administration that will not follow the rather schizophrenic aspects of the previous administration.
We have heard much detail about the various aspects of nuclear freeze, including technicalities and hypothetical situa-
December 10, 1984

tions that may arise. When this Parliament commenced, I began a file on people from my riding who have written with respect to nuclear disarmament issues. These people from the riding of Comox-Powell River have expressed concern and their belief that the Government should act quickly to support disarmament and a nuclear freeze and look seriously at the peace tax proposals.
Every day an increasing number of Canadians are becoming seriously concerned about nuclear disarmament. When they hear the message from our Ambassador for nuclear Disarmament and the contradictory message from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, combined with the silence from Ministers opposite who should be clarifying a solid position on disarmament, those signals do not instil confidence in the people of Comox-Powell River or in other communities in the country about what the Government is doing.
I cannot pass up this opportunity to comment on the position of the provincial Government of British Columbia with respect to the nuclear-freeze aspect. There is a belief that this is solely a federal Government problem. However, there are villages, towns and cities in the Comox-Powell River riding in which there have been referendums asking their citizens how they felt about the testing of the Cruise missile. In many cases, 80 per cent of the citizens in those communities were absolutely opposed to that testing. In other referendums they have been asked for their opinion about a nuclear-free zone. When those citizens realized that the Government would not take an acceptable position in this respect, they asked their local representatives to declare their area a nuclear-free zone. The village of Gold River is an example. The inhabitants have presented a petition to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stating that Gold River would be delcared a nuclear-free zone and that he should act to make all of Canada a nuclear-free zone.
The Province of British Columbia refused to allow the Sunshine Coast regional district to erect a sign stating that the district, by it own declaration, has been declared a nuclear-free zone. The provincial Government's role in this incident is almost ridiculous. It is almost a mirror image of the present Government in the length to which it went not to allow that sign to be posted. It is absolutely ludicrous. Nevertheless, those citizens will not forget that at the time of the next election. It will come back to haunt the Government.
In the time I have left, let me reiterate that the motion before the House today should be supported by every Member. It asks the Government to adopt definitely a solid moral position on the nuclear freeze. Let us make a break with the past so that Canadians will receive a signal that the Government and Parliament are convinced about the direction in which the country should be moving, and that the Government will separate itself from the past administration's schizophrenic and occasional negative approach to this issue.
I strongly believe that the amendment moved by the Official Opposition will totally destroy the intent of our motion. I hope it will be disallowed so that we could proceed to a vote on the resolution before us.
Supply


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Hon. Member and other New Democratic Party Members throughout the day, I have been impressed how he, like his colleagues, has spoken about a verifiable freeze without ever indicating or hinting how that verification would be established. This is really the nub of the matter. All the hopes of humanity for nuclear disarmament, since the atomic age began, have foundered on the possibility thus far of achieving some acceptable method of verification. For example, the United States has demanded onsite inspection. This has been consistently rejected by the Soviet Union. Neither side has been willing to trust the other with manning such on-site inspection teams. Without that there is no sure hope of finding an acceptable method of verification. It is true that in recent years methods have been developed by which there could be some verification via outer space and by satellite, but that is not adequate, Mr. Speaker. We have to have on-sight inspection if we are to have some verification of further production of nuclear weapons.
We have to think of something new. I am disappointed that the New Democratic Party did not live up to its name and give us some new thoughts, such as multinational monitoring of nuclear weapons production and testing so that we could have some verification by neutral non-nuclear powers that might be acceptable to the Soviet Union and to the United States. It has been a very great disappointment to me that the New Democratic Party would call upon the Parliament of Canada to endorse a nuclear freeze and call it a verifiable freeze without giving us any clear indication of how we and the country could expect that verification to be established.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, apparently 111 nations did not feel in committee at the United Nations the same way as the previous speaker. They felt that the application of the systems of surveillance, verification and control already agreed upon in some previous cases would be sufficient to provide a reasonable guarantee of faithful compliance with the undertaking derived from the freeze. That is the first thing.
Second, we should not try to obscure the key point, as the resolution points out to the country in the form of a debate, that the Conservative Party authorized its representatives at the United Nations to vote against the freeze. The previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), said it was a problem of verification. The Ambassador said he had two other different reasons, a problem with peaceful nuclear explosions, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) says the reason he did not allow it to be voted for was that he was afraid of the United Nations and his NATO allies. What is it, Mr. Speaker? The Conservatives have to sit down and get their game together.
In response to the Hon. Member I will say that there is no doubt that the representatives of 111 nations felt confident enough to support this freeze with the verification methods available and in place today. Certainly there is an element of good faith; certainly a freeze. There is enough power available to blow the world to smithereens. The freeze does not put

