1985-03-19

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House condemns the Government's failure in bilateral relations with the United States with particular reference to:
1.	the failure to obtain an agreement from the United States to make a
commitment to early action on its share of environmental damage due to acid
rain; and
2.	the failure to make specific, that Canada would not participate in any
way in the star wars project of the United States.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and Americans across the border have been witnessing what the media have dubbed as the Shamrock Conference. Some have said that nothing was involved in the process which took place over a 24-hour period in Quebec City but a lot of media hype. Would that this were true. Regrettably it is not. Canadians and Americans have in fact seen what could perhaps be accurately described as the "Shamrock Shuffle", with President Reagan calling the tune and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) eagerly dancing along, taking us as a nation in an entirely new direction in terms of our relationship with the United States of America.
The resolution before the House, Mr. Speaker, refers to the failure of this Government's bilateral relationships with the United States, with particular reference to the continental problem of acid rain and the immense global problem of President Reagan's star wars project and our link with it. The resolution does deal concretely with these two important instances, but the point I want to make is that what is involved goes well beyond even those two important items in its seriousness.
Our history as a nation can be seen in one sense as one long struggle against assimilation. There has been throughout the time those of us in this Chamber have lived, as well as our ancestors, a tension between the conflicting poles of nationalism on the one hand and continentalism on the other.
It is a very interesting point of Canadian history that the Conservative Party, since Sir John A. Macdonald, on virtually every issue of substance during a time when it was the Government, has been on the nationalist side. Sir John A.
Macdonald gave to Canada a new national policy. Robert Borden fought the Liberals of the day on the issue of reciprocity for what he deemed to be the Canadian interest. Bennett in the 1930s produced for Canada the CBC and Air Canada, standing up for what he perceived to be Canadian national interests in a continent which was dominated by the economic power and thrust of the United States of America. John Diefenbaker fought the campaign of 1957 on the issue of Canadian economic nationalism. He talked about the importance of Canadian control in certain key sectors of the Canadian economy. I would add, in relation to what is taking place in Central America today, that it was John Diefenbaker who resisted the pressures from the United States in 1959 to cut off relations with the new Government of Cuba. It was John Diefenbaker, although there was some confusion on his policy in this regard because he was a Canadian nationalist and sensitive to the growing dangers of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, who, in the final analysis, refused to take nuclear weapons for the Bomarc missiles here in Canada.
Now there is a new kind of Conservativism. Since the election of September 4 we have witnessed what I would describe as a decisive shift in the history of the Conservative Party and, so far as they are able to get away with it, in the history of our country. The election of September 4 was the crowning point of the North American neo-conservative conti-nentalist movement that began in the 1970s and scored its first victory in 1980 with the election of President Reagan, and put the icing on the cake with the election of Brian Mulroney in Canada.

What has happened since the election? We have witnessed the impact of the Government's continentalism. First, they terminated FIRA. Then they made cutbacks in funding for the arts. What is the result for the economy? Since September, the Conservatives have simply approved all FIRA applications still pending.
Then came the summit. Two basic issues were on the agenda. First of all, acid rain and the damage it does to our buildings, the air we breathe, the water in our lakes, and our forests. Initially, President Reagan only had a report in mind-
But, Mr. Speaker, Brian got tough. In the earlier days of negotiations leading up to the summit meeting in Quebec City, he said through his officials: "Ronnie, a report is not good enough. The people of Canada are sensitive to the need for

March 19, 1985
Supply
definite action on acid rain. Therefore I can't, as Prime Minister, go back merely with a commitment to make a report". So he laid down the law. On behalf of the people of Canada he said that rather than having only a report we must do something decisive. We got something decisive: we got a further study.
Over 3,000 studies have been done on the problem of acid rain, but the decisive new leadership that we have in Canada now on the important problem of acid rain tells the Americans that we need 3,001 studies. He went even further. He said: "You appoint an envoy on your side, Ronnie, and we'll appoint one on ours. Of course, we will not give them any mandate to take effective action and we won't give them any budget. We will pay them a dollar a year and they will get a lot of media attention. A year from now they can come back and tell us how much worse the problem has gotten because nothing was done. Then we'll have a look at it again".
I would like to say to the Government of Canada that the people of Canada are fed up with this kind of action. Our buildings are literally decaying. Our beautiful lakes are dying. Our forests are being multilated and our health is threatened. In the face of this they propose another study with an envoy added who will make a report. What an envoy they have selected for Canada, "Mr. Decisiveness" himself, Bill Davis. I want to say something about-


An Hon. Member:: Look at his election results.


John Edward Broadbent: We on this side of the House measure success not simply by election results but in terms of principles that people fight for.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Remember the Constitution, Mr. Principle.


John Edward Broadbent: There are a lot of indifferent and uncaring jerks who have been elected around the world. That is not our definition of success.
Let us consider Mr. Davis' record on acid rain. This is the man who is going to stand up in Washington for Canada's interests on acid rain. First consider Ontario Hydro, Mr. Speaker. It is the third largest producer of acid rain in North America. Four years ago Ontario Hydro had a level of emissions reaching 600,000 tonnes. The Ministry of the Environment ordered it to cut this deplorable level of emissions to 300,000 tonnes by 1990. How did this Ontario Crown corporation responsible to Bill Davis' Government respond? Hydro said that it would instal the scrubbers necessary to make this possible, but then decided not to. Consequently, Hydro's production of emissions actually increased last year by an additional 4,000 tonnes. There is a wonderful record of a Crown corporation under the responsibility of Bill Davis!
M5)
Let us consider Inco in the Province of Ontario. Inco happens to be the largest producer of acid rain in North America. In 1970, Inco was producing 5,200 tonnes of sulphur dioxide per day. This was increasing health damage to people
in this province and indeed in the United States. It was destroying our forests and polluting our lakes with those emissions day after day. What did the Ontario Government do under Bill Davis, that man of decisive action and commitment who is now going to speak to the United States Government on behalf of Canadians? The Government set out its standard in 1970 with the objective that the level of emissions should be reduced to 750 tonnes by 1978. In 1980, two years beyond the target set by the Government, it was producing three times the amount of the level of 2,500 tonnes set by the Conservatives. The Government had approved that level as a maximum, which was to be lowered to 1,950 tonnes by 1983.
The present performance of Inco seems to have made some progress if one considers it on an annual basis and compares it to recent years. However, if we consider the fact that there have been cut-backs in production as a result of massive lay-offs, the limited gains, that are nowhere near the standards set by the Government, virtually disappear.
I have said publicly that there are a number of things that Mr. Davis, as Premier, has done that have been good for the Province of Ontario. However, I suggest to the Hon. Member opposite who raised questions that Mr. Davis is the last person in the world to be fighting on our behalf about problems with acid rain, in this province or anywhere else.
I regret that the Prime Minister, who has talked about the importance of Parliament, could not be here on such a decisively important occasion following the summit. He spent a wonderful 48 hours parading in Quebec City. This debate flows directly from that summit and will involve the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Liberals as well as our Party. He ought to have been here for this important occasion.
Rather than set up another study calling for another report on acid rain, with an envoy whose credentials are not the best, to put it euphemistically, the Prime Minister ought to have told President Reagan that since Canada is prepared to put up a certain amount of money for this study, the Americans should contribute the same proportionate amount.
While I praise the Government for its decision to deal with acid rain, I am talking about bilateral relations. As I said the other day, the Prime Minister has decided to be a kid brother to Ronald Reagan instead of a good neighbour. He should have told the President of the United States that since his country has produced half of the acid rain problem that exists in Canada, the very least it should do as a nation is put up proportionately what Canada has put up to address this problem. In other words, he should have said that the United States ought to have put up somewhere between $1 billion and $1.5 billion to show the people of Canada that they want to be a good neighbour to Canadians. Such a message by the Prime Minister would have been a demonstration of some kind of Canadian leadership-not to demand more of the Americans but to demand proportionately what we are prepared to do ourselves.
March 19, 1985

