1985-03-13

Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, we are now in our third week of debate and questions regarding the Domtar case, and while the Government has let this drag on, the Prime Minister, as a result of his contradictory statements, created a number of expectations.
We have now reached the point where there seems to be no hope left. Yesterday, it became clear that Domtar might well decide to go to the United States.
Considering the utterly disastrous impact this scenario would have, is it too much to ask of the Progressive Conservative Quebec caucus to break their silence, to stop this passive acquiescence and to take up the cause of their fellow Quebecers? They are betraying Quebec by their failure to act in this very important matter.
On the other hand, the Minister of State (Small Businesses) said in Montreal yesterday, and I quote:
Quebecers should get this straight: The ten Conservative Ministers from Quebec are not working for Quebec but for Canada.
With due respect for this position, which I find abhorrent, 1 would ask them at least not to work against Quebec in the Domtar case.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) challenged statements of a United Church minister who was speaking of the plight of the poor, and the need for social reforms and income redistribution. This Tory MP questioned the legitimacy of support for the poor, claiming that many people are poor by choice.
We must thank him for voicing the traditional attitude of true blue Tories who want us to return to pre-Depression approaches of leaving help for the deserving poor to charity, while condemning others. Being a supporter of the B.C. Socred Government which has increased poverty for 14 per cent of B.C. families while reducing social assistance and services, his views are not surprising.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) reflected these same values when I questioned him about increasing poverty and the growth of food banks. He showed no concern for the victims or the reasons for this deplorable trend; instead he praised charity in true poor law tradition.
Job creation is the antidote to unemployment. Adequate incomes are a solution to poverty. The 1.5 million poor children should not be blamed for not having enough to eat. Citizens pay taxes to Governments to provide opportunities and security for all Canadians. We want government action, not charity.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House Quebec's excellent performance with respect to job creation and reducing unemployment. On March 8, Statistics Canada revealed that in February, the number of unemployed workers had dropped most in Quebec, which had 12,000 fewer unemployed than in January. The unemployment rate dropped from 12.2 per cent to 11.8 per cent, and this development was due to the creation of 16,000 new jobs. Furthermore, these jobs were largely filled by women.
This is a tangible result of the positive impact of electing a Conservative Government in Canada. Economic renewal and economic growth are once again the order of the day, as a result of the new climate of confidence that has existed since September 4.
Our Government has demonstrated its political will by dealing with the crucial problem of getting women back into the labour market through a program aimed at employment equity.
Mr. Speaker, it is a step forward in economic renewal and a very real step towards achieving economic justice.



FORESTRY


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, increased employment is the top priority of the Government. In British Columbia, employment in the forest industry is a primary concern. More than 50 per cent of the economy of my home province is dependent on forest-related activity. One out of every ten Canadians is involved in the forest industry. It is Canada's largest employer.
Our Government will soon be announcing a major reforestation initiative in the Province of British Columbia, incorporating suggestions and proposals from a number of sources, including the mayors of Vancouver Island. Their presence in the gallery today signifies the importance of their proposal, which they call their strategy for survival. Initiated by the District of North Cowichan, the strategy is an investment in our forests-an investment, not a make-work program.
The mayors are asking the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia to farm our forests, not mine them. On Vancouver Island alone, this investment will provide stable employment for 1,100 people. It will also be an investment in the future of our children.
It has been said that politicians lack the political will to initiate such a proposal, because politicians prefer to think in two and four year time spans and it takes decades to grow more trees. However, this Government has strong representation from the West. This Government knows how to plan in terms of decades, because decades from now we will still be the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: I thought my colleagues would like that.
We welcome the mayors of Vancouver Island to Ottawa. Suddenly, Ottawa is not so far away.



EMPLOYMENT


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the employment equity program announced last Friday is praiseworthy in its intent, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very narrow base from which it proceeds and to the unfortunate consequences this may have.
Actually, dealing with the employment equity problem should include making social benefits available to part-time employees, many of whom are women, as Hon. Members are aware.
It would also mean that work should be considered in a broader perspective, since our work is related to other aspects
of our lives. For instance, how can we talk about employment equity for women without dealing with the issues of daycare centres and parental leave? How can we talk about employment equity for the disabled if we do not deal with the transportation problem? How can we deal with employment equity if we ignore the training issue?
Unfortunately, these areas were not considered last Friday. Perhaps the Government is waiting for the pressure of public opinion.
In any case, I am afraid that because of these shortcomings, the impact of the employment equity program will be far less positive than the Government has led us to believe.



DISASTERS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 3, an earthquake hit Chile and tremors continued for a long time. Two hundred people have died, a thousand are missing, and thousands more are forced to live in the streets. The homes of 165,000 people are destroyed, along with the Port of Valparaiso and many other buildings along a stretch of 1,000 miles.
The Government of Pinochet has responded by ordering a shoot-on-sight curfew, and surrounding all the slum areas in the country with army personnel ordered to shoot on sight. The Vicariate of Solidarity, led by the Roman Catholic Church but including other churches and also Jews, is doing relief work through its network throughout the country. The Vicariate has an honourable record of serving the needs of the people without bowing to the political demands of the dictator Pinochet.
[DOT] (MIO)
Thousands of Chilean refugees in Canada, organized through the popular democratic movement, are raising relief funds to send through the Vicariate or through the International Red Cross. I call upon the Government and the people of Canada to contribute generously to Chilean earthquake relief through our churches and the Vicariate, or through the International Red Cross. We ought not to send relief through the corrupt fascist government of Pinochet. He has not only directed the assassination of Chile's lawful President, Salvador Allende-


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



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the priority of the Government is responsible deficit reduction. Canadians cannot long endure $35 billion annual deficits piled one on top of the other. We have no alternative but to reduce our level of borrowing; thus the announcement in early November that the Government can no longer operate the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre near Webb, Saskatchewan.
The Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre, which is open during the summer season, attracting some 20,000 visitors and operating under a budget of $260,000, operates at cost to the taxpayer of approximately $13 per visit. The Centre and its programs are an asset to our area, particularly in terms of school and educational visits, and tourism. It provides an opportunity for people to view the unique prairie ecology.
Discussions and negotiations have been ongoing between the federal Government, the Province of Saskatchewan, organizations, individuals and groups during the past four months, with a view to continuing the operations of the Centre under new management, thus preserving the facility and its programs at a considerably lower cost to the taxpayer. I am pleased to note that the federal Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and the Minister of Parks and Renewable Resources for Saskatchewan have this day agreed to assist in financing the Centre, thus accomplishing the twin objectives of keeping the Centre open and saving the taxpayers' money. This agreement underscores the continuing spirit of co-operation on wildlife matters between the two Governments.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) announced the appointment of 60 members to the Canadian Multiculturalism Council. The CMC has the important task of advising the Minister on policy and on the development of programs relating to all phases of multiculturalism.
The valuable input of the CMC will help us select the proper goals and programs that will best meet the demands and needs of furthering the progress of multiculturalism in Canada, and integrating into Canadian culture the best of the culture and traditions that new Canadians from 85 different countries and regions have brought with them, in order continually to enhance our own way of life.
These are indeed exciting times for multiculturalism. Much has changed in our evolving Canadian society since the original multicultural policies were planned more than 10 years ago. Our objective today is to consolidate the progress that has been made, to push harder for fair representation for that
Oral Questions
one-third of Canadians who are neither of Anglo-Celtic nor French ancestry, and to assist mainstream Canadian institutions in adapting to the multicultural policy.
We look to the CMC for leadership, for initiative, and for positive input to realize these important goals. I know that, with the excellent talent of the committee members, we will succeed.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it was with interest that I read of the musings of Liberal Otto Lang before the membership of the Manitoba Liberal Party. I was surprised by his indication that a number of the policies and programs put into place by his Government do not seem to be working as they should. He implies that a number of programs created to serve as a solution have worked to the detriment of individuals, of Canadian economic life, and of universality and the right to strike.
Mr. Lang is right when he says that Canada's current economic system does not encourage work or personal initiative. He must be glad to know that this Government came to that realization some time ago, and has been working to return initiative and hard work to the Canadian spirit.
What brings about this sudden change of tune? Is Lang speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, or on behalf of himself? Is he the deliverer of messages, the tester of waters, to see if Liberal supporters will move to the right, currently a far more comfortable position, or is Mr. Lang now reflecting an adopted change of attitude on the part of the Liberal Party? Will he be suggesting to Canadians that the Liberal Party was wrong?
Mr. Lang's comments made interesting reading. However, why are these comments coming from him and not from the Party Leader? Could it be that the Party, or what remains of it, is fundamentally split, or could it be that it does not care to have its Leader make such fundamental statements?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it relates to the tragedy at the Turkish Embassy yesterday. A Canadian citizen is dead, and the residential community of Sandy Hill in Ottawa was threatened. The Deputy Prime


Oral Questions
Minister acknowledged in the House yesterday that a security gap did, in fact, exist.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister say, as he did in the House yesterday, that "The security arrangements were those that could best achieve security for the Embassy"? How can the provision of one outside security guard from a private firm be considered to be adequate security?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the futility of the statement of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs when he said: "There is no defence against these types of attacks"? Has the Government thrown up its hands?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: No, of course not, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman knows that, whatever degree of security is provided in any given circumstance, if breached, it compels one to the logical conclusion that it was not enough. Wherever there have been similar instances throughout the world, despite far more intensive security arrangements than those which exist here, and in far different circumstances, when they are breached, they are breached. One must question the adequacy whenever there is a breach.
With respect to the satisfaction which the right hon. gentleman mentioned, the arrangements at the Turkish Embassy were very recently reviewed, indeed as recently as last month. At that time the Turkish Embassy expressed satisfaction with the security arrangements. It would be inappropriate to make any assumption other than that the Turkish Embassy, in expressing satisfaction, was expressing the views of the Turkish Government.


PROTECTION OF EMBASSIES-RCMP REPORT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather sick that the Solicitor General yesterday, in defending the Government's measures in protecting that Embassy, descended to a criticism of the former Liberal administration. By way of preamble, to match the time you allowed the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -the previous Liberal administration left the new Government new legislation, namely, Part IV of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which gave the Government more enforcement procedures. In the 1984-85 Estimates, the Government brought before Parliament a $14.1 million item which improved security systems and measures at foreign embassies. The former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for York Centre, ordered a report from the RCMP which he did not receive-contrary to what the current Solicitor General has said-but the present Government received it the moment it was sworn into office. That report recommended the upgrading of the physical protection of embassies in Ottawa. Why then, in view of this reinforcement, was no action taken?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the exchange we had yesterday, and the one today, will be kept on a non-partisan basis, having regard to the nature of the incident, which is historic for Canada, which occurred yesterday.
With respect to the report to which the right hon. gentleman referred, that report came out in June of last year and it was acted upon.
In response to his first question, I indicated to him that the security arrangements at that particular Embassy were reviewed as recently as last month. It was with the results of that review that the Turkish Embassy concurred.
Again I re-emphasize that, as tragic as the events of yesterday were, one can question the adequacy of security, whatever the degree, whenever that security is breached. The whole matter is now under intensive review with respect to the circumstances of yesterday and how we can best address the provision of security to all of our embassies in the future.


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the Deputy Prime Minister's remark about the non-partisan aspect of security measures, and that would have been the procedure followed in this House had not the Solicitor General decided to open up the question, dodge responsibility for his Government, and try to lay it on a previous Government. I am suggesting quite clearly to the Deputy Prime Minister that this Government failed to act quickly enough to implement the report with the money which had been left at the disposal of the Government. Yesterday's attack should have been anticipated in view of the previous incidents having to do with the Turkish Embassy. It is clear that the terrorists seized that Embassy rather too quickly and too readily.
Therefore, my question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: did the Government fail to act on the specific measures suggested by the RCMP in that previously mentioned report, to upgrade the protection for the Turkish Embassy and other embassies? And if action was taken, when was it taken? The Deputy Prime Minister mentions a month ago. I would like a little more specific response to the general nature of that report.


Erik Nielsen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is not going to get specific details of that report. He knows full well that it would be prejudicial and inimical to the interests of security itself-


John Napier Turner: If we get some straight answers, then security will be improved.


Erik Nielsen: -to be discussing that kind of detail on the floor of the House of Commons. I have said twice now, in

response to the right hon. gentleman's questions, that a revision of the degree of security at the Turkish Embassy was made as recently as last month, at which time increased security was provided. Whatever the degree, the Turkish Embassy expressed satisfaction with that degree. Surely the right hon. gentleman is not suggesting that we should not accept the views of the Turkish Embassy as reflecting those of the Turkish Government.


CONTENTS OF REPORT
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister claims that the Turkish Government, through its embassy, expressed satisfaction at the security measures taken. I suppose if there were any increase there would be an expression of satisfaction. However, this morning in the Parliament of Ankara, according to a CP report, the Minister of State, Mesut Yilmaz, speaking for the Government, was very critical of Canada for not providing adequate security at the embassy here.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if that report-which was received not last June by me but was submitted to the Solicitor General for the first time after the election-recommended increased measures of security at the Turkish Embassy which were not taken? Perhaps some were. But did the report recommend measures on which the Government refused to act?


Erik Nielsen: I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the former Solicitor General would have had more discretion than to put a question the answer to which, he knows, would elicit security details-


Mr. Broadbent:: That is not so.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: The answers are not dangerous.


Erik Nielsen: -which simply would not enhance security arrangements at all, if addressed. The hon. gentleman makes the assertion that he did not receive a report last June which was prepared certainly at the behest of the last Government, and most likely at the Hon. Member's request. I see the Hon. Member nodding in the affirmative. If he did not receive the report in June, he certainly should have. He was in office until September.
With respect to acting upon the report itself, indeed it was acted upon, as I have said three times now to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: One outside security guard.


Erik Nielsen: As recently as last month those security arrangements at that Embassy were revised, and revised to the satisfaction of the Turkish Embassy.
Oral Questions IMPLEMENTATION QUERY


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there are certainly many things done in the interests of national security where the public interest is not served by making them public, but in this case I think national security would be served and enhanced by getting some straight answers. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that this morning, after the Solicitor General's statement, the Ministry confirmed that the report was not prepared in June but later, and that it was submitted to the New Government, not the Government or the Minister who commissioned it? I want to ask him again: were there measures recommended in the report which were not implemented?


Erik Nielsen: And I am telling the hon. gentleman again, who should know better than to ask such a question, that any answer with respect to security arrangements, at that or any other embassy, would prejudice those security arrangements. What comfort or aid would that give to those who might have in their minds thoughts such as those which obviously existed in the minds of those who have been arrested and charged now? If they had the details which the former Solicitor General is asking be produced, what a comfort it would be to them. I suggest it would do nothing to enhance any security arrangements for the embassies if we followed that irresponsible course.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in his answers today the Minister has told the House a number of times that the Turkish Embassy was happy with the security arrangements that were made. We have heard this morning the official view of the Turkish Government, expressed in Ankara, that it is not happy. However, I suggest that whether the Government in Ankara is happy, or whether the Embassy here is happy, is irrelevant.
The question is this. Would he not acknowledge to the House that Canada has signed an international agreement that obligates Canada to provide fully adequate security for embassy personnel? If he acknowledges that, would he also tell the House, in light of his admission yesterday that there was a gap in the security, why has the Government not done more in the last six months to protect the people in the Turkish Embassy, as well as other embassies?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, first I acknowledge that it is Canada's responsibility to provide security for these embassies. We can start from that basic premise, with which all of us agree. With respect to my responses yesterday, I used the term "gap". It could just have easily been "breach". The fact is that security was breached. Logic compels you to that conclusion after yesterday's events. But in discharging its responsibilities to provide security to these embassies, I am sure the hon.