December 10, 1984
Supply
anyone else in a serious position. Nevertheless, that was the feeling. What the Conservative Government has to do is to get its house in order. We have three speakers, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and our Ambassador, directed by the Government, coming up with three different, completely unrelated stories. The responsibility lies with the Conservatives to support this motion today and to make a new beginning.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, just in the last minute or two before the vote, I think it is important to address an issue raised by the previous speaker who said that people in this country-there is no question, people right across the country-are interested in finding some solution to the horrendous problem facing us. The approach taken by the NDP is not the way to do it.


Ian Deans: How do you know?


Lloyd Axworthy: Here we have an amendment on the floor which provides an opportunity for all Parties to take a nonpartisan approach and agree that one of the most important events is the coming together of the United States and the Soviet Union to make an agreement and to start new negotiations. This is an opportunity for this Parliament to speak on behalf of Canadians and represent their interests in a non-partisan way. This is a very rare and important opportunity. But here they stand posturing and saying, "Well, it is far more important to endorse the freeze", which has been superseded already by events-


Ian Deans: Not at all.


Lloyd Axworthy: -and by the willingness.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: And if new Democrats knew anything about their history-


Mr. Blaikie:: You are full of it, Axworthy.


Lloyd Axworthy: Obviously they do not know much about their history because they are the ones failing this country by not supporting this amendment.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 62(10).