I do not think the ink had dried on the negotiating papers leading up to the statement that was to be made on acid rain before we had an official from the State Department already saying to American journalists: "Don't be taken in, fellas; President Reagan has not changed his position on acid rain at all". There has been no departure in terms of policy for the Americans on acid rain, no change; it was all one massive PR exercise.
It seems to me the Canadian Government realized who it was dealing with when it comes to acid rain. Mr. Reagan has all the sensitivity in terms of the environment that you could expect of a man who said not many years ago when he was a politician in California and the problems of the forests in California were brought to his attention: "When you have seen one tree, you have seen them all". There is a man who is sensitive to the needs of the environment; his name, Ronald Reagan.
I am saying that our approach is not good enough. We should have demanded proportional action, and if we did not get it our Prime Minister could have come back with dignity. He could have said: "I went to bargain with the Americans. I did my best. We have our act together on acid rain here. We asked them to do proportionately what we did, but they said no". " I regret" he could have told us, "that we have decided to agree to disagree. I promised the people of Canada that I will continue with the struggle to get the Americans to pay their way, to do their share and to stop putting their garbage on our side of the fence". He could have come back with dignity even if he had lost the particular battle, as we do from time to time with our strong neighbour to the south, and he would have maintained the respect of all Canadians who are concerned about acid rain. Instead, he attempted to do a great smokescreen exercise, a PR exercise, that is worse than useless because it leaves the impression that something might be done with acid rain when it will not deal with the issue one bit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want now to turn to the second part of our resolution, and that concerns the issue of star wars. This brainchild of President Reagan and a handful of his advisers was first launched upon the world a year ago this week, as a matter of fact.


Mr. Deans:: Two years ago.


John Edward Broadbent: Two years ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the first mistake.


John Edward Broadbent: There he is, the master of facts, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). We will hear his brave contribution in a minute. A couple of years ago this scheme was proposed by President Reagan. Almost the whole world knows about it now. It is a plan to destroy ICBMs and intermediate range missiles before they reach the target. That is the scheme. It is also a scheme that is likely to involve the
Supply
spending of some $70 to $100 billion between now and 1993 in the United States, according to the priorities set out by President Reagan.
The important point about this scheme is that it came from Mr. Reagan and a handful of his advisers. It was attacked by the Republicans in Congress. It was attacked by the Democrats in Congress. It was attacked by defence experts. It was attacked by church groups. It has, in fact, been attacked by western allies of the United States, who have temporarily kept quiet, as being either totally irrational as a concept for defence on the one hand, or destabilizing on the other, or both.
John Lamb, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament, when he was echoing a widespread sentiment by defence experts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, said this about it:
It is clear that star wars would severely upset the balance of East-West deterrence.
Even our late and unlamented former Minister of National Defence said last fall in one of the early give-aways that it would "fundamentally change the strategic relationship". If that does not mean it would be destabilizing in terms of East-West discussions in detente, I do not know what else it could mean.
The recent debate in Canada has focused on the link between star wars and our own defence policy, particularly with the updating of the DEW line of the North Warning System.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired. He may proceed at this point only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration of all Hon. Members of the House. Of course, we will reciprocate in terms of the other principal speakers.
When it comes to discussions of the star wars project and its linkage, or potential linkage, with the updating of our own DEW line, U.S. officials have repeatedly said that there was a linkage. On the other hand, Canadian Cabinet Ministers have repeatedly said the opposite. I would just like to put some of these comments on the record.
On January 16, Secretary of Defense Weinberger said that star wars, if deployed, would have to be backed up by an updated DEW line. He saw a linkage. The former Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Col-chester (Mr. Coates), said just about a week later that there was no connection between star wars and the DEW line. Act three-Paul Nitze, key adviser on defence matters in the United States and a distinguished gentleman, said on March 6 that he acknowledged there could be a connection between star wars and the DEW line in the future. Our own Secretary of State for External Affairs, who always has his facts right, then

March 19, 1985
Supply
said: "There is absolutely no connection between star wars and the DEW line". Richard Burt, a man who advises Canadian journalists, in doing what is called a backgrounder on the visit of President Reagan to our country, said: "Oh yes, there is a connection between star wars and the DEW line". Then when a reporter said: "Oh my goodness, the Canadian Government said the opposite", Mr. Burt said: "Oh my goodness, I made a mistake". Of course, the mistake was not what he had said in terms of its actual accuracy; his mistake was an error in judgment-he told the truth and he was not supposed to be telling us what it was all about.
As the Prime Minister always likes to do, I will leave the last word on this matter to President Reagan. Just yesterday President Reagan made an incredible speech, in many ways, on the eve of his departure from Canada. He included the following:
We look forward to the possibility of sharing new developments in SD1 technology with Canada.
He certainly sees some kind of possible or potential link arising from the openness of the Government of Canada, not the people of Canada, toward this project.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are unbelievable.


John Edward Broadbent: I hear the Minister saying that I am unbelievable.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, indeed. I am prepared to have a referendum on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish he would get hold of the article released yesterday by Mr. Genscher, the Foreign Secretary of West Germany, who has raised many questions about star wars. If that does not cause him to think a little more, maybe he would look at the one by Geoffrey Howe, the British Foreign Secretary, who is certainly saying one thing privately to other members of NATO which expresses his serious concern about the star wars initiative and indeed is saying things publicly which express a great deal of concern about the project. We would like to see this coming from the Government of Canada, not simply from Great Britain and West Germany.
The points are very clear. Star wars is a destabilizing concept and initiative. It was opposed not only by Canadians; it was opposed, to his credit, by Walter Mondale in the United States. It has been opposed by many defence officials in the United States. It has been opposed by men and women around the world who want the Soviet Union and the United States to start de-escalating the armaments race instead of getting it going on an even higher track. The Government of Canada either has to be naive about this or misleading, or both, and the people of Canada can make their judgment. In either case, the people of Canada do not want any connection with the star wars project.
I want now to conclude my observations. I say as a person who has spent some time studying Canadian history and has just made a very brief reference to virtually every Conservative Prime Minister since Confederation, that there is a new drift. There is a clear departure from the past Conservative traditions. I say that this continentalist drift that is under way must be stopped.
Canadians do want to be good neighbours. We do want to be good friends. However, we recognize seriously that while our destinies are indeed connected, we must continue the struggle of our ancestors in this nation to build on our part of the continent a nation clearly linked by history and geography with our American friends and neighbours, but a nation clearly in command of its own political, military, economic and cultural decisions. Previous Conservative Governments in our history have understood that, in the final analysis, maintaining good relationships between neighbouring nations of unequal power requires constant vigilance on the part of Canada. It requires independence of thought, action and program. The new Conservative Government either does not understand this or, more alarmingly, does not care. The new Conservative Government has embarked upon the most radical change in Canada-U.S. relations in this century.
Misunderstanding the nature of loyalty, it is forgetting, as Escott Reid pointed out in a moving article in today's Citizen, that the loyal ally must at times oppose with all its determination the particular policies of its neighbour. Misunderstanding our own real cultural, economic and defence needs, the Conservative Government is prepared to leave us adrift on the tumultuous North American seas in the naive hope we can survive without a chart. Misunderstanding its obligation to provide confident leadership to Canadians, the new Government has decided to follow an American President. I urge strong support for the motion before the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Act two.