Oral Questions
gentleman would be the first to agree that we cannot provide a degree of security which would turn these embassies into armed camps. Even if we did that, logic also compels one to the conclusion that, regardless of the degree, it could be breached. If it were breached, the conclusion must be that it was not adequate.
I reiterate that the Turkish Embassy, speaking on behalf of its Government, expressed satisfaction. The use of the term "happy" is that of the hon. gentleman, not mine.


MEASURES TAKEN IN WASHINGTON
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there are some Governments around the world which have responded appropriately to the seriousness of the situation when it comes to certain terrorist groups within the Armenian community taking violent action against the Turks. The Pinkerton guards who have been provided to the embassies have very limited training. They are given a revolver, and then told explicitly not to use it in terms of protecting embassy personnel. Does the Minister consider that adequate to meet the needs of the Turkish Embassy, particularly during the past few weeks?
In the last two years the Americans have added, to the Turkish Embassy in Washington, two armed guards who are not Pinkerton employees but members of the U.S. security service force who are trained to protect embassy personnel, using weapons if necessary. Is that not a more effective kind of protection which could deter terrorist activities?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, without in any way accepting the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question, I am aware, as is the Government, of the criticisms with respect to the use of Pinkerton security guards. That is one of the several matters that are under very active consideration at this moment. We are considering whether that system should be retained, improved upon, or indeed whether some other system should be put in place to meet our security obligations with respect to our embassies.


RCMP REPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister confirm that the report which was prepared by the RCMP and submitted to the Government last summer said that the previous Government awarded the contract to Pinkerton simply because it was the lowest bidder, and that that is an inadequate basis for providing protection? In fact, in the report they recommended that the RCMP be involved in providing that protection. Would the Minister confirm that that recommendation was in the report?


Erik Nielsen: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman was here and was listening to the questions of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and to the questions of the former
Solicitor General. Yet he puts the same question again, which elicits my same response that it would be inimical and would prejudice the security of the Embassy to reveal, in a public way, any details with respect to security arrangements at the Embassy. As I did yesterday, I will again today offer to meet with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, as Privy Councillors, knowing that they have an oath in place in this regard, to discuss with them and to obtain their ideas on the security arrangements with respect to our embassies.


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make the mistake of going to the Deputy Prime Minister on this subject. I will turn to the Solicitor General and ask very directly whether all the security measures which were recommended in the report were, or were not, implemented. Yes or no. We want no details. Were they implemented, yes or no? The Deputy Prime Minister seems to think we want details. He is anxious to get up, but my question is directed to the Solicitor General.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we all know the purpose of the hon. gentleman asking that question. I have answered it with respect to questions put to me by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and with respect to questions put to me by the former Solicitor General. I have now answered it with respect to questions put to me by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Napier Turner: Could we hear from the Minister responsible?


Erik Nielsen: It is not the intention of the Government-and I am speaking on behalf of the Government-to make public, or discuss publicly, any details of any report with respect to the security arrangements at that Embassy. It would not serve the public interest to affirm, or otherwise, whether any, some, or all of the recommendations in that report have been implemented.


Donald James Johnston: I agree that the purpose of the question is clear, Mr. Speaker, but so is the purpose of the response.


REPORT INQUIRY
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Solicitor General for a moment, if he has the courage to answer this question, which I think is very straightforward. Obviously, if all the measures in the security report were implemented, the report itself was defective in view of the incident of yesterday. The real issue is whether or not they were implemented, or whether everyone should go back to the drawing board and produce another security report on the security of embassies in Ottawa.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the answer-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry the hon. gentlemen opposite treat this matter so frivolously in view of the outcome of yesterday's events. The answer is repeated. I again emphasize my willingness to brief fully the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party with respect to the entire range of security measures and, hopefully, to gain their helpful input in a constructive way, knowing full well that both gentlemen are bound by their oath as Privy Councillors to keep such matters secret.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: We don't want to brief the terrorists.


AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL THREAT TO TURKISH EMBASSY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Was the Government aware of the high alert status that the international intelligence community was providing around the world with regard to the potential threat to the Turkish Embassies and Turkish communities, as a result of the most recent court actions in France? If the Government was aware of that, did it choose simply to ignore it in the case of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa?


Erik Nielsen: Of course we were aware, as was the previous Government, of the facts which were embodied in the question of the hon. gentleman. I indicated to previous questioners that changes in the degree of security at the Turkish Embassy were brought about as recently as last month in response to that situation. I again emphasize that, after those changes were brought about, the Turkish Embassy officials themselves expressed satisfaction with them.


ADEQUACY OF PROTECTION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is it the opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister that adequate security can be provided, in a case of a high alert situation, particularly where threats have already been made publicly and conveyed through the international intelligence agencies, by providing one man with one gun and five bullets, and an order not to shoot?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is a careless question.


Erik Nielsen: In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept those facts as set out in the hon. gentleman's question. They may well be so, but surely that is a matter that is more properly left to the review process which is now ongoing. I would think that the Leader of the Hon. Member's own Party, and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, would want to
Oral Questions
participate in that process and to come forward with their constructive suggestions. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that it does no one any good, least of all those who we are seeking to protect with these security arrangements, to brief terrorists rather than the right hon. gentleman or the Leader of his own Party.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON MEASURES TAKEN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would think the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that if we were to share that briefing he would, in effect, co-opt us, thereby preventing us from putting proper questions in the House of Commons. That is not the way it is going to happen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Such irresponsibility.


John Napier Turner: The way the Deputy Prime Minister has intervened this afternoon to protect the Solicitor General reminds me very much of Alexander Haig saying: "I'm in charge here".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Foster:: Erik's got the guns.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has a question, please?


John Napier Turner: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not feel that national security could be enhanced if this Parliament and the country could be assured that proper response was made to that report, and that proper action was taken by the Government? We do not want the details. We just want an assurance that everything that could have been done was done.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow to pass unnoticed the expressed view of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that I have no responsibility in speaking on behalf of the Government in matters of this nature. That is what he is suggesting when he criticizes me for responding on behalf of the Government, which I believe I have a responsibility for doing, notwithstanding the extremely capable and responsible Solicitor General.
With respect to the enhancement of security, there can be no question that any security arrangements can be enhanced. Yesterday's incident proves that. The incident in the British Isles proves that. The incidents elsewhere around the world are proof of the fact that any security arrangements can be improved. But that is precisely the reason for our ongoing review at this very moment.


Oral Questions


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister knows that in 1981 the Liberal Government removed from the NORAD Agreement the clause stating "This agreement will not involve in any way a Canadian commitment to participate in an active ballistic missile defence". This was on the grounds that it was no longer necessary.
In view of the most recent developments, in particular the implications of SDI for the ABM Treaty of 1972, can the Minister assure the House that this clause will be included in the Agreement that the Government plans to sign this weekend with the United States on the modernization of the DEW Line?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that paragraph was deleted at the time because it was not relevant at the time. Nothing has happened to make it relevant. We do not propose to add irrelevant paragraphs.


Pauline Jewett: Then the Minister has not heard all the concerns discussed widely throughout the country about the possible implications of star wars for the ABM Treaty.


CANADIAN POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister and the Government refuse to put the clause in, is he saying to the whole Canadian public that the door is open to Canadian participation in an active ballistic missile defence?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the Government of Canada supports the provisions of the ABM Treaty and intends to continue to do that. There is no need to add redundant language simply because members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons-


Pauline Jewett: It's the Canadian public.


Charles Joseph Clark: -knowing the facts, want not to pay attention to those facts, but instead want to abuse their public positions to sow fear in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Don't be silly.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns Domtar and is, of course, directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
In the past few days, the Minister made it clear to the House that there was no question of the Government granting Domtar a direct subsidy of $100 million.
However, the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke is telling people in the Eastern Townships that the Government is considering the possibility of paying the interest on a loan that would be contracted by Domtar.
Has this alternative actually been discussed with Domtar, and is the Government seriously considering it for this case?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member was not in the House at the time, so I would remind him that in response to another question I mentioned that I will be meeting with the Forestry Advisory Council early next week to discuss the needs and the projections that they see for their own forestry industry. It may be that out of those discussions there will be some type of universal program that we can identify that might be helpful as far as the federal Government is concerned.
If Domtar could fit within this context, of course we are quite willing to work out any arrangement that would be acceptable to Domtar.
As the Hon. Member knows, our Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec have had discussions, and presumably those discussions will continue after the Prime Minister returns from Moscow.
In due course we may have something to announce with respect to Domtar. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the matter is under consideration but there is nothing of a particular nature to announce at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


REFUSAL OF GRANT TO DOMTAR-REQUEST FOR REASONS
Alain Tardif: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
When we say Domtar, everybody knows we are talking about fine paper, and as far as fine paper is concerned, there is more or less a balance between imports and exports, which is not the case for newsprint.
Could the Minister explain to the House why he is refusing to subsidize Domtar, which is in the business of making fine

paper, while not long ago it did approve a grant of $40 million for Kruger when it acquired the Bowater plant in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, a company that does produce newsprint, most of which is for export?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the Hon. Member that our Department handles hundreds of applications from various companies across the country. On average, about two applications are turned down for varying reasons, for every application that we accept. Unfortunately, Domtar was one application that was turned down. I would only suggest to the Hon. Member that it would be absolutely impossible to review in the House, as he suggests, the reasons for each rejection, one by one.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He is aware that there is a labour dispute with regard to beer stores in Ontario, and that there has been the import of American beer into the province. Could the Minister possibly talk to his provincial counterpart about the purchase of beer within Canada, in order to help the hotels and motels in this province?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my hon. colleague the assurance that under our packaging and labelling legislation, specific information must be given on various products, which includes bilingual labelling and volumes in metric. The Government intends to monitor the situation very carefully to see to it that these products are labelled accordingly, and as soon as we have reached any conclusions, we shall inform those concerned.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion concerning government support for a key industry in the province of Quebec.
Last Friday, the Prime Minister said in Quebec City that the Government had not decided whether it would be taking special measures to rescue shipyards in Quebec and the rest of
Oral Questions
Canada. He was very pessimistic about the future of this industry.
Does this mean that the Government now intends to withdraw its support for our shipyards, as it has withdrawn its support for Domtar?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it is very much to the contrary. The Hon. Member must have noted that the Davie shipyard in Quebec has recently been purchased by Versatile and, as a result of their application to us, I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that we were able to agree to a loan of $15 million with respect to that purchase, that will be repaid when the TRUMP Program is fully completed by Davie Shipbuilding. In short, that is an instance where we were able to help. I am very pleased that we helped, and I am sure that the House would be enthused to hear that we are doing things in Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ELECTION CAMPAIGN SPEECH
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Can he explain the contradiction between the pessimism demonstrated by the Prime Minister with respect to the future of the industry and the fact that in August of last year the Conservative Party said in its campaign promises that a top priority would go to the creation of a more viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry? How does he explain that contradiction? Where is the $75 million, not $15 million, that was promised to shipbuilding in the Empire Club speech, and which could be creating jobs in Atlantic Canada and Quebec today?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that our Prime Minister, being Irish, is always optimistic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In connection with the shipbuilding industry, as the Hon. Member may know, we have had ongoing discussions with that industry. I think in due course he may be most pleased with some of the proposals which will be agreed to, to ensure that the shipbuilding industry will become viable in coming years.


Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings for just a minute to advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery of Hon. Brian Smith, Attorney General of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear,hear!


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It is a question which could save the Government of Canada millions of dollars. Will the Minister continue the wasteful practice of past years of paying many days in advance, each month, for properties it is renting in Ottawa and across the country?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: If Hon. Members would like to know the answer to the question, I would be very pleased to give it to them. In recent months we have undertaken a very thorough review of the whole issue of cash management within the Public Service, our agencies, and our Crown corporations. I am happy to announce that measures that been taken to ensure that new directives will be applied to maximize the usefulness of the cash we have at our disposal to the Treasury, which will amount to several hundred millions of dollars per year in savings to the CRF.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the deadline for an agreement with the western energy producing provinces is March 31-and the Minister will acknowledge the importance of maintaining that deadline for the economy of the country- could the Minister assure the House that an agreement with these provinces will be reached by March 31?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that talks are proceeding very amiably. As I have said before, we are into the most difficult part of the negotiations. I think it should be clearly understood in the House that all the parties to this negotiation-the provinces and the federal Government-are breaking new ground because we are attempting to
go to a process of deregulation from a highly administered system. The impacts of that have to be very carefully studied. That work is continuing regularly. I am certain the deadline will be met.


PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, we have heard conflicting positions from various members of the Government on the fate of the petroleum and gas revenue tax. What position is the Government taking with respect to the petroleum and gas revenue tax in negotiations with the western energy producing provinces?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that he could not have heard conflicting positions on energy policy from members of this Government, because there is only one energy policy of this Government, and it is supported by all of us.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to press reports, President Reagan has joined with multinational drug companies to seek changes in Canada's generic drug laws and will be discussing this question with the Prime Minister on Sunday. Could the Minister give the House guarantees that Canada will sign no agreement on generic drugs, or give no undertaking to the United States to change our patent laws in advance of public or parliamentary participation in the process?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to give my hon. friend the assurance, as I did last week in answer to a previous question, that we shall protect consumer interests at all times and that all groups will be consulted before any agreement is signed.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY PARTICIPATION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister. Given the fact that the Minister and his Department have permitted or encouraged discussions between the two types of drug manufacturing organizations, without participation by consumers' organizations or other interested parties, will he give assurances that there will be no agreement made, or no changes in law, without full participation by Members of Parliament and by interested groups such as the Consumers Association?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the Hon. Member that we had a meeting with representatives of the Canadian Consumers' Association last week, at which time we gave them the assurance that no changes would be made before consultations had been held with this group.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Traditionally the Government has announced opening quotas and initial prices for western grains around the first of March. This is essential information for farmers in planning their seeding and so on. We are now within about a month of seeding commencement in western Canada. Could the Minister end the uncertainty which exists as a result of not providing this information, and immediately announce the initial prices and quotas for the new crop year?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Hon. Member is correct that in the past the previous Government attempted to get them out by the first of March, but in some cases it did not get them out until well into May when seeding was under way. We are presently going through the process of setting initial prices. The Hon. Member will be happy to learn that today we are putting to press a revised form of the pre-seeded acreage report, which we feel will be of much more use to prairie producers than the one that was put out previously and was largely political propaganda.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I note the Minister is not prepared to announce the initial quotas and prices today. Could he assure farmers that the initial prices and quotas will be at least as high as last year? Would he be prepared to indicate that the advance payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Program will be made within the next month, and that it would be at least $700 million?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, with regard to initial prices, it is well known that grain prices around the world are suffering. We will do the best we possibly can with initial prices. The Hon. Member should know with regard to quotas that there is every indication that for the rest of the crop year there will virtually be open quotas because of the fact that we suffered a poor crop. It looks very good for high quotas for the coming year.
Oral Questions
With regard to an interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, we have the mechanism in place and we expect to have cash in the hands of producers well before the first of May.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Aerospace Industries Association of Canada in public statement recently called for the creation of a Canadian space agency to eliminate what the Association termed as fragmentation in the management of Canada's programs and policies with regard to space. I should like to ask the Minister for his response, and what his recommendation to the Government will be regarding this suggestion.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. We all recognize and appreciate the commitment of our aerospace industry to the economic development of the country over the past 25 years. We are looking seriously at recommendations submitted by the Aerospace Industries Association and by other interested groups. We would take note, particularly, of the suggestion that a committee of Cabinet should co-ordinate the work of such an agency. Indeed that is the role of the Cabinet committee on economic and regional development at the present time and the interdepartmental committee on space. We will continue to manage our space program effectively.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the government Member who answers on behalf of the Minister of State for Finance, and written notice has been given. Since the collapse of Pioneer Trust on February 7, there has been considerable speculation about the fate of uninsured depositors. Can the Government inform us if there are still ongoing negotiations with the Government of Saskatchewan that can result in some compensation to the many uninsured depositors?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I want first to thank the Hon. Member for the notice given. As the Hon. Member knows, there have been numerous discussions between the two levels of Government. I want to assure the Hon. Member that CDIC has taken steps to reimburse all insured depositors up to the insured limit. A great many of them have already been reimbursed. With


Air Defence Modernization
regard to the uninsured depositors, the Hon. Member will recall that on Monday last the Minister of State for Finance replied in this House that the CDIC cannot, under its legislation, directly pay off uninsured depositors.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend there was a Canadian Press story which stated that the Government will institute a public inquiry into the demise of Pioneer Trust. We understand the directions were given by the Prime Minister's Office. Can the Minister assure us that such an inquiry will indeed take place, and can he tell us who will head the inquiry?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I cannot either confirm or deny that. I am more than willing to take the question as notice. I can state that no specific instructions were given by the Prime Minister's Office to have officials conduct a hearing with respect to uninsured depositors.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for London-Mid-dlesex (Mr. Clifford) by filing with the Clerk of the House on Tuesday, March 12, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to inform the House that the Government has approved an agreement with the United States under which the two countries will take part in a joint program to modernize the North American Air Defence Surveillance and Warning System. Documents constituting the agreement will be signed in Quebec City on March 18 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and myself. These documents will be tabled in the House of Commons following signature.
The agreement provides for the establishment of a warning system around the perimeter of the North American continent which will be capable of detecting aircraft and Cruise missiles penetrating North American airspace at high and low altitudes within the atmosphere. This modernized system will consist of over-the-horizon backscatter radars, located in the United
States and covering the eastern, western and southern approaches to North America. In the north, there will be a new and improved DEW Line-to be called the North Warning System. Most of the North Warning System will be located on Canadian territory. The new radars will permit Canadian forces interceptors-CF-18s-to identify and, if necessary, engage intruders on the perimeter. North Warning will enhance our sovereign ability to control access to Canadian airspace.
In concluding this agreement, we will be taking an important step forward in ensuring that Canada can carry out the responsibilities we share with the United States for the defence of North America. The agreement we have reached reflects the essence of the partnership between our two countries which share the continent-sovereign allies, independent neighbours and close friends. It is an agreement which serves both nations well. Under the new arrangements, Canada will, for the first time, fully exercise its national defence responsibilities on its own sovereign territory and within its own sovereign airspace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I want to emphasize the importance of fully exercising sovereignty in our north. The DEW Line has served Canada well, but Canadians do not control it. The DEW Line is operated by the United States Air Force. Canadian involvement has been limited to small detachments of Armed Forces personnel at three of the 21 DEW Line sites in Canada. The North Warning System will be a Canadian-controlled system-operated, maintained and manned by Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Canadian sovereignty in our north will be strengthened and assured for the future. The agreement will present Canada with significant economic challenges and development opportunities. Canada will be assuming responsibility for over-all program management and systems integration of the North Warning project. Design, acquisition, installation and integration of all associated communications in addition to all construction in Canada will be undertaken by Canadians and by Canadian industry.
The industrial benefits from this project will, at the very least, equal national expenditures on it. More than 11,500 person-years of employment will be generated in the communications and construction industries during the eight-year modernization program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I am confident that the project experience will help open world markets for Canadian industry, and for our highly skilled communications industry in particular.
I would like to make it clear that these radars are neither designed nor sited for the detection of ballistic missiles or of other events in space. This is an important distinction which many fail to make. The new long-range radars which will form part of the North Warning System will have essentially the


same range of surveillance as the existing radars of the DEW Line. The new long-range radars will differ in that they will incorporate the most modern technology, and they will provide information on the direction, height and speed of aircraft entering their coverage. This information will permit Canadian forces interceptor aircraft operating from northern airstrips to identify and control potential intruders.
The short-range radars in the North Warning System are designed specifically to provide detection of aircraft at low altitude, to close the serious gaps in the present system.
There is no responsible alternative to modernization. Major components of the existing system are technically obsolete and increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. Most important, the present system is no longer adequate to meet the modern bomber and Cruise missile threat.
It was Canada which initiated discussions with the United States on the need for a joint approach to modernize the air defence warning system, which is continental in scope. The question of modernization has been under review and study between the two countries since 1976. The approach adopted in the agreement is the result of an independent study, jointly funded by Canada and the United States, which was completed in 1979, and is the result of close consultations between the defence authorities of both countries.
The cost of the over-all modernization project will be in the order of $7 billion. The United States will be bearing some 88 per cent of this cost. The $1.5 billion estimated cost of the North Warning System component of the over-all program is to be shared, with Canada paying 40 per cent and the United States 60 per cent. The cost of operating and maintaining the North Warning System is to be shared on the same basis. However, Canada will be completely responsible for the actual operation and maintenance of the system in Canada, a major change from the agreement in effect for the DEW line.
Most of the radar stations in southern Canada which are now part of the Cadin-Pine Tree Line will need to be closed. These stations are of little military value now and they are very expensive to maintain and operate.
We recognize the social obligation to those communities which have come to derive much of their livelihood from these old stations. As a result, we have reached an agreement with the United States to share the costs of closing the stations of the obsolete Cadin-Pine Tree line, Canada paying 45 per cent and the United States paying 55 per cent. Assistance, with the social and economic costs borne by these communities as a result of closure, will be taken into account in the cost-sharing arrangements. I will be working very closely with my Cabinet colleagues, with the provinces and, most important, with the communities concerned to help those people affected by the closures.
Throughout the negotiations, the Government has sought to re-invigorate the Canada-United States defence partnership while at the same time enhancing Canadian sovereignty. This agreement on North American air defence modernization is
Air Defence Modernization
tangible evidence of this Government's commitment to strengthen Canadian defence capacity and to ensure Canadian control of its defences.
Let there be no misunderstanding. By this agreement, Canadian sovereignty has been enhanced, including sovereignty over Canadian territory, sovereignty over Canadian defences, sovereignty over Canada's North and sovereignty over our own airspace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: As Deputy Prime Minister, as Minister of National Defence and as the Member for Yukon, I am proud to make this announcement to the House and to the country today.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nippissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, we have just been advised by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) of a major agreement concerning Canada's future defence needs. It is an agreement that will possibly change our international stature in the world and is to be signed in Quebec City on March 18, this weekend, with very little consultation with Members of the House of Commons.
It is rather ironic that one week ago today, I posed a question to the Minister of National Defence asking him if he would appear before the External Affairs and National Defence Committee. At that time, he said he would if he were to be invited to do so by the Steering Committee.
The Minister is not even listening to me. That shows the importance he is giving to this statement.
The Minister gave me a commitment that he would attend a meeting this week. He was invited to do so by the Steering Committee, which met at 3.30 one week ago today. Both he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have been present in this House every day this week, yet neither one of them will consent to attend a meeting of the committee. The names of both Ministers came up at the Steering Committee meeting.
I would like to make one thing very clear, Mr. Speaker. We in the Liberal Party agree that the North Warning System must go into effect for surveillance purposes. There is no question in my mind about that at all. However, there is one thing that I wish to point out very succinctly today, and that is, that the Minister of National Defence should send the previous Liberal Defence Minister a thank-you letter for all the homework he did on this agreement in order that the present Minister could announce it today.
I have what I consider to be a very valid question of privilege. I received this seven-page announcement as the bells were calling Members to the House this afternoon. That gave me no opportunity to discuss the matter with my Party colleagues and my Leader. I think that this was a great discourtesy and I feel that the Minister should certainly take that into consideration in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
2978


Air Defence Modernization


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am hearing some comments from Members across the way regarding my remarks. However, we are discussing today a $7-billion program. Surely a seven-page announcement deserves more than one-hour's notice since every Member of the House is responsible to the people of Canada.
As I mentioned, this agreement will be signed after only one short meeting of a House committee at which there was no opportunity to call witnesses. Moreover, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs refused to attend meetings this week. We in this Party, like Canadians from coast to coast, are concerned that this modernization will lead directly or indirectly to an involvement in the star wars initiative that has been mentioned on many occasions.
In the past, Canadians bought a limited defence package, which later turned out to be a monster containing the Bomarc missiles. That was done by a previous Conservative Government. Canada should not be put in such a position again. This Parliament and Canadians should not be forced to accept and endorse a secret agreement which could alter our lives forever.
In particular, I would like to point out that the Minister of National Defence mentioned surveillance of the North and our CF-18 fighter aircraft. As everyone in the House knows and as all Canadians know, these aircraft were purchased by the former Liberal government. That agreement was signed. Contrary to all statements in the press about cost overruns, it has now been found that the aircraft may well come in under cost.
There are some serious questions brought up by the Minister's statement. Have the aboriginal people been consulted on this agreement? What has been their involvement? Will they be consulted? Does this agreement contain a specific clause to protect Canada from becoming automatically involved in further advanced technology down the road without proper consultation and without a decision being made by a future Canadian Government? Can we knock out a Cruise missile with a CF-18 Sidewinder or a Sparrow missile? If we cannot do so, will we require nuclear warheads to do so? If we did so, would we be breaching the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty? This would place Canada in the position of playing a leading role in destabilization.
Will the Minister, even at this eleventh hour, agree to hold immediately an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to review in detail the proposed agreement with the aid of outside, independent experts? If he will not agree to an emergency meeting of the committee, will he agree to the immediate postponement of the signing of the accord until Canadians, including the Canadians in Parliament, have had an opportunity to review in detail the agreement before the appropriate parliamentary committee? Surely, that is not asking too much. We have heard a lot about open Government in Canada-


Mr. Malone:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Hon. Member can clap, but we have a $7 billion secret agreement which is being signed without consultation with the Parliament of Canada. That is open Government!
Will the Minister assure the House that there is a clause in the proposed agreement which will guarantee that in no way will the modernized system be used to support or complement the Strategic Defence Initiative? Canadians want a 100 per cent guarantee that there will be no linkage between the agreement and SDI. Will the Minister guarantee to the House that there will be a clause in the agreement which will ensure an automatic review of the agreement-it is very important and we had this with NORAD-at least every five years by the Parliament of Canada and that, if so desired, Parliament may revise any part of that agreement on one year's notice? That is not asking too much when we are talking about Canadian sovereignty.
There is one other item which I would like to mention, that is, the Cadin-Pine Tree stations which will be closed. I note in the agreement that the Government has given a commitment that it will liaison very closely with communities which are built around the Cadin-Pine Tree Line. We welcome that. We will watch carefully to make certain that that commitment to those small communities in Canada is entirely lived up to.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) for bringing back the old tradition in the House of ministerial statements on motions, to give members of the Opposition a chance to comment on major policy statements. However, I hope that the Minister will not limit his involvement with this side of the House simply to a seven-page document. I hope we can call on him at any time that is reasonable and feasible to come to a committee hearing so that we can spend several hours discussing this very, very vital and important policy.
The Government has stated that it is necessary to upgrade the old Dew Line because it is outdated. The Senate committee pointed out that gaps in radar could allow Soviet bombers to attack North America. Therefore, the Government believes that it must counter that threat to protect our sovereignty. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that the previous Liberal Government had compromised that sovereignty by neglecting Canada's defences. He is only partly right. The Liberals did neglect our defences, there is no doubt about that. They are responsible for the threat which we must counter with a new North Warning System, but not for the reasons which the Prime Minister mentioned earlier.
The reason the Dew Line has to be updated is the new threat of Soviet bombers armed with Cruise missiles. Canada helped to usher in the era of the Cruise missile. The Government's Defence Industry Productivity Program gave Litton Systems the money to develop the guidance system for the Cruise missile. The defence production sharing agreement allowed that technology to be exported to the United States to build the Cruise missile. The umbrella testing agreement allowed the Cruise missile to be tested and perfected in Canada. Of course, now it has come back to haunt us.