The question is the following one. Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Gray (Windsor West), moves:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words following the words "on a nuclear arms freeze" in the second to last paragraph of the motion and by adding the following:
"and, noting that the resumption of arms talks by the Soviet Union and the
United States in Geneva in early 1985 announced by the superpowers on
November 22, subsequent to the presentation of the above resolution at the United Nations significantly alters the political situation on which the resolution is based and constitutes an effective first-step in the achievement of the two objectives to be attained in the declaration of a nuclear freeze, calls upon the government to adopt as policy the intent of the whole resolution by urging that the meeting of the two nuclear superpowers have on its agenda the negotiation of limits on their nuclear arsenals, a mutually verifiable freeze and significant reduction; a strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; a renewed emphasis on the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna; the encouragement of political emphasis on the Stockholm conference; a moving up of the date of the United Nations special session on disarmament now scheduled for 1986; an international agreement to ban the testing and deployment of high-altitude anti-satellite weapons; and the refining and improvement of nuclear weapons verfication techniques."
All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The question is on the main motion. Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That this House takes note of the following United Nations Resolution:
REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE CONCLUDING DOCUMENT OF THE TWELFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 38/73 E ON A NUCLEAR-ARMS FREEZE
Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sweden and Uruguay: draft resolution
Nuclear-arms freeze
The General Assembly,
Recalling that in the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly, the first special session devoted to disarmament, adopted in 1978 and unanimously and categorically reaffirmed in 1982 during the twelfth special session of the General Assembly, its second special session devoted to disarmament, the Assembly expressed deep concern over the threat to the very survival of mankind posed by the existence of nuclear weapons and the continuing arms race.
Recalling also that on those occasions, it pointed out that existing arsenals of nuclear weapons are more than sufficient to destroy all life on earth and
Supply
stressed that mankind is therefore confronted with a choice: halt the arms race and proceed to disarmament or face annihilation.
Noting that the conditions prevailing today are a source of even more serious concern than those existing in 1978 because of several factors, such as the deterioration of the international situation, the increase in the accuracy, speed and destructive power of nuclear weapons, the promotion of illusory doctrines of "limited" or "winnable" nuclear war and the many false alarms which have occurred owing to accidental reasons.
Noting also that the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi in March 1983, declared that the renewed escalation in the nuclear-arms race, both in its quantitative and qualitative dimensions, as well as reliance on doctrines of nuclear deterrence, has heightened the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war and led to greater insecurity and instability in international relations,
Bearing in mind that in their Joint Declaration issued on 22 May, 1984, the Heads of Government of six Member States of the United Nations, coming from five different continents, urged the nuclear-weapon States "as a necessary First step... to halt all testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems",
Believing that it is a matter of the utmost urgency to stop any further increase in the awesome arsenals of the two major nuclear-weapon States, which already have ample retaliatory power and a frightening overkill capacity.
Believing also that it is equally urgent to initiate or resume negotiations for the substantial reduction and qualitative limitation of nuclear arms.
Considering that a nuclear-arms freeze, while not an end in itself, would constitute the most effective first step for the achievement of the above-mentioned two objectives, since it would encourage the initiation or resumption of negotiations and prevent the continued increase and qualitative improvement of existing nuclear weaponry during the period when the negotiations would take place,
Firmly convinced that at present the conditions are most propitious for such a freeze, since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America are now equivalent in nuclear military power and it seems evident that there exists between them an overall rough parity,
Conscious that the application of the systems of surveillance, verification and control already agreed upon in some previous cases would be sufficient to provide a reasonable guarantee of faithful compliance with the undertakings derived from the freeze.
Convinced that it would be to the benefit of all other States possessing nuclear weapons to follow the example of the two major nuclear-weapon States,
1.	Urges once more the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, as the two major nuclear-weapon States, to proclaim, either through simultaneous unilateral declarations or through a joint declaration, an immediate nuclear-arms freeze, which would be a first step towards the comprehensive programme of disarmament and whose structure and scope would be the following:
(a)	It would embrace:
(i)	A comprehensive test ban of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(ii)	The complete cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(iii)	A ban on all further deployment of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles;
(iv)	The complete cessation of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes;
(b)	It would be subject to appropriate measures and procedures of verification, such as those which have already been agreed by the parties in the case of the SALT I and SALT II treaties, and those agreed upon in principle by them during the preparatory trilateral negotiations on the comprehensive test ban held at Geneva;
(c)	It would be of an initial five-year duration, subject to prolongation when other nuclear-weapon States join in such a freeze, as the General Assembly urges them to do;
1086

December 10, 1984
Supply
2.	Notes with satisfaction that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have already submitted the report requested in General Assembly resolution 38/73 Eof 15 December 1983;
3.	Hopes that the other major nuclear-weapon State will find it possible to comply also with the request of the General Assembly before the closure of its thirty-ninth session;
4.	Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fortieth session an item entitled "Implementation of General Assembly resolution 39/... on a nuclear-arms freeze".
and calls upon the Government to adopt it as policy thereby rejecting the position of the previous administration.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1984-85
Henry Perrin Beatty: That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, laid upon the Table Wednesday, November 7, 1984, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
December 10, 1984
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Beatty thereupon moved that Bill C-16 an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
Mr. Beatty thereupon moved that Bill C-16, an Act for granting for Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is usual at this point for the responsible Minister to give assurances that the Bill is in the usual form. Can either the Government House Leader (Mr. Supply
Hnatyshyn) or the Acting President of the Treasury Board give the committee these assurances? In fact, where is the Bill?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I guess I am as responsible a Minister as any. I can give the Hon. Member that assurance.


The Deputy Chairman:: It is my understanding that the Bill was distributed this morning.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.26 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 11, 1984