John Napier Turner: I do not know whether the crowd will stay for the third act.


Mr. Lawrence:: What crowd?


John Napier Turner: The Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) points out that the Conservatives are huddled around their Minister to try and give the appearance of some cohesion for the television cameras.
I have observed with great interest, as has the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the events of the last weekend in Quebec City. One is always pleased and gratified to see written another chapter in the long and friendly history of relations between Canada and the United States.
March 19, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: One must look carefully in order to assess the real importance of these meetings for Canada. What are the real and tangible achievements for the country? How significant are they?
I would like through you, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on having been in exceptionally fine voice on Sunday night. He, as you well know, Sir, is second to none in public life in his ability to carry a tune, but I want to echo what the Hon. Member for Oshawa has said. I would have thought that, having represented this country in imperial, almost presidential style over the weekend, he would have been here in the House of Commons to reply to the motion of the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: 1 grant that in strict jurisdiction, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who is here with his small, carefully huddled coterie behind him, has jurisdiction over the debate, but the Prime Minister should be here. I want to draw to the attention of Your Honour that the Prime Minister has not participated in a debate in this House of Commons since Leader's Day at the opening of Parliament. It is all very well to have the photo opportunities with the new presidential seal. I suppose the reason he does not want to come in here for debate is that he cannot put that seal, under our rules, on his desk to speak. It has been tried before.
One is left wondering if there was not in all the events of last weekend somewhat less than might have met the eye. There was surely an event programmed primarily, in the words of a former President of the United States, to play in Peoria- Peoria, Illinois. My question is will it work in Weyburn, Saskatchewan? Will it resonate in Rimouski, Quebec?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I have looked over the lists of the so-called agreements arising from the singing summit, and I would say that had there been another duet at the close of the meeting-and I am not surprised there was no encore-the song would not have been "When Irish Eyes are Smiling", but rather another well-known song, not Irish but American, "I Got Plenty of Nothing".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: From the attitude of the Government, the second line of that song would have been especially appropriate, and I wish the Prime Minister would have broken off into one of the well-known solos of his. That second line is "And nothing's plenty for me". You got it, Mr. Speaker!
In a more serious sense, with the greatest respect, we have witnessed in the past two days another example by this Government and this Prime Minister of what I call cosmetic politics where appearance takes precedence over reality, style
Supply
over substance and package over policy. It is an approach to government that seems directed more by desire to placate, a need to please, an urge to be loved, than the ability to order priorities and a willingness to make choices.
There is no doubt that in an increasingly dependent world, Canada and the United States enjoy a special, unique relationship. Many would say that that relationship is not only unique, but historically very special, and I agree. Our two countries share similar values, many interests and, while geography has made us neighbours, as the late President John Kennedy used to say, history has made us friends. We do not, however, share every interest. There are differences and they too are real and important. Underlining those differences should not be interpreted as traces of anti-Americanism, but as a real regard on behalf of the people of Canada to exercise our own priorities and our own preferences.
With respect to what President Reagan wanted for last weekend's meeting, what did he want? Clearly he wanted a continuation of what he had already got from this Government over the last six months-the abolition of FIRA, the dismantling of the National Energy Program, a renewal of our Radar Distant Warning System in the North, whether it is part of star wars or not only history will judge-


Charles Joseph Clark: Lloyd Axworthy has already judged it.


John Napier Turner: We have an amendment where we have taken our judgment because we believe what has happened, but you have not shown us-more Canadian troops for NATO; more study but no action on acid rain; and an example in Canada that the so-called nuclearology, and I am using American words, does not extend from New Zealand to North America.
We know what the President wanted because he told us. We know what he obtained. He obtained some of those things he perhaps deserved, and I do not criticize all of them in all of their aspects. But the question before this House is, what did we get? What did Canada get? For that matter, what did we want? We were not told what it was we wanted. We never saw the agenda. We in the House were never given a statement regarding Canada's priorities. Perhaps we should have wanted real and tangible progress on trade relations, but clearly the Government has not got its own act together regarding how far it wishes to go with the United States on free trade. Our country was not in a position to push this matter.
We on this side of the House, members of this Party, are in favour of enhancing and advancing our goal of better neighbourhood. We are in favour of improving our trade relationships and exploring new relationships with the United States in a way that does not yield or sacrifice our Canadian manufacturing base or employment base. Those things are vital for jobs.
If we had a choice of neighbours, looking around the world, who would we rather have as a neighbour? Would we rather

March 19, 1985
Supply
be situated beside the Soviet Union or Mainland China? We are situated beside the most friendly group of people on the face of the earth and a great neighbour, I concede that. The point is that that relationship is an overwhelming one. Every Prime Minister of the country has had an opportunity to describe it. Yes, let us go for more trade but not at the expense of the independence of our foreign policy, the independence of our defence policy, our political sovereignty, our economic integrity or our cultural integrity. That is what worries us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We feel that those principles might well have been breached over the weekend in Quebec City. Who was the big winner? I suppose I would put St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, first. He was the undoubted winner.
The Prime Minister loves to weave tales about his modest upbringing as the barefoot boy from Baie Comeau. He likes to recall to his official biographer how he once sang for the then publisher of the Chicago Tribune who came to Baie Comeau to inspect his fiefdom, the Quebec North Shore Paper Company. The Prime Minister, as young Brian, used to sing American-Irish ditties for the colonel for which he would receive the odd $20. Well, the Prime Minister was singing for his supper again over the weekend. He is still singing.
The Prime Minister had his cap in hand. As a matter of fact, "Cap" got out of hand, did he not? The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs had a lot of trouble with "Cap" until they finally got his CTV interview straightened out.
In any event, there was such a great atmosphere at the meeting. It is too bad it had to be interrupted by a bit of work. Not much work was done but some business got taken care of. There were advance press releases just to loosen up the party so they could have a good time. I am sorry the good time had to be interrupted by two hours' work.
The Prime Minister did a lot of preparatory work in order to get a deal on acid rain. He began by saying the kinds of things the U.S. administration loves to hear. He seems to think that the United States Government could make a case for taking no action. He told U.S. officials that our record on acid rain was not as good as theirs. He said we had to go to the table with clean hands. We on this side of the House have dealt with this matter before. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), has dealt with it very explicitly.
The Prime Minister threw our cards away before he ever got to the bargaining table. Never mind that we had a program to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 25 per cent by 1990 and 50 per cent by 1994 and the U.S. had no such program. Never mind that the United States produces 19.6 million tonnes of nitrous oxide per year while we produce only 1.7 million tonnes. The Prime Minister gave the President of the United States an easy way out. He threw away our bargaining chips before he ever got to the table.
After laying that solid groundwork, the Prime Minister did try to recover. In preparation for the Summit meeting, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) announced a plan to spend $300 million over the next 10 years to combat acid rain. The Hon. Member for Oshawa has been very explicit with respect to acid rain. Real progress in this area is measured by the definition of standards as goals. It is measured by agreement on regulations to promote those goals and the expenditure of money to meet those standards. We did not get any of that. Instead, we got special envoys and we will have more study and more talk.
We will have another year of Bill Davis, Mr. Environment himself. I will not repeat the words of the Hon. Member for Oshawa, but how about the record of Ontario Hydro? How about the record of Inco? With that sense of patriotism, a $l-a-year man who is probably overpaid at that-


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, 99 cents overpaid.