Naturally, the Soviet Onion matched the U.S. by developing its own Cruise missile system. So now Canada has to spend up to $800 million to build a North Warning System to defend itself against a weapon that it helped to develop. That is the Government's idea of job creation? I think it is slightly mad!
Now I have mentioned it, let us examine MAD-Mutual-Assured Destruction. That is the nuclear deterrence which has kept peace for 40 years. But it cannot last forever. Now there is a chance that the Soviet Union may offer to cut its offensive weapons in return for U.S. cuts in star wars. But the U.S. insists on developing yet another new weapons system. No one knows where SDI will lead or how it will affect arms control, but we do know some of the potential dangers. SDI may split the Western Alliance if the U.S. turns down cuts in Soviet weapons because it wants to develop star wars. The U.S. may violate the ABM treaty if it goes ahead with the Talon Gold Test in 1987, and the Soviets may counter SDI by MIRVing their ICBMs and adding more Cruise missiles.
In Question Period this afternoon, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) if the clause which was taken out of the NORAD Agreement by the Liberals in 1981 would be returned this weekend in Quebec City. I would like to quote the Secretary of State for External Affairs word for word. He said, "This agreement will not involve in any way a Canadian commitment to participate in an active ballistic missile defence". That clause was taken out. I would ask the Minister of National Defence, will he insist this weekend that that clause be returned to any new NORAD Agreement? It is fundamental to the future development of star wars. Without that clause-and the Minister once again spoke about our sovereignty in our airspace-it is absolutely hollow. That clause must be put back into the NORAD Agreement. That is all there is to it. It is very simple.
It will affect Canada in many ways. The submarines and bombers armed with those Cruise missiles will threaten from the Arctic. Still, the Government insists on the following: One, that SDI is only research. Can anyone in their right mind sitting on the other side tell me that the United States will spend up to $25 billion on blackboard and chalk, and that it will not develop the system and then deploy it? It is utter nonsense. How naive can the Government be? Two, the Government insists that the Dew Line update is only a warning system. Three, there is no connection between SDI and the North Warning System, and, four, there may be inadvertent consequences, but we can get out of them. This, too, is absolute nonsense.
Yesterday in the House I described how NORAD and the U.S. Air Force were already merging space and surface warning systems into a NORAD/Space Command. It is a combined command. The system will pick up a threat detected by either satellites or ground-based radars. It will then co-ordinate the defensive response. In other words, the two systems are already combined. In other words, the upgrading of the North Warning System is, in fact, already a part of star wars. A star wars
Air Defence Modernization
system could counter ICBMs, and fighter planes can counter bombers and Cruise missiles.
In that context we should ask, is it a coincidence that the North Warning System will upgrade northern bases for CF-18 fighters? Is it a coincidence that the Government is considering buying an additional 20 CF-18s? Is it a coincidence that the U.S. is developing a "look-down, shoot-down" radar so that fighters can knock down Cruise missiles? No. The Americans know that SDI will have to counter the air-breathing threat that can slip under space-based weapons. That is the inadvertent consequence of adopting a defence strategy.
The U.S. is adopting that strategy with the Strategic Defence Initiative. NORAD will have to be a part of that strategy. The North Warning System will be a necessary component of the defensive strategy. The Government should make it its business to know about these "inadvertent consequences". The Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs should investigate them and report to the House or to the appropriate standing committee of this House.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Government has the right and the obligation to consult with the United States about future activities of our defence alliance. That obligation is set out explicitly in the current NORAD Agreement. The Government must take that obligation seriously if it intends to govern responsibly.
The scientific world is leading the military world which, in turn, is leading the political world down a dark path about which most of us know very little, and we should have the courage to admit it at this stage. We should make sure in this country that there are built-in safeguards so that we do not get sucked into the Strategic Defence Initiative, which I feel is more appropriately called star wars, because that is exactly what it is. It is space-based, space-launched warfare.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, when American scientists are now talking in terms of not a few hours of response, not a few minutes, but in terms of a few seconds, where are we going? I hope the Minister will make it abundantly clear to President Reagan this weekend that we want that clause put back in NORAD and that we want control over the North. Yes, we are prepared to share early warning information with our allies, but we are not prepared to go along with the star wars holus-bolus without knowing where it is going to take us, because it is the most destabilizing defence offensive system which has ever been devised by man to date.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) on what is a very serious day in the life of this country. We are now taking a very radical departure and making a change in the whole foreign policy defence standing which Canada has adopted in the past 30 or 40 years. We regret deeply, as my colleague has already stated, that this major departure in our


Air Defence Modernization
position has been taken without effective consultation in this Parliament.
By the words the Minister has brought to this Parliament this afternoon, is he now saying that this Government agrees with the change in North American defence strategy as announced by the United States President and several defence officials that they will no longer rely upon the question of deterrence as a form of stability and security but will now be pursuing an active defence system for North America which will in a sense break the pattern over the past 30 or 40 years? Are we now committing ourselves to that defence policy, as already announced by the Americans and the U.S. Secretary of Defence in front of Congress to justify its participation in the North Warning System? Does the Minister not believe that that will now result in a major militarization of northern Canada, with the placement of a number of military facilities, communications systems and networks? Is this Government now saying that it is prepared to agree with that change in defence policy without ever having had it debated or discussed in this Parliament and without any opportunity being given to Canadians themselves to know the implications or consequences?
It is very important to know at this point in time-perhaps because we are denied the opportunity in committee to have this kind of debate-if the Minister is saying that this Government does agree with that fundamental change in defensive policy and agrees with the U.S. President and the Secretary of Defense that they are now pursuing an active defence system and are no longer relying upon the deterrent basis for security in North America?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the point has been made by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) and now, surprisingly, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), that there has been no opportunity to discuss this matter in Parliament. The last time I looked, the standing committees were still part of this Parliament and the matter has been before the House of Commons Standing Committee. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) told the committee that he was prepared to sit there for as long as Hon. Members had questions, but they ran out of questions.
The matter has also been considered by the Senate Committee. It is being considered now. There is no doubt in my mind that it will again be considered before the end of the supply period in this semester by the committee. It is not true what the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior says, that there has been no commitment to appear before that committee. I have given that commitment, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already been there. I do not know what arrangements he has made, but chances are that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has agreed to appear again.
With respect to the consultation process, I might point out that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was a member of the Government-not of the administration but of the Government-which commenced these negotiations in 1976. He was part of an administration which was active in
those negotiations. What the Hon. Member is saying now, that there should be a consultation and that he should be the recipient of further and better information on the North Warning System, rings a little hollow, to use, I believe, his phrase, unless it was that of the Hon. Member for Brant.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry knows full well what the North Warning System is all about. I agree with the Hon. Member for Brant-and it seems to be evidenced by the intervention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior-that very few people know very much about what they are discussing. That is quite obvious after listening to the intervention of one who should know better, namely, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, who, it appears, does not know his atmospherics from space. He does not know what is on top of the ionosphere and what is below it. NWAS has nothing whatsoever to do with-


Lloyd Axworthy: Nonsense, you had better read what Weinberger had to say.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member says "nonsense". Fundamentally, the North Warning System replaces a system which was put in place under a Liberal Government, the DEW Line, and under a system put in place by the Liberal Government of the day, the Pine Tree Line.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That's what they are telling you today, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to sovereignty, I do not hear those Hon. Members now howling about sovereignty. My goodness, when I first came here under the Diefenbaker Government, Ministers of the Crown had to make an application to the United States management corporation even to visit those sites on our own Canadian territory. That is the Liberal idea of negotiating the security of Canada's sovereignty over our own lands and airspace. That is not the case here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With great respect-


Lloyd Axworthy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: No, I am going to try to recognize everyone who has risen. My normal practice is to try to recognize everyone who has a question. If there is time, I will allow supplementary questions. I would encourage everyone to be brief so that those Hon. Members may get a chance to ask supplementary questions.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, as you know we have had no hearings on this agreement, none whatsoever, and actually only one hour in committee with the Minister. This has put us all in the position of having to use whatever occasion there might be to get information from the Government.
The Minister has said previously, has said again today and keeps reiterating, that there is no connection between the modernization of the DEW Line, the so-called North Warning System, and the development of the star wars, the Strategic


Defence Initiative. Both the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) keep saying this. Has the Minister, or have his people, ever read the minutes of the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Senate when defence estimates are before the committee? If he or his people have read those minutes, does the Minister not know that last year, in the discussion of defence estimates in the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, the Department of Defence said that "space defence and ballistic missile defence involve the Canadians"? Specifically, is the Minister aware that during the same hearing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pauline Jewett: -a modernized DEW Line-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: Have more respect for the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Can I encourage the Hon. Member to make this her last question? She has taken two and a half minutes now.


Pauline Jewett: I was coming to it. It is extremely important, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister also aware that in the same hearings it was stated that a modernized DEW Line as well as the space shuttle are "collateral benefits to the Strategic Defence Initiative"?


Erik Nielsen: I do not know how many times it has to be reiterated in order to get through to Hon. Members opposite. It does not make any difference how many times it is done because they will still, to use the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, abuse their position in the House by deliberately attempting to create a situation which does not exist. The Member herself does not know the difference between a radar system and the space system, obviously.
The complete answer to her question, quite apart from the answers which have been given by myself and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is contained, as I put on the record before, in a press release issued on behalf of the United States Government by the United States Embassy here in Ottawa dated March 7. It refers to misleading reports deliberately enhanced by members of the Opposition for questionable motives. That release stipulates, and I am quoting it again:
With regard to the upgrading of the DEW Line and its replacement with the North Warning radars, the Department can state clearly and categorically that the North Warning System being planned by Canada and the United States is not part of the Strategic Defence Initiative Program.
Now I do not know what can be clearer than that, Mr. Speaker. It is not going to help to continue to repeat it because they are just going to continue to try to play Marrying Sam in trying to create the bride and groom of SDI and NWS, which is totally untrue. Again I wish they would stop abusing their position as Members to propagate that absolute tripe.
Air Defence Modernization


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, to set the Hansard record straight, my colleague who responded to the Minister's statement was the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), not Cochrane-Superior.
What the Minister has announced today, Mr. Speaker, is nothing less than a mega-project for northern Canada. The impact is bound to be significant. There is no mention at all in the Minister's statement about an assessment of the impact on aboriginal peoples. Is he able now to detail for the House how this consultative process will work with aboriginal peoples? I notice there will be 11,500 person years of employment created in communications and construction. By what means will be aboriginal people have an opportunity to participate in these jobs?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for confusing the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I certainly would not want to add to their joint confusion.
As I indicated in my statement, the broadest possible consultation is going to take place between the Ministries, including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and, very important, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). We are most conscious, myself particularly, of any impact the project will have on our aboriginal peoples.
I suppose the short answer is to assure the Hon. Member that I will insist during the progress of the whole project that not only the socio-economic impact on our native peoples is thoroughly taken into consideration, but also the job opportunities which might accrue to them, which are of a considerable magnitude.


Mr. Jardine:: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister appreciates the economic impact that the closure of the Canadian Pine Tree Line will have on the communities affected. Can he elaborate further on what assistance the Government will be giving to the communities and people so affected?


Erik Nielsen: That will be of particular concern to the consultation process which I just described between the Department of National Defence and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have also had the suggestion that it would be useful to meet with some of the local officials in these communities. I think that was a worth-while suggestion. It should also, I think, be emphasized that while there was no obligation to do so, at our suggestion in the negotiations leading to this agreement, the United States has agreed to assist us financially in dealing with the minimal-socio-economic implications resulting from this project. I think that is a significant display of the determination of the two countries to address our mutual concerns in achieving the objective of modernizing this system.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question asked by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) regarding closure of the Pine Tree


Air Defence Modernization
Line. As the Minister knows, there is already severe unemployment in Atlantic Canada. 1 respect the Minister's wish to have consultations on these matters, but there is no way that consultations are going to make up for the loss of jobs and economic activity. These losses would be a very severe blow. There is a possibility that there will be new West Coast and East Coast defence systems. Has the Minister given any thought perhaps to turning existing installations on the Pine Tree Line into new defence systems?


Erik Nielsen: Indeed, I thank the Hon. Member for raising that aspect of the project because it gives me the opportunity to tell him and Members generally that the present closure plans with respect to the Cadin Pine Tree Line would affect some 17 of the 24 stations and some 3,725 jobs. Of those jobs, 1,975 are military positions which can be redeployed to higher priority uses in the defence program. Another 1,027 positions are those of civilians directly employed by DND. The vast majority of these can be employed at other DND locations if the employees are willing to move and if the Department is in a position to retain the person year authorizations to redeploy them. This leaves 722 civilians living in the communities whose jobs depend on the stations. Of these, 275 are dependants of military personnel. There are DND programs to assist employees to relocate and I will be forming a committee with my colleagues, including the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to ensure that we make full use of the wide variety of adjustment, retraining, relocation, job search and income support programs available, both within the federal and the provincial Governments, for those in need of assistance. We will be working closely with the provinces and the communities affected in developing programs for each individual community.
Might I just add very quickly that those stations in the Atlantic areas are the least affected by the entire project.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for a comment from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) on the process. Many Members of the House are pleased that we had the opportunity to peruse this agreement and discuss it on Statements by Ministers. We operate under a process by which a small group in the executive is entitled to sign international agreements with long-term effects which are not brought before Parliament for consideration, when in fact our partner with whom we are involved in many of these agreements does have an opportunity to present that material to elected legislators for their consideration.
Is the Government considering a process whereby documents such as this one and the interception agreement made on the West Coast would become subjects for discussion in Parliament to give legislators in this forum an opportunity to take a serious look at the implications which this and other agreements that the Government has already signed would have for Canada in the long term?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is the second time in as many days that a member of that Party has held up as an example the desirability of adopting the United States system of Government. That is not our system of government. If what he is suggesting were to come about, it would cause serious and broad changes to our system of government. It is certainly not within my responsibility, nor within that of the Government, to invoke any system other than that which has developed within our country since Confederation. The fact of the matter is that the Government is charged with the responsibility of making these decisions. There has been consultation as I have described. That is part of the parliamentary process. With that foregoing explanation, the simple answer to the Hon. Member's question is no.


Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question to the Minister of National Defence and Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and make sure that both the question and the answer will be conveyed to the President of the United States (Mr. Reagan) who will be making a historic visit to Quebec City next weekend. Therefore, I will ask it in English.

What plans or arrangements are there to provide landing or dispersal facilities for U.S. aircraft in times of crisis or in wartime?


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, I did not get the entire question. I wonder if the Hon. Member would put it again quickly?


Marcel R. Tremblay: My question is, what plans or arrangements are there to provide landing or dispersal facilities for U.S. aircraft in times of crisis or in wartime?


Erik Nielsen: Under the existing arrangements between the two countries, there are arrangements for United States aircraft to use Canadian bases. That will be extended as the new air facilities, the ground facilities to accommodate the modernization of the system, are expanded in northern Canada. The same provisions of the existing arrangements would be expanded to accommodate those new purposes of NWS.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a supplementary question because I did not receive an answer from the Hon. Minister of Defence (Mr. Nielsen) on the first question. He spent his time hashing over some old history. I simply want to know from him, because it goes to the very base of the announcement he made today, whether the Government is now signalling its clear agreement that the change in strategy, change in approach and change in defence thinking that was announced a year ago by President Reagan, and has since been endorsed by Secretary Weinberger, which says that we are now moving from deterrence to active defence and that the North Warning System is a part of that very fundamental change in military policy, is now the policy of the Government of Canada?


Erik Nielsen: There he goes again distorting the actual facts. He knows that is a distortion because his Government initiated these discussions. All we are doing is bringing about the formal conclusion to an agreement which he and his Government brought to 99 per cent of completion.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is a cop-out.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister might focus on the key part of the question that I raised previously. Certainly it would not change the nature of government to lay the document before the House and allow Parliament to take a serious look at it. That is ultimately done in the United States. The Government would still have the opportunity and responsibility to make the decision. With regard to the Canada-U.S. salmon interception treaty, it was stated for the record by a Cabinet Minister that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) never read the document and that it went through Cabinet in 30 minutes. This process is unacceptable.
Has the Deputy Prime Minister, who when in opposition fought this abusive use of power, now changed his standards to the point that he would not provide information to Parliament and the people of Canada in advance of making his decision?


Erik Nielsen: 1 can understand the frustrations of the Member, being as he is a member of the Opposition where he will likely remain for as long as he is here.


Raymond John Skelly: You spent a long time here yourself.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member is suggesting a fundamental change in the system. It would be presumptuous of me or of the Government to make that kind of decision unilaterally. I am sure that he would be the first to howl. At the moment the Prime Minister has appointed a committee headed by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), which includes a distinguished member of the Hon. Member's own Party and members of the Official Opposition, which is studying this very kind of question. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he might make more effective and constructive suggestions regarding changes of the depth that he has in mind if he would attend and make his views known to that committee and assist in bringing constructive recommendations out of that committee back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to recognize Hon. Members from Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) on supplementary questions and the Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy), and then I am going to end the questions and comments period.


B. Keith Penner: In his response, the Minister used the word "confusion". I think he is confused about his own statement. Nowhere in this statement is there any reference to the socio-economic impact regarding the modernization program to which he referred. There is reference to the closing of the Pine Tree Line sites. Where can Members of Parliament learn about the impact that this will have on northerners, and how
Air Defence Modernization
they will be enabled to respond adequately to that impact and take advantage of the opportunities that will be provided? Where are the detailed plans for that? If they are not ready now, how quickly will they be ready? How will Members of Parliament be able to study those plans in order to get this information into the hands of northerners, who are deeply concerned about it?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and fully understand that concern, as the Hon. Member knows. However, that is the kind of question that he will have the opportunity to put to me in the Standing Committee. I would suggest that that would be the place to discuss the kind of detail which he anticipates in the question. I am sure that he will agree that in a statements and questions mode such as this there would simply not be the opportunity to answer the question he put in a fair way. If the House has the time, Mr. Speaker, I have 15 pages that I could read to the Hon. Member, but I do not think it does.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) mentioned that 17 of the 24 Pine Tree Line stations would be closed. Could the Minister tell us which stations are going to be closed, or which ones are going to be left open, or perhaps both?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think I can best answer that question by focusing on the ones that will remain open. Those will be five sites; Holberg in the west, and Gander, Goose Bay, Sydney and Barrington in the east. It will be necessary to maintain those stations in order to maintain surveillance on our coasts until newer radar coverage is proven. The two sites at Cold Lake and Mont Apica are essential to air training programs.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the effect of that agreement on our independence. Will we remain an independent nation or will the Americans have all of the input into this agreement? Will this enhance our sovereignty or diminish it?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy), I think perhaps the best way I could answer his question would be to say that under the agreement, Canada will be exercising its national responsibilities on its own national territory and in its own national airspace by controlling, operating and maintaining those parts of the North American air defence system located in Canada.
In keeping with the strengthening and maturing of our sovereignty and our responsibility, Canada will also be responsible for all of the system's construction and all of the communications in Canada. Canada will operate and maintain all the elements of the system on Canadian territory, which is a change from the previous arrangements under the DEW Line. I am sure the Hon. Member will recognize the significance of that distinction.

Order Paper Questions


PETITIONS
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 494 residents of the towns of Beebe, Rock Island and Stanstead. The petition has been signed by people who, during the program aired by Sherbrooke radio station CHLT 63, have denounced the latest retail price increases of gasoline in Quebec which, for too long now, have been doubly penalizing people who live close to the American border.
Given the excessive price of gasoline, the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to convince the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) to intervene in this case by enforcing laws on combines and free competition.
1 present the petition and strongly urge the Government to give it due consideration.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 52, 152 and 181.


Mr. Howie: With respect to the number of persons employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and deployed, during the last two years, in each of New Brunswick and Newfoundland (a) did the number deployed decline and, if so, for what reason (b) what total number of persons were deployed in each of the years and what total amount was paid to the Government for their services (c) what rate per person was charged for police services?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: (a)
Yes. In New Brunswick, expansion of the New Brunswick Highway Patrol resulted in a corresponding decrease in RCMP personnel. In Newfoundland, expansion of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has also resulted in a decrease of RCMP personnel in the St. John's area.
Regular Members
	* (Including R/M's, S/Csts., C/M'S)	* P/S	Total
1982/83			
New Brunswick	543	98	641Newfoundland	667	98	7651983/84	New Brunswick	521	98	619Newfoundland	634	1 14	748
For fiscal years 1982/83 and 1983/84, the Province of New Brunswick reimbursed the Government of Canada $15,317,361.79 and $15,773,529.86 respectively. The Province of Newfoundland reimbursed Canada $22,355,518.38 and $22,715,559.52 respectively for the same periods.
(c) A rate per person is not struck in relation to total police services in the Provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
* R/M's	- Regular members
S/Csts	- Special Constables
C/M's	- Civilian members
P/S	- Public Servants


Mr. Friesen: 1.	In each office of the (a) National Headquarters in Ottawa (b) Pacific Regional Headquarters (c) Prairie Regional Headquarters (d) Ontario Regional Headquarters (e) Quebec Regional Headquarters (f) Atlantic Regional Headquarters of the Correctional Service, what is the total number of employees (administration, policy advisors, stenographers, clerks, etc.)?
2.	What prior experience or training in the Correctional Service did the Commissioner have before his appointment to that position?
3.	Was the senior officer (the regional director) of the Correctional Service reclassified to Assistant Deputy Commissioner level, just shortly before the announcement of the 6 and 5 program and, if so, what was the attendant increase in the salary scale for such a change?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In
so far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a)	National Headquarters	- 654(b)	Pacific Regional Headquarters	- 147(c)	Prairies Regional Headquarters	- 102(d)	Ontario Regional Headquarters	- 208(c)	Quebec Regional Headquarters	- 189(D	Atlantic Regional Headquarters	- 822.	At the date of the question, the Commissioner was Donald R. Yeomans who was appointed on December 9, 1977. At that time, Commissioner Yeomans had no prior experience or training in the Correctional Service.3.	The Regional Deputy Commissioner positions were converted from SX to EX on April, 1981 as a result of the government's decision to introduce a new management classification plan in the Public Service. Accordingly, all SXs in the Government were converted to EXs as a result of this decision.
The salary range for each Regional Deputy Commissioner is as follows:
Region	Level
Atlantic	SX-I to EX-3
Quebec	SX-2 to EX-4
Ontario	SX-2 to EX-4
Prairies	SX-2 to EX-4
Pacific	SX-2 to EX-4
Salary Range	
SX-I: $36,800 to $50. 000 SX-2: $41,900 to $57,100 EX-3: $51,500 to $60,800 EX-4: $56,400 to $66,200


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983, what were the expenditures of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	In 1983, what were the expenditures on drug enforcement?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1.	(a) 1980/81 -S598.733.000
(b)	1981/82 - $650,867,000
(c)	1982/83 - $729,050,000
(d)	1983/84 - $801,737,000
2.	Drug enforcement expenditures in 1983 were $45,371,000. It should be noted that this expenditure does not include expenditures incurred by members of the RCMP employed on duties other than drug enforcement but through the nature of their duties become involved in drug enforcement activities.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn (for Mrs. McDougall) that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
There is no question that the financial structure of a country is inseparable from its social justice. Although this Bill proposes technical amendments to our structural relationship to these institutions, we should also consider the functions of these institutions and what they stand for, not only in Canada and in the western world but particularly in Third World countries. When we support the institutions that make up the financial structure of the world, we also support their economic decisions which have wide ranging effects throughout those less developed countries.
Quite often, the institutions and organizations that are addressed in this Bill provide a human element in this financial structure. While some say that this human element is particularly unfeeling occasionally, the charters of these institutions have indicated that the intent of this human element was to make it possible for western countries to assist the less developed countries.
Those who support these institutions would cite the conditions that are imposed on populations in support of possible developments as part of the infusion of financial aid to different parts of the world. I think I would agree with those people.
Perhaps some Third World countries are finding it increasingly difficult to accept those conditions that are imposed on them by these institutions. When we are considering our support for these institutions, perhaps we should consider those conditions that are being imposed by these institutions that come under the IMF and the World Bank.
One Prime Minister has accepted over the years financial assistance from the IMF and World Bank. Recently he was faced with the strong suggestion that his country adopt some austerity measures, and so because of his country's need for support from the World Bank, he suggested that his country would have to put up with food riots. This is a particular example of how organizations such as the International Bank for Construction and Development, the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation are becoming deeply involved in the internal development and structure of countries which they are supposed to help. I make these statements by way of introduction because I believe that we in Canada have a role to play in the control which finance has in the world. Finance is becoming a dictator of economic development and consequently a dictator of social justice in large parts of the world.
Canada was once a colony, but colonialism is unacceptable to us. It is part of our heritage, but we have come out of it very well. We have come out of it because our mother country was not too distant from us in ideology and cultural development. Most of Canada was settled by people from Europe who had the same traditional structure of democracy or close to democ-


Bretton Woods Agreements Act
racy. They were from areas with the same political structure and in some cases somewhat the same economic structure. The mother country, in the process of colonizing Canada, expected it to be a supplier of goods. Basically we developed in that mode, but now we have removed ourselves from political and economic colonialism. Although exploitation was part of the reason for the development of the new world, Canada and the United States, it did not work that well in the end, as far as mother countries were concerned.
In many Third World countries the situation was quite different. Exploitation was imposed in the sense of making use of part of the social structure of those countries to provide European countries, the colonial masters, with the materials they needed to become rich and powerful, with very little effort being made to establish a long-term economic structure to help Third World countries survive. In Third World countries one kind of colonialism has been traded for another. The political colonialism of the past has been traded for financial colonialism and for industrial colonialism-for economic colonialism, if we take them together. Sometimes the mother country has been replaced entirely by faceless multinational corporations, which do not even have the basic interests of the colonial masters of the past. They are faceless corporations which have a bottom line mentality, and any expense which might reduce their profits is considered unacceptable.
If we travel through many Third World countries, we find in the minds of the people-and sometimes even in the minds of their Governments-that the economic colonial master is generalized as the West. In the past, the West has been the basis of the money which has gone into the institutions which are supposedly lending money for the good of these countries or in a suggested attempt to let them develop on their own. Also we find something which concerns me greatly, the almost unlimited arrogance of the West. That arrogance is imposed upon these countries by the institutions which are being supported in this Bill. I have worked in the Third World long enough to know that those countries have found themselves in a position of having to accept money. Since that is so, the World Bank immediately imposes conditions on how the money will be used. In many cases it is not used in the best interest of the country, but in such a way as to increase trade with the western countries that support the IMF and the World Bank. That arrogance is manifested by their actions across the Third World and in the actions of the World Bank in the control of capital in such a way that the dictation of how the money is used has changed the social stucture of the countries using it. These countries have experienced the imposition of colonialism of a different kind by the World Bank and the IMF, but it is colonialism all the same. Instead of political colonialism, it is economic, financial and, to some extent, cultural colonialism.
I should like to refer to the net result of this. I say "net result" because sometimes the original idea was worth-while and even the structure was worth-while. However, the net result has been hindrance rather than help. These institutions, through their control of capital, have imposed various kinds of trade on the countries to which they have lent money. In many
cases, when a country receives a loan, it finds that aid from western countries which support the World Bank is reduced because it now has money to buy the product which it normally received in the form of aid. However, it is not quite given enough and is forced to buy from countries which support the World Bank. It finds itself unable to penetrate markets where it could purchase cheaper goods.
By supporting loans from the World Bank, the western world has indirectly forced these countries to buy western world products and to continue to buy those products, sometimes at a much higher cost than they would have paid had they been able to buy on the world market. Also, acceptance of these loans allows no break in the servicing of them. These countries are already in trouble, but there is no break in the servicing of the loans until they find themselves in a position where they are unable to repay them. When they reach that point, they no longer have control of their economy. It is then controlled by the IMF and the World Bank. After they have borrowed, they find themselves subject to circumstances imposed by these institutions.
Lately we in this Parliament have been looking at farm financing. It has bothered me greatly that there is an amazing parallel between what has happened to these countries and what has happened to the farmers in those countries. They accepted loans which are now causing them trouble. They find it difficult to survive. That is exactly what happened to these countries. They accepted loans on the understanding that these magnanimous institutions would help them. They now find that they are unable to repay these loans. They are in trouble and are being forced to do things which they consider to be as a result of an injustice.
History has shown that these western supported and controlled institutions will, if the country is unable to repay, intervene, not on behalf of the client country, but on behalf of the financial institutions which support them. It is to be expected, except that the charter says that these institutions were put in place to assist the client countries, not the banks or the countries that supplied them with the money.
We in this Party are not debating this Bill in an attempt to stop the marginally effective operation of the international financial structure. We know we cannot do that. After the length of time it has been in place, we recognize that it is necessary for it to continue. Let us not kid ourselves that any of these institutions operate on behalf of Third World countries. Let us recognize that these institutions are effectively assisting the financial and economic colonialism of the Third World.
This country, and I suppose the whole world, should recognize that the IMF continues to use its leverage to contravene the very reasons for which it was set up. The financial and economic colonialism which is now in place impedes other countries, including our own, from assisting in economic development. We find that aid from Canada is more difficult to


give because it affects the financial structure under which these institutions operate.
We will pass this Bill and send it to committee, but we understand that the institutions that we are supporting are inadequate. Over the years, the very thrust of their charters has changed. They are no longer there for the benefit of Third World countries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member? The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) in debate.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, as most Members know, it was in July 1944 that Canada, along with 27 other nations, met at Bretton Woods in the United States in an attempt to promote domestic economic prosperity through international co-operation, a very worthy undertaking indeed. The establishment at that conference of the International Monetary Fund and of the World Bank is considered to be the most significant result of that Bretton Woods conference.
Today we are debating Bill C-30 which, among other things, very simply will continue to provide financial assistance to the World Bank group annually by way of the Estimates rather than through statutory amendments. I suppose that is an efficient way of meeting our commitments. I should tell Hon. Members that the World Bank group is composed of several institutions, not just one. They have a common objective, that is, to help raise the standard of living in developing countries by channelling financial resources from developed nations to the so-called developing world.
Canada was one of the founding members of the World Bank. At this moment in our history, a message has to go forth around the world that we here in Canada have a federal deficit which is so large that it has become a serious obstacle to achieving economic prosperity within our own borders.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Who gave it to us?