John Napier Turner: I would like to know from the Secretary of State for External Affairs what commitment the Prime Minister received from William Grenville Davis in terms of time. How much time will he dedicate to this particular enterprise?


John Edward Broadbent: He can do it in Florida.


John Napier Turner: He can always discuss the matter over baseball training with the Blue Jays in Florida. The Secretary of State for External Affairs just nodded, indicating that he would like to join that particular enterprise. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we also support the second part of this motion which concerns the position of the Progressive Conservative Government on the American star wars project.
However, I would like to make it clear that unlike the New Democratic Party, we believe in the need for solidarity with our NATO partners. We are not in favour of Canada's withdrawing from this organization. We are not isolationists. We are committed to our allies. We support the terms of this motion, but our support is not unqualified. However, although our approach is entirely different from the approach taken by the NDP, it also differs from the perspective taken by the Progressive Conservative Party.

We believe in supporting our friends and we believe in honouring our obligations. Of course, we will give our friends the benefit of the doubt. However, being a friend means having the courage to tell a friend the truth in times of stress regarding areas in which there is no doubt. We believe in speaking out to both superpowers regarding constructive dialogue in the search for an end to the arms race. This is why we suggested in an earlier amendment that the Strategic Defence Initiative be put on the agenda at Geneva for discussion between the two superpowers.
March 19, 1985

With regard to the Strategic Defence Initiative, or star wars, endorsed by this Government in its final communique, it means from our point of view telling our friends that there can be no more destabilizing element in the peace negotiations or in the escalation of the threat of confrontation than that particular initiative of the United States. That is why we want it on the agenda.
The Prime Minister has said that this view is anti-American. He knows nothing could be further from the truth. What is the connection between this and the new North Warning System and the possible deployment of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil? We were not shown the treaty. We were not allowed to discuss it. The Minister of Defence refused to appear before the committee. We are getting three clear answers from the Government: yes, no and maybe.
My friend the Hon. Member for Oshawa has referred to the various statements of Ministers and of the Prime Minister. I need not repeat them. What is said depends on what day of the week it is and on whether it is said in the House, outside in a scrum or in the luxury of those new refurbished offices. It depends on the Minister to which one speaks and whether or not he cleared his comments with "Cap", the United States Secretary of Defence. If he has not cleared his comments with "Cap", it depends on whether or not he has managed to get a restatement of those comments from the United States Secretary of Defense in time.
On a broader subject but still relating to the motion, successive Liberal governments have made our relationship with the United States the greatest economic relationship in the world. Americans are not only our best friends, they are also our best customers. However, it is a partnership. It is a mutual relationship of client, customer and merchant. It is an equal relationship. Americans are not only our best customers but, as we never hesitate to remind them, we are also their best customers.
As I said earlier, I believe we should improve our sense of neighbourhood. We should enhance our trading potential with the United States but never at the expense of our sovereignty, the independence of our foreign policy or our economic and cultural integrity.
I want to say that the shopping list which was attached to the communique was obviously designed to protect this Government from not having included a particular item on the agenda. In 1984, the level of our bilateral trade was more than $150 billion across the board. Canada enjoyed in 1984 a record trade balance with the United States of $16.6 billion. I want to underline to you, Sir, and to the Government, that this trade surplus was achieved at no expense to Canadian sovereignty and without concessions in defence and in our environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What we want to know is how the Government plans to build on that achievement. As a
Supply
result of the meeting in Quebec on Sunday, Canadians are really no closer to knowing what the Canadian Government will do to gain new markets in the United States. We are no closer to exploring avenues of enhanced trade with the United States. Primarily, I suppose, that is because although the President may have been willing to open up the borders completely, we do not know what the Government's position is. We do not believe the Government has a position and we would like to some day hear what its position is. In order to protect jobs in Canada's vital industries, in manufacturing as well as in our resources, Canada must seek to enhance that trade with the United States and, indeed, with every country.
Speaking as the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, I am particularly concerned with the Pacific Rim. But what did we get from the summit conference, from those two hours of paltry meetings? We got only a promise of more study. The time for Mr. Reagan to further open trade with Canada is short. There is new protectionism in the United States in the Congress, and even though the President may be powerless to resist by the time his mandate starts to run out, the President is now enjoying the full flower of his massive victory in the electoral collage. But his time will run on and his influence with the Congress will increasingly diminish. I think every Hon. Member in the House will know how that happens. The President may be powerless by the time the Prime Minister has gotten his act together and has come up with complete measures to help us in the Congress.
There is a fundamental gap in the thinking of the Prime Minister. He says proudly that the President will go to bat for Canada with Congress. We understand what he means. Americans certainly understand what he means. But I feel that the Prime Minister has struck out. I believe the Prime Minister does not understand the American system, the separation of powers, the independent jurisdiction of the Congress. It is the Congress which is threatening our steel industry. It is the Congress which is threatening our lumber exports. I want to tell Your Honour that this is why the President, wearing a green tie, said-and I enjoyed the remark-"Prime Minister, I am green with envy at your majority in the House of Commons". So am I, as a matter of fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Why did he say he was green with envy? Because he knows that whatever this Government finally decides to do, if it decides to do anything, it can impose on this Parliament. But the President of the United States does not have that power. Here is the gap in the thinking of the Prime Minister. We throw the cards away- FIRA, defence, the environment, foreign policy, the National Energy Program-and we hope that the President will be able to influence the Congress. We should deal with the Congress before we throw those cards away.
It was a great weekend, Your Honour. The summit conference has taken place. You are sitting in a green chair. The bands have stopped playing and-I don't know whether Kipling wrote these words-"the tumult and the shouting died"

March 19, 1985
Supply
for this particular exercise. But the real issues remain. There is an agenda between our two nations which is still largely unaddressed. I would point out to Your Honour that in the real world of international affairs, even between the best of friends the celebration is the culmination of a successful negotiation. The celebration, the blarney, the good fellowship, the song, should never be a preamble. The negotiations have not been concluded. We have not achieved a great deal. I want to say that while the summit conference was indeed great "show biz", the Government did not deliver for the country.
It is for this reason that we support the tone of the motion of the Hon. Member for Oshawa. We would, however, like to make it a little more explicit, so I add this amendment-
[ Translation)
-seconded by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien):