B. Keith Penner: I will come to that. Unless we get our financial house in order and unless we do it quite soon, we will be in no position at all to assist the World Bank or to provide aid to any developing country, no matter how badly it needs it and no matter how much we want to provide that aid.
My hon. friend wants to know about those deficits and how they came about. Past federal administrations incurred these large deficits in the quite rightful effort to soften the effects of the recession upon our citizens. I would say that it was a noble and even worthy public policy, except that it was based on a false premise. It is very easy to say that in retrospect, with the wisdom of hindsight. The false premise was in the approach of Herbert Hoover that prosperity was just around the corner. Whether we like it or not, 1 think the corner is here. I think recovery, as much as we are going to have it, has taken place. This, in all likelihood, is our prosperity, but the deficit is still with us and it continues to grow.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
I know that no one really wants to discuss this issue at any great length. It is a very inflammable public issue. Nevertheless, it is true that we in Canada are on the verge of a serious financial crisis. I believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) knows this. I also believe that some of his more politically aware colleagues want to sweep the whole issue under the parliamentary carpet. This deficit is undermining the Government's ability to use fiscal policy to respond to economic issues of the day, current economic issues. The response to which I refer is, of course, mainly in the domestic field, but since we are debating the Bretton Woods Agreement, I have to remind Hon. Members that it has an international aspect as well.
Canada today should be in a position to put forward long-range economic policy directions. Every Government wants to do that if at all possible. Included in those directions would, of course, be some response that would echo our concerns for the North-South relationship, the flow of aid and assistance to the developing world. We cannot fashion such policies. We cannot point ourselves in such directions unless we find a way of overcoming the severe handicap to economic prosperity which is being created by the federal deficit. Allow me to quote a professor at Queen's University in Kingston who said:
Unless there is a credible strategy to bring the deficit under control, other policy initiatives that are taken in the coming year will have little chance of being brought to fruition.
That statement was made recently by Professor Douglas Purvis of Queen's University. May I suggest that we need today in Canada a fair, reasonable and very constructive anti-deficit policy. Unless we get one from the Government, there is not going to be any bright future for us or for anyone else in the world who looks to Canada for assistance and aid. Canada, of course, is not the only country with this problem. Many other countries have a deficit problem.
We all know that there are no easy, workable solutions to this serious issue. Gradual expenditure restraint has been tried on several occasions and has failed. I believe that one reason it fails is that so often there are Departmental officials who have the devilish ability to select the most politically sensitive programs to be cut. What a clever and devious way this is of protecting their own backsides. It is nothing short of sabotage.
I believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is guilty of this. Expenditure cuts have been imposed on the CBC and it has picked children's programs and programs for minority groups to cut. I know exactly what it is doing. The same thing can be said for the Department of the Environment. It cut the Canadian Wildlife Service because it knew there would be a great outcry against that kind of expenditure cut. It is nothing short of a way for officials to sabotage government policy.
The other alternative to the issue of the deficit is large across-the-board increases in taxes. We know that that would not be the answer either. It could be very disruptive and could even be harmful to a recovery which has been described as being fragile. That is not a bad description.


Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Our deficit is much more than cyclical in nature. It is to a very significant extent structural in its character. What does that mean? It means very simply that we are locked in to a set of circumstances, commitments, obligations and financial entanglements from which we cannot very easily extricate ourselves.
There are many outdated policy directives that now have the status and stature of sacred cows. The effects of many of these old policy decisions in today's setting are unproductive or even counterproductive and yet we go on living with them. Our expenditures grow, our deficit increases, our national debt mushrooms and we live with the consequences. That which needs particular attention at any given time is ignored. Why is it ignored? Simply because there is not enough money. Interest rates remain volatile, unemployment rates shockingly high and economic growth wavers between slow and stalled.
Despite all of this, and this is what concerns me so much, there is a large body of opinion in Canada which takes an entirely passive view of the deficit. Their view goes something like this: "Well, the economy is weak; therefore, we have a deficit". Has it ever occurred to any of these so-called economic thinkers that they ight have their analysis in reverse? Is it possible that we have a huge deficit; hence our economy is weak? Some more astute observers of the scene have noticed that the deficit is in fact malignant and that we are paying a very huge cost for this deficit, not just in terms of dollars, as serious as that may be, but also in the form of lost jobs, incomes and economic opportunities.
I do not need to remind the House that budgetary deficits in and by themselves are not necessarily unacceptable. Sometimes spending must of necessity exceed revenue. However, it is axiomatic that a manageable balance can be restore in the future. The rule is that we run deficits during recessions and have them offset by surpluses in times of economic expansion. However, as I said earlier, we are now having our economic expansion. This is it. Yet our deficits continue. It is madness. More than that, we are foreclosing on the future of generations that will follow after us. The only thing that is saving us from national bankruptcy at this moment is the taxing power of the federal Government. At any time, the federal Government may make a grab. However, the situation may become so serious that the Government may grab nearly everything and there will still not be enough.
Flying now and paying later may be okay if one just takes a few flights every year, but we have gone into continuous orbit using a credit card that has no limits. The largest amount of money ever to be spent by a Canadian Government, $105 billion, is to be spent by the Government this year. That is well in excess of $4,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
It was President John F. Kennedy who once said that his country needed a national purpose and he identified that purpose as putting a man on the moon. Here in Canada we do not need to search around for a national purpose. We do not need to look for a challenge; we have one staring us right in the face. Our national purpose and challenge ought to be
avoiding crossing that dangerous threshold between a fiscal problem and a fiscal crisis. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) must enlist the support of every Canadian in an all-out effort to avert such a crisis.
In carrying out this national goal, there must be fairness and justice. If we want the same level and quality of federal services, we will have to pay the costs. Perhaps we can do some careful weeding in our garden of services. Of course we all want equity. We should also demand efficiency. The burdens which are created by deficit reduction must be borne by the strongest elements in our society and not imposed upon the weakest. Sometimes it is so much easier to choose the weaker elements because their political voices are so soft in comparison to those of the powerful lobbies that operate in and around Ottawa. There will be no political support for major reforms in revenue and expenditure unless the impacts are distributed fairly.
If I may return for just a moment to the words of Professor Purvis, he has said:
-"deficit reduction is clearly going to require statesmanship and tough leadership."
In 1983 the national debt was double that of 1978, and five times that of 1973. Clearly we are not a Brazil, an Argentina or a Mexico. However, we should note carefully that when interest payment obligations exceed the capacity of the Government to generate revenue, the Government loses its ability to creatively manage and direct its economy over time.
I have heard people say that it is ridiculous to imagine that at some point in time, one-half of our federal revenues will be needed to make interest payments. It does not sound so ridiculous any longer. We are moving rapidly in that direction. If we lose the capacity to set economic policy independently for ourselves and if we lose domestic control, then perhaps our relationship with the World Bank may become significantly altered. It may be quite different from what it is now. Instead of us being a contributor to the World Bank, perhaps it will feel obliged to assist us. Perhaps our costly garden of services will be analysed by the World Bank and it may decide what kind of selective weeding should be done. It may be the World Bank that comes to us and suggests an appropriate price for our wide variety of products and services which are in the public domain. Under such circumstances, our relationship with the Bretton Woods Agreements to which Canada was a signatory and to which we are now a significant contributor would take on an entirely different meaning. It is a meaning that would not be good for Canada and one that Canadians would not like at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments, on the speech of the Hon. Member? The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I have both a question and a comment for the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. March 13, 1985

Penner). First, I would like to indicate my support for the Member's comments when he related the matter of the national deficit and debt in Canada and other nations in the world to Bill C-30. The Bill really concerns the International Monetary Fund. We must be concerned about the stability of that fund. Therefore, there is a very substantial connection between the matter of national deficits and debts to the subject-matter of the Bill.
What was even more relevant in the Hon. Member's presentation was his reference to the control of the finances of Government by the Public Service, as opposed to the Government of the day and, indeed, the Parliament of the day. I want to underline some of the sad things the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior pointed out in that connection. He was right to mention the fact that in the past the will of the Government, in terms of debt reduction and deficit reduction, has been thwarted by officers of the Public Service. I think it is right and proper for the people of Canada to know that.
There are illustrations of that from the past and there are illustrations of that at present. The honest effort of the Government of Canada to reduce the amount which is spent by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been placed in jeopardy by some of the specific things the CBC has done. I have seen it in my constituency of Halifax West. However, I could give the House a better example.
In this House of Commons we have a Parliamentary Broadcast Service which is threatened by the officers of the CBC. Those officers intend to change the parliamentary broadcast which is now being watched by Canadians. If that is not an attempt to call undue attention to an honest effort to reduce the amount of money which is spent by the CBC, I do not know what is. It is an attempt to thwart the will of the Government which is representing the will of the people of Canada. It is an attempt to impose the will of the management of the CBC.
I would like to mention another important example to reinforce what the Hon. Member has said. In the Province of Nova Scotia, CN Marine has stopped, as part of its expenditure reduction, the services provided by the Bluenose Ferry between the Province of Nova Scotia and the State of Maine. This will amount to a saving of $3.4 million. Well, I have a message for CN Marine and Canadian National. If they want to save $3.4 million, they should not reduce the service provided by the Bluenose Ferry which as my colleague from South West Nova knows, is vital to his area. CN should cut out the advertisements on national television which tell us that Canadian National is a transport company which is in business for Canada. I do not need to be told by Canadian National that it is a transport company in business for Canada, at cost of millions of dollars, when that same organization is cutting out a vital service to Nova Scotians, particularly those in the fishing industry. That is the kind of activity which is designed to thwart the honest desire of the Government of Canada, and the people of Canada, in reducing the amount of the national deficit and debt.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. Has he seen any difference in the Public Service of Canada, or the will of the Public Service, to thwart Parliament and the Government of Canada, notwithstanding the clear demonstration of the people of Canada, who told us in the September election that what they wanted was more responsible control of the financial management of the country? Does he see the Public Service of Canada responding to that clear request from the people of Canada?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I indicated in my remarks that the deficit was structural and not only cyclical in nature. I believe the same analysis could be applied to the Public Service of Canada. I think there are some very serious structural defects in the Public Service of Canada.
One of the things which has concerned me about the Nielsen Task Force-and Members opposite will be able to get information on this much more readily than I-is whether it is simply looking at the benefits and cost-effectiveness of programs, or if it is going much deeper and looking into the entire structure of the Public Service of Canada to determine, if significant cuts are desired, if there are certain aspects in the manner in which the Public Service conducts itself which would be very effective in the long run.
I would like to offer one suggestion. When the Nielsen Task Force findings are made public, we will find out whether there is any reference to this. What actually goes on in government Departments in the heavily-staffed policy divisions? Have we ever seen one small drop of policy come out of any of them? Usually, policy is much more effectively made by a handful of people in a Minister's office, or within the ranks of a political Party. But, how much workable, useful, applicable policy ever comes out of government Departments with their very large and expensive policy divisions? That is what I had in mind when I spoke about structural defects in the Public Service. I am very hopeful that the Nielsen Task Force will not eliminate or forget to apply its analysis to that.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and an invitation for the Hon. Member.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I think he has given us an introduction to the Budget debate which will probably be brought down in April. I think it is very encouraging that he said prosperity is here. I would like to agree with that. I believe the people of Canada on September 4 took a major step in ensuring that prosperity would return to the country.
He also said that we would sweep the deficit under the carpet. I disagree with that. On November 8, $4.2 billion in cuts was introduced by the Government. The Government has stayed with those cuts. The Government has not deviated from that introduction. The signal that the Government would live within its means was very clear. It is doing that. I dare say, it will exercise further fiscal restraint in reducing the deficit even further in the months and years ahead. We have to get our act under control and live within our means. By doing that, not only will we be able to supply more to needy Canadians, but,


Bretton Woods Agreements Act
as the Hon. Member mentioned, we will put ourselves in the position of being able to offer more to needy people in developing countries. We must live up to our international responsibilities through agreements such as the Bretton Woods.
I would like to extend an invitation. The Hon. Member sounds very much like a Tory these days. I congratulate him on that. I would like to invite him to join this Government and occupy the seat behind me. I would be very happy to have him do that whenever he so wishes.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, first, I would advise the Hon. Member to take a look at his Government's spending Estimates. He thinks the house is in order, but if the Government is spending $105 billion with a deficit which is rapidly approaching $40 billion dollars, the house is not in order. It is true that cuts were made, but the Government has also made some big new expenditures. It has dressed up the military in brand new uniforms, it is contributing to the modernization of the Dew Line, for who knows what reason, and the deficit and the national debt continue to grow. Therefore, before the Hon. Member extends an invitation for me to sit beside him, he had better do a careful analysis of the Estimates. I can tell him, if that is getting the house in order, it is a very lackadaisical way of going about it.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, are we to take it from the comments of the Hon. Member that he is in opposition to the changes in spouse's allowance, the increase in veteran's pension and the reduction in the sales tax on farm fuels and primary producers? Is he saying that he opposes those measures?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, what I would be most interested in knowing from the Hon. Minister is where he is going to get the money to put all of those trains back in operation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. We shall resume debate.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to take over what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) was going to say. I put it to the House that when we listen to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) speak, he really does sound like he should be sitting next to those Hon. Members opposite. I venture to say that had we put a bag over his head before he began to speak we certainly would not have known whether he was a Conservative or a Liberal. We have maintained in the House all along, Mr. Speaker, that there really is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has the floor.


Raymond John Skelly: When we look back over the last Parliament, Mr. Speaker, we certainly realize that the decimation which Hon. Members of the Liberal Party underwent during the last election was substantially as a result of their attempts to disguise themselves as Conservatives in the very unpopular programs they produced. One thing the Conservative Government has in common with the Liberals is that it has the knack of taking a Liberal catastrophe and making it worse. Had I the time, and were we considering a different sort of order of business before the House, I would be prepared to elaborate on that.
I would like to examine the Bill before us in the context of sovereignty. An Hon. Member of our Party who spoke previously indicated some serious elements of concern about the sovereignty effects of these particular funds and the role which the United States plays in world development through these agencies, the large voice it has in it and the kind of philosophical approach it takes to providing assistance. He did raise the critical question of sovereignty. Before I move on I would like to take a look at the question of sovereignty in a broader context, and then in summary look at the Bill in that way.
Let us consider the idea of Canadian sovereignty. In the seven months the Conservative Government has been in power we have probably seen a greater erosion of Canadian sovereignty than since the time of the second world war. In those seven months we have probably lost more in Canadian sovereignty, moved further backwards, than we have since the second world war. I would point to the announcement today by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) with respect to the new agreement with the United States. Of course, the United States is our partner in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the international finance agencies. It has the largest say and dominates the over-all game plan, and if one doesn't play its way it takes its marbles and goes home, as it has done in other international agencies. The American philosophy prevails. It is the philosophy of President Reagan, and when we come to this defence agreement, we know full well who is calling the shots.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during questioning in the House the Government was unwilling to put the documents before this Parliament under some thin guise that somehow it would profoundly change the nature of Government in Canada. That is absolute, patent nonsense. It would simply give legislators in this House the opportunity to examine things which affect their sovereignty.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in upgrading the north warning system, is becoming involved in cost-sharing with the United States on American military hardware, on an American military defence program and an American worldwide defence strategy about which the Americans make the decisions. That is an erosion of Canadian sovereignty. It is a long-term binding agreement which apparently has no safety valves which would allow us to get out of it in an appropriate manner.
We are in serious trouble with this Conservative Government. It is not just content to flag $7 billion to the United