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "rain" and by adding the following:
", and by allowing a one-year moratorium before any concrete action is taken by the United States despite the express wish of millions of Canadians and Americans; and
(b) the failure to make specific that Canada would not participate in any way in the star wars project of the United States and, especially, the failure to obtain ironclad guarantees that no nuclear arms will be stationed or deployed in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The question therefore before the House is the amendment. The Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me begin, if I might, by saying to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), as someone who has suffered through that position and knows all of its delights and limitations, that I thought he delivered today a very amusing and careful speech. Indeed, at times I thought it was even a slightly wistful speech, and I can understand that. I was particularly pleased to hear his remarks about the relations between Canada and the United States. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that if he votes today as he says he believes, he will vote against the motion and in favour of the very successful summit conference which was held on the weekend between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada.
I should make two comments about the observations which were raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition. First, I would simply make it clear to him again, as I have tried to do before, that the question of weapons in space is already very much on the agenda at Geneva. I am pleased to hear his words about that important question again. I can assure him that we in the Government, as any concerned people throughout the world, hope that progress might be made on the question of weapons in space in the Geneva negotiations.
My second point has to do with the question of guarantees that there would be no nuclear arms stationed on Canadian soil. I was rather surprised to hear a Liberal Leader use again the phrase "iron-clad guarantees". I did not think he would
have the nerve to use that word after Marc Lalonde. However, the word is back in the Liberal vocabulary. I can assure the Leader of the Official Opposition, as I have assured this House of Commons on several occasions previously, that under agreements which he knows well there is a guarantee, there is a commitment, that any Canadian Government would have the right to refuse the stationing of nuclear weapons on our soil, and that this Government, if we believe that to be in the interests of Canada, would refuse the stationing of nuclear arms in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: 


John Edward Broadbent: 


Charles Joseph Clark: The word "if' is raised, and raised with particular force by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Yes, we expect to exercise our judgment. That is what a Government of Canada is all about. We will not be motivated by blind anti-Americanism, as is the Leader of the New Democratic Party. His mind is made up. He says, "If, if, if', and I recall the attitude he adopted during the great constitutional debate, a debate which spoke to the history and the nature of this country. Indeed, it was a debate which put to the test the degree to which he would respect or betray the interests and wishes of the people of western Canada who had sent the great majority of his caucus here to the House of Commons. He said "if, if, if," until the question became clear and then he cut and ran. He buckled and betrayed his Party, western Canada and Quebec, and showed his colours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We heard in the speech of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) a familiar recitation of what we already know. He does not like Bill Davis. He does not like Ronald Reagan. He does not much like the American people.


John Edward Broadbent: Did you listen to the speech?


Charles Joseph Clark: So he expressed that sentiment again and again and again, as he has done time and again in this House and across the country. Indeed, he followed a quite disturbing pattern of distortion. He misquoted so often it was difficult to keep count. He misquoted me, he misquoted President Reagan, he misquoted Assistant Secretary Burt, he misquoted Ambassador Nitze and Secretary Weinberger. He quoted Mr. Genscher and Mr. Howe out of context. Indeed, he misquoted almost everyone who has spoken on this. But he knows better because the record is there and the Leader of the NDP, for whatever purpose, is deliberately distorting the record of what was said.
I think his purpose is clear. The Leader of the NDP will do literally anything for a headline. Just last Friday, for example, he associated me with the tragic death of the security guard at the Turkish Embassy. That won him a headline.


John Edward Broadbent: I wrote the headline, did I?
March 19, 1985


Charles Joseph Clark: That won him a headline. Just days before, seeking other headlines, he quoted half the statement of U.S. Assistant Secretary Richard Burt. He did not quote the whole statement. He would not quote the whole truth. That, Sir, is a shoddy standard for the Party of Woods-worth, Caldwell and Douglas.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Many of these issues, particularly modern defence issues, are complicated and troubling. There is room for honest difference and there is a need for honest debate. That is why I brought the proposal for the North Warning System before a committee of this House for examination, the first time that had been done.


Ms. Jewett:: For 64 minutes.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is why my officials and I stayed in our place, but the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) was not in hers. That is why officials and I stayed in our place in committee until the committee chairman received no more questions. That is why I recommended and have undertaken to have the renewal of Norad studied by that Committee, starting a full year before the deadline. That is why we are preparing the first parliamentary review of Canada's international relations in Canada's history.
There is no precedent for bringing Parliament into the debate like this. It has never been done before. However, if I have a duty, as I believe I have, to invite debate, then I believe Opposition Parties also have a duty, a duty to respect the facts, contribute genuinely to the formulation of policy appropriate to our modern sovereign country, and a duty not to abuse positions of trust in this Parliament by creating false fears.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Now, Sir, we have had a most successful summit at Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: What did we get?


Mr. Axworthy:: Now there is a misunderstanding.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness, the previous two speakers were listened to.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps important to make the point in this House, where the Government enjoys, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition noted, a substantial majority, that this is not the first time the issue of relations between Canada and the United States arose in Canada. It arose during the election campaign. The undertaking to improve relations between these two free and sovereign nations was a major part of the election campaign. It is a question upon which Canadians cast their judgment. They did so in favour of a significant improvement in relations between
Supply
Canada and the U.S. The summit is a demonstration that we are meeting our commitment to the people of Canada significantly to improve relations between the two free sovereign nations which share the northern half of this continent. That is being done in a way which fully serves and fully advances Canadian interests-I will elaborate on that later as will other Ministers-and which enhances Canadian sovereignty. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), the former Member for Yukon, recalls-


John Napier Turner: Former?


Charles Joseph Clark: Excuse me, the perpetual Member for Yukon, recalls-


Lloyd Axworthy: He now represents Alaska.


Mr. Nunziata:: You are the former Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: I just heard an intervention from-what is Mr. Nunziata's riding?


Ms. Copps:: York South-Weston.


Charles Joseph Clark: York South-Weston. Well, we are all better off not commenting on the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).
When the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence first came to this House as the Hon. Member for Yukon, he took with him on a trip once into the north of Canada the then Minister of Northern Affairs regarding an agreement which had been signed at that time. Under the terms of that agreement, as the Minister has made clear before, the state of our sovereignty was so weak Canadian Ministers had to seek the permission of American officials to have access to joint facilities on our soil. This agreement on the North Warning System, and indeed the spirit which has inspired the preparation of this summit, says we have had enough carelessness about Canadian sovereignty. It is time now for this country to affirm and advance our sovereignty. It is written into the North Warning System, as it was not before, and it inspires all of the actions followed by this Government in taking note and taking advantage of the fact that there has been a maturing of Canadian self-confidence over the years. We are now able, more able than we might have been before, to stand as equals with our friends the Americans and not live always in perpetual fear of them. We are our own people and this Government is prepared to admit that fact and act on it with pride.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think it is important to note- and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition made reference to this, perhaps wistfully-that the personal relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada could not be better. That can and will pay important dividends for Canada. It already has and it will in the future. It is clear now, if it was in doubt before, that on the great issues of freedom which are a source of division in the
3152

March 19, 1985
Supply
world, Canada is not neutral. We are renewing our partnership with the U.S.A. on a number of fronts. We are reasserting our membership in, and commitment to, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
There is clear evidence of strong public support for this approach. It was clear in the most recent public opinion polls. It is clear, I would judge, when Members of Parliament from all Parties go home and speak frankly with their constituents. As I will be saying again later, we believe this fact will give Canada a much more credible place and role in international affairs.
As my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), will be saying later today, we have broken in this summit a three-year deadlock on acid rain. We have established a political process to provide a political result. A common problem, Sir, requires a common solution. The problem is not at the scientific level. It is not even at the environmental level. It is at the political level in the United States of America. We believe that the artistry of two powerful political personalities with influence and access to the leaders of the nation will help mobilize the necessary political consensus in the U.S. to get results.
That is what we are after. That is what we have been doing. Without a joint process we will never get results. That is where we were before Quebec. There was no movement. There were no results. That is why what has happened on acid rain marks a significant step forward for Canada, the United States and all of those who are concerned about the safety of our lakes, our livelihood and the fight against acid rain.

Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the success of this meeting in Quebec City is also due to the fact that the meeting took place in the "Vieille Capitale". The Quebec summit is both a Canadian and international achievement and was held in Quebec City, which has a very special character all its own.
During the past decade, the international news on Quebec centred mainly on the state of discord within the Canadian family. The summit has changed all this. It has revived Quebec City's international reputation as the city where Roosevelt and Churchill met and where the UN Food and Agriculture Organization was established. It has also revived Quebec City's international reputation as a Canadian city that is proud of its distinctive character.
For years, Ottawa has treated-


Mr. Chretien:: What about Montebello?


Charles Joseph Clark: We are hearing a voice from the past, the voice of the former Minister, the voice of the architect of a policy directed against Quebec, a policy that resulted in a dramatic rift within this country.
Mr. Speaker, for years Ottawa has treated Quebec with contempt. The message at the time was clear: if anything important was to happen in Canada, it would happen in Ottawa. Times have changed. The Government is treating the people and the Government of Quebec with respect as full-fledged members of our Canadian family. And when important events are scheduled, we have no hesitation in showing our pride in Quebec, and in showing that pride to the whole world.
The summit symbolizes the fact that Quebec is part of the Canadian family, that it is respected and unique, a source of pride and vitality. President Reagan recognized this yesterday in his speech. It is too bad that the NDP has immediately taken this opportunity to censure the Quebec City summit. [English]
The Leader of the Opposition made reference specifically to questions of trade. They are obviously questions of deep importance. In the communique of the summit there is a declaration on trade which reflects the strong personal commitment of the two Leaders to create a more secure, predictable environment for trade.
More specifically, I will go over the points that have been agreed to at the summit and their importance to Canada. There is a specific commitment by the President and the Prime Minister to halt protectionism on cross-border trade in goods and services. I will deal with that for a moment, just in passing, to elaborate on the importance of that to Canada.
Members of the House will know, to our apprehension, of the crises that we have faced in recent months with regard to copper, steel, saltfish, softwood lumber and a growing list of products. There are protectionist forces growing in the United States. The International Trade Commission in that country has to approve applications for what is euphemistically called relief, but what means protection in the United States. The applications to that commission doubled in 1984. There is a trend at work which will be dangerous for Canada unless it is stopped.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the President does not have, or may lose, the power to help Canada in that regard as his term progresses. In Quebec this weekend the President of the United States affirmed clearly and specifically in writing that he is going to use that power to help Canada be safeguarded against protectionist sentiments in the United States of America. That means jobs and security and a greater sense of growth and possibilities in this country. That is an agreement and commitment which should be celebrated by all Members of the House who genuinely care about jobs in the Canadian economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is an agreement that there will be measures adopted to enhance access to each other's markets. A program has been launched to carry on the exploration for a means to facilitate and increase not only trade but also investment. This is highly important and I think
March 19, 1985

the Leader of the Opposition would understand this even if the Leader of the New Democratic Party would not. There has been a stronger and clearer commitment on the part of both countries to work together for a stronger multilateral trading system and to use the combined influence of Canada and the United States, working with other countries in the world, to strengthen and protect the multilateral trading system.
There has been a commitment to reinvigorate Canada's role in defence, and thereby to strengthen our control of our own defence. There have been attempts again today to pretend that the North Warning System somehow involves Canada in the Strategic Defence Initiative of the United States. That, Sir, is false. The question will be raised as to what guarantees there are that the North Warning System will not somehow be changed to serve other purposes. There are these guarantees. First, we wrote into the agreement a guarantee of sovereignty, an expression of Canadian sovereignty that was not there before. We have the guarantees of consultation. We have the long-standing and reaffirmed guarantee that before there is any action taken that would affect Canadian policy there will be the right of the Canadian Government to decide. That is clear. That was reaffirmed. That is a protection against the transformation of the North Warning System into any other kind of system.
The fear that is expressed is that somehow or other this radar system would be transferred into a part of the Strategic Defence Initiative. That is simply impossible. It is technically impossible. We are talking about an earth-based system modernizing a 25-year-old radar network. North Warning has no capacity or capability against ballistic extra-atmospheric missiles.


Lloyd Axworthy: But it complements it.


Charles Joseph Clark: It can be used only against Cruise and manned bombers.


Lloyd Axworthy: Why don't you use your head? Don't be so stupid. Don't be so silly.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is technically impossible to do what the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and others are trying to create fear in Canada about. It is technically impossible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: You are a dummy. You guys better start thinking. You've got your head in the sand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs that the official time has expired. He may proceed with unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: His time expired long ago.


John Edward Broadbent: It's terrific entertainment, keep going.
Supply


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the House. I have just outlined the facts that make it impossible for the North Warning System to become part of SDI. I know that facts can always be ignored or can be given a false and sinister twist. You can create fear about anything. You can create fear about fluoride in the water. You can create fear about Margaret Laurence being taught in the schools. You can create fear about radar in the Canadian north. In the face of arguments like that it is fair to ask precisely what the Opposition Parties would do to replace a northern radar system that has holes in it.
Some Members of Parliament, particularly the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who likes to speak from his seat and to interrupt debate in the House, have suggested that we should leave this system for further study. It has been studied for nine years.


Mr. Kindy:: So has acid rain.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Senate committee said in a report that the present system would allow the Soviet Union to fly bombers, largely undetected, into the heart of North America and to launch an attack virtually without warning against command and control of our communications centre. That is the situation which exists now. No one seriously disputes that. So people who ask for more studies are asking that the holes in our north grow larger. What would they do about these large holes in our north? Would they ask the Soviets to please not send missiles or their bombers until we Finish our study? Or would they ask the Americans to look after our north for us? To do the first is to sacrifice our security. To do the second would be to sacrifice our sovereignty.
This is not a lecture series to the Socialist International. We are talking here about Canadian sovereignty and Canadian security in a world where deterrence is the best defence. Deterrence requires warning. If the warning does not work, the system does not work and the temptation is larger for missiles to be shot through the holes in our roof-missiles whose targets would be Canadian cities and Canadian individuals as well as American cities and American individuals.
No one in the House likes to think of missiles being fired at any target. But missiles exist-Soviet missiles targeted at us and western missiles targeted at the Soviet Union. Until we find a way to remove them we must find practical ways to discourage their use. The system of mutual deterrence works. None of the missiles has been fired precisely because it was known that warning systems would warn and allow deadly retaliation. This world is dangerous enough. We should not increase the danger by weakening the warning system that deters attack.
We have in this agreement a commitment to strengthen political level consultation on all security issues; on defence issues, on arms control issues, on defence economic co-opera-

March 19, 1985
Supply
tion. We are being consulted closely. We have stressed the importance of those consultations for alliance solidarity.
We are a full partner in NATO and, as the declaration underlines, the strength of our alliance rests on the "unique and individual contributions of its sovereign members in the pursuit of our common goal of peace with freedom". We do not intend to behave as some kind of a bystander in NATO. We seek to enhance our influence in NATO councils and we are doing just that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Just what Reagan wanted.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have, as a specific result of this summit, improved defence economic co-operation, strengthening existing arrangements, reducing impediments, stopping the erosion that has occurred. We have important statements regarding arms control, statements strengthening joint research-


Lloyd Axworthy: Reagan was very good.