States in its worldwide arms and defence strategy. We have made acquisitions in the United States of the Auroros program. We spent $1 billion plus in looking at new offshore patrol aircraft for which we are allegedly receiving benefit. But we did not do that with a defence plan in mind. We have not seen a policy direction from the new Government on the role the Canadian Armed Forces will play and what Canada's role should be in an international context.
We have expended more than $1 billion for offshore patrol aircraft without a policy statement from the new Government. Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, we had not received one from the previous Government since the early 1970s. The Canadian public has no idea where we are going. This Parliament has no idea where we are going. A dollar will get you a doughnut that this Government does not know where it is going.
What is happening is that this Government is being dictated to by the Americans who say, "We have the plan, we have the worldwide strategy. You will lock into it and we will produce your equipment and give you some offsets". We have purchased a fighter aircraft at a cost of several billion dollars. We don't know what that fighter aircraft is being used for. It does not fit into any over-all defence plan on a worldwide basis, because Government has not produced a defence plan.
At one point an Hon. Member-I don't know whether or not he was a government member-with tongue in cheek was pointing out that McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd. had promised to give Canada a $300 million tourism program as an offset. I believe one of the Hon. Members of the Conservative Party was suggesting that a useful role for the CF-18 might be to take the aircraft around the country from fair to fair and give rides in it. That might provide as much use as it is providing in many quarters today. I am sure it was just a tongue in cheek remark, but what I believe he was getting at, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not have a game plan for Canada's role internationally in a defence strategy.
Where do we fit in? We don't even have a national defence plan. The last time we saw something in writing was 15 years ago. That is almost as far away as the industrial revolution. It is time this Government put a plan before this House. That should be done before we expend billions of dollars more without knowing where we are going, except that we are just locking into Uncle Sam's plan and his worldwide concept of how things should be run. We are locked into President Reagan's game plan. That should make anyone's blood run cold.
We are going to spend billions of dollars buying a frigate if the Government manages to get it back on track, and there are a lot of pitfalls there. We are buying a lot of technology from the United States. We were hoping that one of the side benefits will be to put Canada's shipyards back in action, but the Prime Minister of Canada, in an interview the other day, said he would like to get rid of the subsidies on shipbuilding in this country. I wonder what some of the more outspoken Hon. Members of the Conservative Party who have been fighting for
Bretton Woods Agreements Act this for years are telling the Prime Minister behind closed doors.
We don't have a Canadian defence policy put before this House and the country. Those billions of dollars are being expended across the line and we would certainly like to have some idea of why. We would like some assurance from the Government that in fact we have not lost our offset because of the bungling of the previous Government in letting the contract. We would also like to know if the Prime Minister is serious about wanting to gut the Canadian shipbuilding industry by cutting off all the subsidies being used in an attempt to make this a competitive and restructured industry in a very brisk and difficult international market.
The long and the short of the defence message today was that this Government does not know where it is going. It is expending billions upon billions of dollars for defence hardware and new uniforms without a defence plan. The only possible option is to tie into Reagan's plan. Frankly, a lot of people in this country do not want to have anything to do with that plan which is bringing this world closer and closer to the brink of destruction. This is a profound loss of Canadian sovereignty. We have an opportunity to play a meaningful role in the world community in moving toward permanent peace and disarmanent. But this has been compromised by this Government. We have had seven months of compromises. If we give them five years who knows what this country will look like? Who knows what our independent status in the world will be? Certainly the Liberals damaged it sorely, but the Conservatives may be out to lay it to rest.
While dealing with the topic of Canadian sovereignty, Mr. Speaker, another question is that of the gutting of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. This ties in with the International Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the International Financial Agency. The Bill before us today represents a serious encroachment on Canadian sovereignty. Let us look at the context within which the Government is developing this type of legislation.
It was a philosophical decision which gutted FIRA. The Government said Canada was open for business. By that it means open to the multinational corporations which have presented a worldwide problem with their lack of regulation, specific investment purpose or benefit to the country concerned. These companies are unfettered and will begin to buy up constructive Canadian businesses; sometimes close them. Sometimes they will turn the course of these businesses in a totally different direction. For example, we know the track record of these corporations in funnelling interest payments and dividends out of the country. They purchase parts for assembly only in Canada, which means a loss of Canadian jobs. This type of activity means a further weakening of the Canadian economy.
In seven months the Conservative Party has done more to weaken this country and discourage confidence than we have seen in a long, long time. They should take a look at the record


Bretton Woods Agreements Act of Premier Bennett in British Columbia. There we see a philosophical rigidity, a fixation on a restraint program. I fear for British Columbia when this federal Government and the effects of its philosophical fixation on restraint are joined with those of Bennett in British Columbia. We will rue the day that either one of these Governments was elected.
This is not just a question of the Conservatives and Socreds making a horrendous mess of the country. We are allowing them to sell out the independence of this nation, and that cannot continue. The one encouraging thing is that the Committee for an Independent Canada is beginning to form again. This time it will have strength, and the Conservative Party and its attempts to sell out Canada's sovereignty in a political and economic sense will be the direct target of that agency. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was just indicating the number of minutes the Hon. member has left. The Hon. Member still has the floor.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the assistance of the Chair and recognize what a magnificent job is being done.


Some Hon. Members:: More.


Raymond John Skelly: It is a great help to all Members in here.
The salmon treaty, Mr. Speaker, was an interesting example of how this Government was in an incredible rush to sell the country out. In the old days we allowed American jurisdiction over about one third of the coast of British Columbia. We sat on a joint committee with them. For the privilege of doing so, and a few other minor things, they could take half of a certain species of fish which went into the Fraser River. This meant millions of dollars a year free. They could also help in the management of our fishing territories and we would have to go along with them. That was an erosion of sovereignty which took place years ago. In fact, it may have been done under a Conservative Government, I would have to check my book.
What the Conservatives propose now is that instead of controlling a third of the coast of British Columbia the Americans now shall have jurisdiction over the whole coast of British Columbia; the whole fishing plan, and that is an enormous erosion of sovereignty. Canadians were hung out to dry by that treaty because, in the haste to get something together to give to President Reagan when the Prime Minister meets with him in Quebec City this weekend, the Prime Minister insisted this treaty go ahead, no matter what shape it was in. As time went by we found out that this important treaty, this complete erosion of the sovereignty over an important Canadian resource on the West Coast, went through Cabinet in 30 minutes. I wonder if the Minister of Transport even bothered to read the document or became informed on it. Can he confirm today that it went through Cabinet in 30 minutes and that the Prime Minister never even read the document?
It was indicated in the media that the Government knew there were very serious problems with the treaty, but the
Prime Minister wanted it very, very badly. What kind of a Government is this? It is one that does not care about Canadian sovereignty. It is prepared to take the welcome mat, roll it over and turn Canada into a door mat. I suggest that this Bill is another example of that attitude, and we should examine it very clearly for its Canadian sovereignty implications. The Conservative Party's contempt for Parliament is such that I do not think that we can defend against these continued erosions of sovereignty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, in offering a comment on the speech of the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) I won't complain that he failed to deal with the matter of the-


Raymond John Skelly: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I have to accept a comment from a person who is politically biased?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Howard Edward Crosby: I don't admit to political bias ordinarily, but in the case of the Member for Comox-Powell River I'm only too pleased to say that I'm biased, not so much against him but what he and his Party stand for, and that's why I'll begin by offering not to complain about the fact he didn't deal with the International Monetary Fund and its threat to its stability caused by national debts across the world, but particularly in Canada, and the need for deficit reduction, I won't complain that he didn't deal with those things. But I will complain that the thrust of his speech was to complain about the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who made one of the better speeches I've heard in the House of Commons. He complained that he was sounding like a Tory. How is that for political bias? The Members of the New Democratic Party, those armchair socialists who purport to represent a political element in Canada, cannot get it through their heads that there is no philosophy of politics that demands debt reduction. There is a will on the part of the Canadian people to demand financial responsibility of the Government. That is what the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is responding to. My colleague from Cochrane-Superior was responding to the need and desire of the Canadian people for financial responsibility in government. I would like to tell the Member for Cochrane-Superior and the Members of the New Democratic Party, those armchair socialists of which I speak-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. I think the Hon. Member is addressing his comments to the speech of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). I would hope the Hon. Member would address his remarks to that particular speech.


Howard Edward Crosby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really was addressing my remarks to you. I want you to tell that armchair socialist from Cochrane-Superior that we can best aid the


people of Canada in social programs and social services by providing the best of all social programs which is full employment. We 'vill only get full employment if we have financial policies at the national Government level that create the kind of economic atmosphere that will allow the private sector to create that employment.
I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct Members of the New Democratic Party, and try to get it through to them that this is what the people of Canada want. That is what the Parliament of Canada must do. That is what the Government of Canada is trying to implement. It is the will of the people. It is not any political philosophy. We are not burdened with the political philosophy of the New Democratic Party which insists on nationalizing industry and on doing for Canadians what they can do for themselves.
Having completed that comment, Mr. Speaker, I will ask one question. Why does the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party continually refer to programs like the F-18 fighter program and the Patrol Frigate Program as being harmful to Canada and the people of Canada. What is his attitude toward the closure of Chatham Air Force Base? Is he in favour of that? Does he want the people of Chatham in New Brunswick to suffer the pains of unemployment and economic distress because of the closure of that base? Is he and the Members of his Party in favour of that kind of government action? Let us hear his views on national defence?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the sound and fury of the Hon. Member as he came to his point confused me somewhat. I would like to paint a thumb-nail sketch on political science for the Hon. Member.
The reason the people of Canada dumped the previous Liberal Government on its nose was not because of the anal retentive mentality that the Conservative Party has with its fixation on debts and budget problems. I look at the Government of Manitoba and see that it is doing well. The deficit of Saskatchewan was well in hand. They did not have a serious problem until the Conservatives came in and wrecked it.
The dilemma here is that the arrogance and near autocracy of the last Government was so serious that the people of Canada wanted to dump it. It was thrown out because of its absolute unwillingness to listen and to get involved in the kind of dialogue that there should be in the political process.
As a matter of fact, in the last few years the Liberal Party tried to disguise itself as a Conservative Party. I think the Conservative Government of Canada is making a tremendous mistake. These people were thrown out for compromising Canadian sovereignty and the Conservatives are making it worse. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that sad lesson of history is going to be learned by the Conservative Party again. It faces a mandate for constructive change, not the destructive activity that is going on. We will see what happens when their five year period comes to an end. They must get that fixation on debts and deficits off their mind and consider how they can constructively get the country back to work so that people can pay
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
the way of the country. We will then be on the road. But so far there is no sign that they have learned that lesson. I fear that the country is in further trouble financially, and in terms of its sovereignty.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). Judging from some of the remarks we have heard on his speech, I feel that the Hon. Member should clarify one or two items.
Would he not agree that the New Democratic Party is also concerned with the deficit, but that it proposes that we should lower the deficit by collecting the revenues that should be collected, which the previous Liberal Government did not collect and which the present Conservative Government certainly is not collecting? If we collected only the deferred taxes owed by the corporate sector we could wipe out most of the deficit of this year. We must deal with the deficit, not by cutting programs but by collecting the taxes which should have been collected in the first place.
The second point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, was that for all intents and purposes democracy is dead in the City of New York. It is dead because decisions of the purse are no longer being made by the City Council of the City of New York. Those decisions are now being made by a group of bankers and financiers who control the expenditures of the City of New York. Surely we begin to lose our sovereignty and political democracy if we allow ourselves to fall into the hands and powers of the financiers. Would my colleague care to comment on the two points I have raised?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the New Democratic Party has hit the problem on the head. Being from Saskatchewan, he knows that under CCF and NDP governments that province had tremendous years of success in managing the deficit. They managed their deficit better than has any Conservative government. The same thing has occurred in Manitoba.
It will be unfortunate if the Conservatives fail to learn that we need a constructive and moving economy giving people the opportunity to work. We do not need the vision of this country that the Conservatives are perpetrating right now. They are cutting for the sake of cutting and exercising restraint that is harming thousands of people. They are compounding what the small-minded provincial Conservative governments are doing in their jurisdictions. We need an open and fresh approach to the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. While the recommendations and changes are mostly


Bretton Woods Agreements Act
house-keeping measures, there is one very significant feature that we should keep in mind. That is the change in authority for expenditures which will now be through the Estimates rather than through amendments to the Bill. That is very significant because it takes away one of the few opportunities, if not the only opportunity, to discuss in the House the problems of financing of the Third World and the needs of the impoverished countries in the world. It takes away our opportunity to deal with this very important question which we, as a democratic country and a very fortunate people, should examine from time to time.
The enactment of the Bretton Woods Agreements in 1944 set up the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These were two very important agencies. At that time it brought the world out of a financial crisis. I do not think there has been any meeting or organizational restructuring that has been more important to the financial structure of the world than were the Bretton Woods meetings in 1944.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were deemed to be the vehicles through which the financing, restructuring, the tempering and development of finances in the world were to take place. On the one hand, the International Monetary Fund would provide short term balance of payments financing to assist countries in maintaining the par value of their currencies without having to resort to undesirable deflationary measures. On the other hand, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which was really the only feature of the World Bank at that time, would provide long term loans to assist countries in restructuring their economies after the devastation of World War II and to promote long term structural change. This was a tremendously important feature at that time. I think it is fair to say that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has achieved those results and that these two groups have been very successful.
However, times change and so does the world. The needs in 1944 are not necessarily the only needs that exist at the present time. The loans that are directed toward the developing countries through the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development are to countries in more advanced stages of economic and social growth. There is no mistaking that this is providing a very real need, but many very poor nations seem to be falling between the financial planks and are not being covered by the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development or the International Monetary Fund, which I will refer to later.
Financing through the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development gives financing through conventional means with guarantees by the member countries. This is very important. The loans are based on financial considerations, which is also important, with respect to certain aspects covered by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Later on, the World Bank formed a second agency called the International Finance Corporation. Its function is to assist
the economic development of less developed countries by promoting growth in the private sector of their economies and helping to mobilize domestic and foreign capital for this purpose. It is extremely important to develop the private sectors of these countries. This undoubtedly provides a vehicle, in addition to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which has been of assistance to Third World nations.
The third agency of the World Bank which is most important to the countries that need assistance the most is the International Development Association. IDA assistance is concentrated on the very poor countries, such as those in 1982 which had an annual per capita gross national product of less than $805. There are more than 50 countries that are eligible under this criteria. This is the group that is suffering the most and is not receiving the attention in the world presently that we in the Liberal Party believe they should be receiving.
Only 2 per cent of the gross domestic investment in the recipient countries comes through the International Development Association. In 1980, for instance, only 2 per cent of the domestic investment in India and Pakistan-the first and third largest recipient countries-was through the International Development Association. These are countries which need assistance badly.
The situation gets worse. The sixth replenishment is the sixth recontribution of all the member countries of the International Development Association. As a result of the slower than anticipated contribution from the sixth replenishment, lending in 1982 declined in current dollars to a level 34 per cent below the level of 1980. In 1983, it was still 13 per cent below the level in 1980. This is an absolute decline in contributions to the International Development Association which is having a tremendously detrimental effect on the Third World, particularly those Third World countries that need help the most.
There has since been a seventh replenishment. This total of $9 billion represents a major reduction in the concessional resources available to the worlds poorest countries. It is 25 per cent lower in nominal terms, and 40 per cent lower in real terms than the sixth replenishment in 1979.
Partly because of China's membership, this reduction in the seventh replenishment from the sixth replenishment represents a 70 per cent cut in real per capita terms. On the one hand there are the increased needs of these very poor countries while, on the other hand, there is this reduction in contribution through the International Developmental Association. This is a very serious situation which unfortunately is not receiving the proper attention.
Let us examine the allocation through the International Development Association. If we were to look at the strict application of its allocation criteria, with the $9 billion total, more than three-quarters of the total International Development Association resources would be allocations to India and China. This means that a ceiling must be placed on the funds provided to China and India. Countries such as India would have to borrow more from the International Bank of Recon-


struction and Development as well as from commercial markets, because it will not be able to receive the same amount it had received previously from the International Development Association. This could mean that by 1986, borrowing on markets may account for over half of the dispersements to India. India cannot afford such a situation.
Between 1981 and 1983 the per capita incomes of the sub-Sahara African countries declined. Since then, we know the conditions of these sub-Saharan African countries. It is a human disgrace for these conditions to exist at this time, and to have allowed this to happen.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) talked about the deficit. His remarks were very important and well appreciated by Members of the House. However, we must not consider the deficit only, because the problem does not end there. There are problems in Canada with respect to the needs of low income Canadians, those who are unemployed and pensioners. There are problems in areas of this country which are experiencing economic difficulties and suffer from severe regional disparity. Of course, there are the problems of these very poor nations in the world today, particularly those that are receiving the funds from the International Development Association.
These African countries cannot restructure their finances on their own. Africa's share in the International Development Association rose from 25 per cent in 1980 to 37 per cent in 1983. Even by increasing Africa's share a further 5 per cent over the sixth replenishment and taking the seventh replenishment which exists now, sixth replenishment levels would yield less additional resources from the $9 billion in the International Development Association than retaining the $12 billion share which exists with the sixth replenishment. Even now, with the seventh replenishment, if we increase Africa's share by 5 per cent it would not make up for what Africa received under the replenishment in 1979. Africa will have a 21 per cent reduction in real terms compared with the commitments in 1979 in the sixth replenishment. This will not only apply to Africa but to other countries as well.
It is an extremely serious situation as 40 per cent of the loans of the International Development Association have gone to agricultural projects and 25 per cent to human development projects. Where will it end? We are seeing the situation now. We see tragedy in Ethiopia. We see the tragedy in other sub-Saharan African countries. The question is, what are we prepared to do about it?
We in Canada, as can be the case in other countries, can ignore it. However, it is very difficult to ignore. I find it extremely difficult to ignore. It bothers me considerably. What will the world position be? Will we continue to send the relief aid which is necessary? We cannot let people die by the millions, as would be the case otherwise. What will we do to restructure the lives and the countries of these people? Will we allow the situation to continue to deteriorate? Will we allow it to become so awesome, so completely tragic and catastrophic
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
that world opinion, and the opinion in this country, will only respond to the most frightening and serious situations? Will we allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where hunger, which was considered a travesty 10 years ago, will no longer be considered frightening? This is what will happen if attention is not paid to this very important question.
Through the amendments to the Act we will allocate funds to the World Bank through the Estimates. We in the House of Commons will not have the chance we had in the past to debate this very important question. It will be another lever which will disappear, another opportunity for Members of Parliament to speak, research and inform people across the country of the seriousness of the problem which exists and will continue to exist. The situation will get worse.
The International Monetary Fund provides a very real function. What the World Bank does not do through its three agencies the IMF will do. However, the IMF is not reaching African countries. Its record is particularly bleak in sub-Saharan Africa. Its programs have fallen well short of the targets. For instance, the growth target of the IMF in these countries was reached in only five of the 23 African programs; the inflation target in only 13 of the 28 programs; the trade target in only 11 out of 28 programs. The association between IMF programs and net bank borrowing is much stronger for low development countries. The point is that the IMF is not reaching these countries.
What are we prepared to do? I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will discuss this question at the summit with the President of the United States. It is a concern. We as Members of Parliament or as Canadians cannot completely ignore this question. We must have it as a consideration in addition to our problems with respect to the deficit, unemployment, people with low and fixed incomes, and regional disparity. If we do not, the problem will get worse. As a matter of fact, it is worsening at a geometric progression, not an arithmetic one. This is a serious situation, and it has to be kept before the House of Commons and before the country.
I hope we in the House, although we will be losing the opportunity in future years to discuss this question through amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, will from time to time continue to discuss this very important question. All we are doing now is fighting the results. We are attacking the symptoms, not the core problem or reasons for starvation. We are not attacking the reason for Third World countries, particularly the poorest of them, continuing to lose ground to the rest of the countries of the world.
There are Third World countries which are making progress, a lot of them at the expense of Canadian industry. We are importing their goods, and products made in this country are being forced out of the market. These are the countries which people will use as examples of progressing Third World countries. However, there are at least 50 Third World countries which are not progressing, that are falling further and further behind the rest of the world. This must receive the attention of the House of Commons, of the Government and of other Governments concerned about fellow


Bretton Woods Agreements Act human beings. Once again I asked the Prime Minister to discuss this matter with the President of the United States in Quebec City. I hope we will continue to be able to debate this important question in the House of Commons.


Mr. Garneau:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member who spoke just now whether one way of maintaining the debate to which he referred could be, when discussing the Bill in committee, to avoid allocating funds exclusively through the Estimates and to maintain the system of amendments in the House, as was done in the past.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his suggestion. 1 hope this matter will be raised when the Estimates are before the committee. As Hon. Members of the House will know, it is optional what aspects of the Estimates, if any, are discussed in meetings dealing with them. There is no assurance that we will actually discuss this question. As is the case with most questions, they may not be discussed on the Estimates at all because in the opinion of members of the committee they may not be topical enough. I hope this will not be the case, but that this question will be given priority and will be discussed. Perhaps members will agree to have a discussion from time to time on the urgency of this question. I know the Hon. Member is one who would discuss this question in meetings of the committee dealing with the Estimates.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, but first I want to congratulate him on his excellent speech.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he is aware of the comments by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to Fortune magazine regarding the performance of the economy of this country. I know that the Hon. Member is very concerned about this. Some Members have spoken on it today. In particular, I want to ask my colleague what he thinks of the following comments which the Prime Minister made regarding the charge by political opponents that the Prime Minister put Canada up for sale. The Prime Minister is quoted as having replied:
Who wants to buy it? What is there so compellingly attractive about Canada that causes us to think that anybody is going to rush in simply because somebody says, 'I'd like to do business with you.' We do not have a very good track record. Our products have not been of the highest quality. Our deliveries have been lacking in reliability. Our expertise has been in large measure borrowed. Our technology has been purchased. What the hell makes us so special? If somebody wants to buy some oil, somebody wants to buy some wheat, hell, we're in the business-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will allow the Hon. Member to comment, but I feel that questions should be directed to the hon. gentleman on the Bretton Woods Agreements. They should be a little more relevant than that.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I feel what the Hon. Member for Glengar-ry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) said is very relevant. What is happening is that we have a very fragile economy in the world today. We have contributing nations on which these poorer nations depend. If we cannot maintain a very strong western economy, then there is nowhere that these countries can turn for assistance. This is going to be a very vital question.
What is happening today is that the western economy is being held up by the economy in the United States. This is based completely on confidence alone. There is no reason that the American economy should be that much higher than the economies of other countries in the western world. It is based on armaments, missiles and bravado. If this house of cards starts crumbling, the economies of all the western countries are going to suffer.
The Prime Minister has gone to the United States and said "We love the way you are handling your economy. You are the model for all of us." Some model! That gives us no reason to believe that this Government has any idea what it wants to do to strengthen the Canadian economy. It is very tragic. He has hitched our star to the American economy when there can be absolutely no benefit to Canada, other than to lose jobs through Investment Canada and his open door policies. If the American economy falters, the Canadian economy will suffer much more than it would had the Prime Minister not adopted what I consider a very foolish procedure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any other questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech? [Translation]
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the House today to consider the policies we shall pursue during the next four years as well as our obligations to the International Monetary Fund and especially to less developed countries.
However, there is a major problem to be considered in such a debate, and it concerns not only our expenditures under the Bretton Woods Agreements but also the state of the American dollar and U.S. interest rates which are a very major factor in our international economy. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the results of the monetary policy being pursued by the United States, it is clear that some less developed countries are becoming more and more "strapped" with respect to their ability to generate capital, either for domestic or external development. It is a fact that even when the Bretton Woods Agreements were signed in the forties and since then less developed countries have had trouble sustaining imports and developing their capability to export to industrialized countries like Canada and the United States.
It is also a fact that these countries have tremendous financial problems and a large per capita debt, problems that


are more difficult to solve and far more serious than those we are seeing here in Canada today.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Progressive Conservative Government is unwilling to accept the policy of the former Liberal Government and the policy of the international community, which is that in order to improve our international monetary system which does not only depend on the International Monetary Fund but also on the exchange rate of the American dollar and the price of gold, we would also have to develop a comprehensive plan to help these less developed countries strengthen their economies.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this Government refuses to consider an over-all plan or to participate in wide-ranging negotiations in an attempt to help intolerably indebted countries. What do they say? They say: We are going to examine each individual case, we will study each file in due time. The Government should act responsibly as a world leading country and say that Canada will help all underdeveloped countries extricate themselves from the economic vice-grip which is strangling them. We should not hold our breath, Mr. Speaker, because unfortunately this Government and its financial policies are directly linked with the policies of the United States Republican Conservative administration. It is quite obvious that the American Government already knows that the Canadian Government would like to follow in its steps. Who can forget last week's incident when Mr. Nitze, the American representative, was scheduled to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), he was to have a meeting with our Prime Minister, but he had the nerve to sum up their meeting before it even took place! Mr. Nitze told the Canadian nation: "We had challenging and constructive discussions", but he said that even before the discussions took place!
Mr. Speaker, we did not see the Prime Minister react when he was reminded of that incident here in the House. Did the Prime Minister deny or reject the statements made by Mr. Nitze? No, Mr. Speaker, because he is behaving like a little dog on Mr. Reagan's leash, the President of the United States, and he simply cannot play in the major league when it comes to economic independence, monetary policy and defence policy. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Progressive Conservatives claim that the former Liberal Government made mistakes. Some Members in the House say that we made mistakes, but I would like to point out that as a Liberal Member-and I think all Canadians will endorse my remarks-I am proud of the work we did as a Party and as a Government during the North-South dialogue which was initiated by our former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. And I think that even the Conservative Members should recognize the leadership in that dialogue, not only of the Liberal Party but also of the Canadian Government before this Prime Minister came to power.
We know for instance that in 1981, our Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau was one of the chairmen, or co-chairman of the
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Cancun Conference which discussed specifically the economic problems of Third World countries and developing nations.
Over the last six months, unfortunately, since this Conservative Government has come to power, we have seen that Canada is no longer reflecting an independent policy on the international scene in fiscal, monetary and defence matters.
Even Conservative Members, Mr. Speaker, and I remember for instance that a former member of the Committee for an Independent Canada, our present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), believed when she was in Opposition that it was very important that Canada should be considered politically and economically independent of the United States, in such matters, for instance, as foreign investment. But the day she became a minister of the Crown, her views changed altogether and no longer is she prepared to fight in Cabinet to ensure a Canadian policy on investments.
Mr. Speaker, I was appalled this week when a great Canadian, who has been fighting for our independence for the past 15 or 20 years-and I am referring to Mr. Mel Hurtig from Edmonton-upon coming before the Committee to discuss precisely this Government's silliness with its new legislation on Investment Canada, was asked by Conservative Members what right he had, and who had invited him to appear before a Committee of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, when a person who is known nationally and he has been known for years to speak in advocacy of Canada, of our culture, of our economic independence-I think that he had a right indeed to appear before the Committee, especially when he was there after being invited by the Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe the Conservatives' unwillingness to recognize their attachment to the economic policies of the U.S. government of which they are so proud, and we can see their impact on our domestic economy: the thousands of jobs which the Prime Minister had promised never materialized. The reason they never did is that this government, contrary to the statements made by the Prime Minister at the time he was a candidate to his party leadership and to the position of leader of this government, would rather let Canadians lose their jobs instead of standing up and allowing the Canadian dollar to float freely.
Such, gentlemen, is the policy of the Conservative government which links itself so closely to the conservative government of the United States that one does not see any difference.
During the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, this government made a number of promises to developing countries, and I should like to mention a few, for Conservative members might have forgotten them. For the information of those who are interested in the promises this Conservative member has failed to keep, and there are many, I should like for the record to mention a number of promises which I have found in a little pocket politics-


Bretton Woods Agreements Act
It is called pocket politics. I call it American pocket politics.
The Government of the country made certain commitments when it was in opposition. It made certain commitments when it was seeking the confidence of the Canadian people. I would like to cite for the record those particular commitments so we can be assured that they will not be forgotten and left on the trail of the other broken promises made by the Government.
The Conservative commitment was to respect our international commitments, to increase Canada's official development assistance to .7 per cent of the Gross National Product by 1990, to deliver a greater share of this assistance through non-governmental organizations, to make our foreign aid and development assistance programs more effective, to review foreign policy by seeking input from the Canadian public and to develop stronger trading relations without limiting the access of developing nations.
There is much work to be done to achieve those goals. There is certainly much work to be done if the Canadian Government is serious about its commitment to allowing the less developed nations an opportunity to get out of the economic vice-grip which was been levied upon them by current market conditions on an international scale. That will only happen when the Government throws off the mantle of its inferiority complex which was so aptly illustrated by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) comments to Fortune magazine.
The Prime Minister and the Government do not bellieve that Canadians can compete on the international market. That was made quite clear by the comments read into the record by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell (Mr. Boudria). The Government is in fact suffering from an inferiority complex and believes that the only way it can establish its superiority or equality is by breaking down the borders and telling the United States of America that there is absolutely no difference between their country and our country. In fact, it believes it can do this not only by opening the doors but by putting us up for sale.
I believe that the Canadian public recognizes the uniqueness of our cultural institutions and our economic input. I also believe that the Canadian public recognizes that the best job creators in the country are products which are made in
Canada for Canadians but which can compete with any nation in the world on the international market.
I do not believe that the results of this Government's initiatives will bear fruit. In fact, I fear the exact opposite. My fears are that when the so-called Investment Canada Bill-a Bill which I would have preferred to be called "Abandon Canada"-comes to fruition, we will see a branch plant mentality in this country like we have not seen since before the work that was done by the Committee for an Independent Canada.
We in the Liberal Party agree and understand that we have committed certain sins for which we paid dearly on September 4. However, we believe that the Canadian people have a basic understanding that our role is not only to prop up ourselves, not only to fill our own bellies, not only to enhance and encourage the Canadian economy, but also to show leadership in the international monetary and economic systems. This kind of leadership is not being shown by a Government that is being led around on a leash by the President of the United States.
Our Party has a history going back not only to the Cancun conference, but to the 1950s and the 1960s. At that time, it was the Liberal Party, over the dead bodies of many Conservatives, that insisted that we had a responsibility to share and share alike with our brothers and sisters across the world. It was the Liberal Party that, when times were tough, continued to send money to Ethiopia, even though certain Members who are now sitting on the government side of the House blamed and criticized the Liberal Party because it was sending money to our starving brothers and sisters across the world. We will protect that heritage and we will not allow the Government to destroy the initiatives and abilities that have shown that the Liberal Party has a chance to make this a better world for Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member. Before I call it six o'clock, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that if this Bill is called tomorrow she will have eight minutes remaining, plus the 10-minute question and answer period.

It being 6 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 14, 1985