Charles Joseph Clark: -references to multilateral arms control forums as well as bilateral.


Lloyd Axworthy: Reagan was great on that.


Charles Joseph Clark: I would hope that Members of Parliament who profess to be interested in these questions would read with some care the declaration.


Lloyd Axworthy: You sure had an influence on Reagan.


Charles Joseph Clark: In this communique we have a statement on the adherence by Canada and by the United States to the ABM Treaty that I think should be noted with care by Members of the House. I want to read that portion of the declaration signed by the President and the Prime Minister:
In this regard, we agree that steps beyond research-
In strategic defence initiative:
-would, in view of the ABM Treaty, be matters for discussion and negotiation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Just like this weekend when we gave everything to Reagan.


Charles Joseph Clark: That solemn commitment should make clear-


Lloyd Axworthy: Negotiation on our knees? Is that the idea?


Charles Joseph Clark: It is increasingly difficult, even for as practised a parliamentarian as me, to be able to make the point that I believe needs to be made in the face of constant interruptions, particularly from the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I can only conclude that he does not want to know what has been agreed. I can only conclude that he does not want to know the facts.
He has been concerned in the House, for whatever reason, about the degree to which there would be adherence to the ABM Treaty, about what might come from the Strategic Defence Initiative. He has an undertaking, written and signed by the President and the Prime Minister, that indicates the prominence and the central role of the ABM Treaty in this question.
We also have in the statement a very important Canadian addition and flavour with regard to regional conflict, with the encouragement and support of the strengthening of multilateral and international mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes, promoting, as the communique states:
Each by our distinctive contributions, the social, economic and political development essential to the achievement of a stable and enduring peace.
That is consistent with traditional Canadian policy and attitudes toward regional conflict.
These are advantages that are tangible and well known. They were won by the summit at Quebec. Some of them may have a dramatic impact on vital Canadian issues; on jobs, trade and on the very life of our lakes and our forests.
But already the argument is being made that in exchange for these tangible advantages to Canada, friendship with the United States somehow costs us influence; influence with developing countries-


John Edward Broadbent: Who made that argument, Joe?


Charles Joseph Clark: -or with the Soviet Union, influence in Europe, influence with international organizations or elsewhere.


John Edward Broadbent: Who said that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Before accepting that simple black and white view of the world, I invite Canadians to examine two kinds of evidence. First, in reality, did the fact that our relations with the United States were strained give us any extra influence elsewhere? Canada has historically been able to take advantage of our influence as a non-colonial, respected middle power. That tradition was begun when no one questioned our friendship with the United States, when everyone accepted that two democratic neighbours would be friends. Our influence internationally has to do with the nature of Canada, not just with the nature of our relations with the United States.
It is worth asking what actual concrete progress was made in disarmament, in development or in relations with any region that would be threatened now. In the interest of honest debate, let those who argued that there is a high cost indicate specifically what that cost is.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Jobs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Jobs, says the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: The steel industry. Did they deliver on steel?
March 19, 1985


Charles Joseph Clark: What we have now in this country is a deep and grave threat to the security of Canadian jobs because of protectionist measures in the United States. If the Hon. Member from Hamilton had been watching, she would now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With due respect to the Members who are barracking on the side, I am being asked by one side to tell the Member who has the floor to be quiet. Surely that is an improper request. With great respect, the Member is entitled to be heard.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are waiting for him to say something reasonable.


An Hon. Member:: Ask him to say something useful. She is asking him to say something.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me suggest to Hon. Members who are still barracking that when they seek the floor later in the day they should expect exactly the same treatment from Members opposite, and not complain.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I regret to note that the disrespect shown Ministers speaking on this side is also shown the Speaker of the House of Commons. I would hope that that practice would not continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me reply to the Member for Hamilton East who shouted a comment from her seat. She is quite correct that what is at issue here is jobs. The threat to jobs is the growing protectionist pressure in the United States. As a specific result of the summit at Quebec, we have a guarantee that the President of the United States will come to the defence of Canada against protectionist influence in that country. That means protection for jobs in this country and that is one of the reasons we believe it is important to have good relations with the President of the United States.
The second kind of evidence is to see, in these last six months since the people of Canada voted dramatically and emphatically for an improvement in relations between Canada and the United States, whether Canada's admitted friendship with the United States has in fact limited our influence elswhere. That friendship did not stop Canada from playing a leading role in bringing relief to Ethiopia, although the regime in that country is deeply disliked by the United States. It did not stop the Prime Minister from having a highly successful meeting in the Caribbean. We have demonstrated to our NATO allies that they have two strong friends in North America, not just one. We have provided our unique expertise in peace-keeping to the Contadora countries in Central America. We have been invited by all sides to help in the Sinai. We are working from within to reform the organization of UNESCO, an organization the United States has left. We are making our independent review of the appropriate policy toward South Africa. The Prime Minister has already had a most productive meeting with Mr. Gorbachev, and within
Supply
weeks I will be undertaking the first visit to the Soviet Union by a Canadian Foreign Minister in twelve years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are convinced that a constructive relationship with the United States will not only strengthen our postion here at home but also in the councils of the world. Our voice, our role, and our influence will benefit because we will be more credible. Strong nations are rejected. Confident nations are listened to.


John Edward Broadbent: You are neither.


Charles Joseph Clark: We know there has been a burgeoning of confidence in this country. It may not be shared by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and that question was judged in the election when his Party lost seats and this Government was given a dramatic majority almost unparalleled in our history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We know there has been an assertion of confidence in this country. As for Canadians who might have been worried in the past-


John Edward Broadbent: They are more worried than ever.


Lloyd Axworthy: For good reason.


Charles Joseph Clark: -that our culture was too weak to stand up to the influence of the United States, we know that that sense of vulnerability has been replaced by a new sense of Canadian confidence. We know that that can be turned to Canada's advantage, not only as it has been in our relations with the United States but also in the role we intend to play as an active influence on events internationally.
We are here as a Government elected by a self-confident Canadian electorate. We are here as a Government determined to express that self-confidence. We began that expression in the summit at Quebec. We intend to carry it on in other aspects of the international policy of Canada. I would hope there will be a greater demonstration of confidence in Canada by Members of this House. They can begin that by voting against the motion today and by voting for the success that was found in the summit between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to comment briefly on the motion before the House today.
I think we have had some interesting speeches, but first of all, I would like to consider several comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who

March 19, 1985
Supply
astounded me by the way he referred to the Prime Minister's initiative in inviting the President of the United States to Quebec. He should have realized, before he rose in the House, that when a few years ago we received the heads of State of seven major Western countries, we received them in Quebec, at Montebello, and not only President Reagan, but also the President of France, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Chancellor of West Germany, the Prime Minister of Japan and the Prime Minister of Italy. What you did on the weekend is nothing compared to what we did in Montebello. As they say, it was small beer compared with what we did in the riding of the hon. lady sitting across the way from me. Why didn't she rise and tell the House: My riding was well served when we received all those international figures in the riding of Argen-teuil-Papineau, and Quebec City on the weekend was just small beer.
Now I think this is all part of the image, and I think there is cause for concern because the present Government is basically a public relations Government. It is a lot of show, but when you dig deeper there is no substance. Nothing at all. Obviously, everybody falls for the old public relations trick. They say we are great friends with the Americans. Of course we are friends with the Americans, and we will remain so. However, there is a price that one does not pay in politics. There is a price, a very important one. Here in Canada, in the past five years, we have succeeded in keeping this country together, despite a great many problems. We had the referendum. We patriated the Constitution. We gave Canada a charter of rights and freedoms, and what is happening now? Canada's own sovereignty is being jeopardized by this irresponsible desire to be close to the Americans. As my leader said a few minutes ago: What, since September, have we received from the American Government in return? Of course President Reagan is happy to be here. If I were the President I would be very happy too, because since September he has had everything he wanted-


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -in every area. And what did we get in return? Nothing! The Prime Minister is being praised for his qualities as an able negotiator. Since when does a negotiator show his cards to his opponents, and say: Are we going to be friends? You are a nice man, Mr. Reagan. We helped you, so you are going to help us.

Look at the reality, Mr. Speaker. They speak about free trade, that great virtue of free trade. On January 28 this year the President of the United States, the same Mr. Reagan, put a ban on products made in Canada. They were not to go to the United States because of a problem in the United States with sugar production. They were complaining about the fact that Canadians had taken advantage of the American market strictly on a commercial basis. What did they do? They placed
a restriction on our goods. No more products from Canada. I can go on about steel and any other sector.
Americans talk free trade. My Leader was absolutely right in what he said. I was Minister of Trade, Secretary of State for External Affairs and Minister of Finance. One deals with the White House. The Americans are always very nice to us. It is in their interests to be very nice to us. They all do that, but I will give you an example of how the Americans act, Mr. Speaker.
I remember when we had a problem in trade. Canada had a minimum deficit of $2 billion that year in tourist trade. I went to the United States. I spoke to the Secretary of Commerce, Juanita Kreps, and I spoke also with Vice-President Mondale. I told them that when Americans come to Canada for a convention they cannot deduct from their expenses their expenditures in Canada, but Canadians who go to a convention in the United States can. I asked them why they couldn't do what we did. The Americans all agreed with me that what they did made no sense, but there was nothing they could do in the White House because two Senators representing a border state said they would not go along with a change unless Canadians did something for the Americans in the State of New York. At the time there was a television problem at the border, a completely unrelated matter.
Goodwill was there. Vice-President Mondale said the situation made no sense. Everybody agreed. But it took years to resolve it. That was at a time when we had a deficit of $2 billion every year in tourist trade.


Mr. McDermid:: When you get along there is no problem.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am just explaining the difficulty. It is easy to have a nice little talk with the President of the United States, but because of the division of power in that state the White House can pass the buck to the Representatives or the Senators and wash their hands of it. Here in Canada the Prime Minister, especially having 211 Members, can do anything he wants. He can even abolish the Senate if he wants. We have to be realistic and face the reality of what is going on.
I would like to go back to the problem of defence and the agreement of last weekend. I feel strongly about this. The Leader of the New Democratic Party named all the statesmen. When officials are questioned and when they react on the spur of the moment, they tell us, that they might deploy something here. We are for a change in the system. We are not opposed to it. We have said that many times. The DEW line has to be replaced. We need a new system in the north that will plug the hole. We do not disagree with that. We negotiated and we agreed with that. The question we are asking is whether it is linked to star wars. Caspar Weinberger said that twice. Paul Nitze and other officials said the same thing. It was always on the spur of the moment, and that was logical.
The Minister rose a moment ago and said that it was just a warning system. I agree. But when will he explain that a large portion of the committed money will be spent to build airstrips
March 19, 1985

in the north? Why airstrips? A radar system does not need huge airstrips. Why will they build a series of major airstrips there? We would like to know. Is it just to receive Twin Otters? I have been in the north many times in my life and they cannot even land Twin Otters on the tundra.


John Napier Turner: It is for Erik's plane.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Erik can land any plane on any lake, so he does not need big airstrips. No one is giving us an explanation.
We want to know the views of the Americans over the long term. It is very easy for us to say that we will have the right to say no, but what will our position be after we have let them spend money to build airstrips and to instal infrastructure. Can we go to them later on and say: "Don't use it, we don't like it"?
At the beginning of my political career I remember very well what happened with the Bomarc. There was an agreement. It was signed in good will with the Americans, and so on. When Mr. Diefenbaker realized that there was to be a deployment of the Bomarc in Canada, he said that it was not what he had intended and he backed away. At that time we said that if we had signed the agreement we had to respect our word. I remember I had a problem about voting on it myself. I talked with Mr. Harkness, a great gentleman, and asked him whether we were committed. He said: "Mr. Chretien, a Tory I am". There was no greater Conservative in spirit or at heart than he. He said that Canada had given its word and that he had to accept it. That was why he resigned from Cabinet. When that agreement was signed in 1957, no one knew exactly what would be the consequences. However, it took Canada 22 years to get out of it. It was only last summer that the last Bomarc left Canada. Now we have no nuclear warheads on our soil.
What are we doing now? In the north we are letting them build large airstrips. Mr. Weinberger said over the weekend that the missiles, the defense weapons, would be located where it was best. He said that it might be in the United States, on ships, or in Canada. Of course it will be in Canada, if they need it.
What will be the position of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark)? Will they say that they have changed their minds, that they let them build airstrips but they do not like it? They will have to condition themselves. They have rightly said "if it is in the best interests of Canada". When they use the word "if', they are telling the Americans that they are open to their move. The question is not "if'. Are we or are we not in favour of the deployment of nuclear arms on Canadian soil? There should be no compromise on that. If the decision is yes, they should say yes. They should tell the truth rather than create conditions where we do not know what will happen. We want the truth.
I know why they said "if'. It is because in their own minds there could be some situation where they will have no choice. This is why Canadians are disturbed at the moment. We want candour in that regard. If they can make an argument that
Supply
because of our commitment to NATO and NORAD we have to make Canadian soil available for defence, that strategically Canada has to become the battleground of a nuclear war, let us accept it. Some other countries have accepted deployment on their soil. Germany, despite the controversy, has accepted that. Great Britain has accepted that. In Canada we have been unanimous in the House; even today the Government told us that it was opposed to the deployment of any nuclear arms on Canadian soil. When it makes such a statement, it has to take the step to ensure that it never happens. This is why we are critical of the Government, because of its ambivalence in that regard. It is not to score political points; we want to know the truth.
Some comments were made again this morning which indicated that facts have not been given to Canadians on this very important issue. We learned not long ago from a leaked document in the United States that some of its strategy included the use of some of the bases in Canada, that some of our bases, like the one at Cold Lake, could be used for that purpose. If there is an emergency and in their strategy they decide to use Canadian soil, we will not be in a very good position to tell the Americans not to use these bases or these airstrips into which they have put billions of dollars to develop them in the north. These are the questions we want answered. It is the future of our country.
Why are we opposed to SDI? It is not new. When President Reagan announced the program some two years ago, there was discussion in the House about this new development and we unanimously condemned SDI. Why?


John Napier Turner: It was led by Mr. Trudeau.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Trudeau, and it was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and so on. Everyone commended Mr. Trudeau at that time for his peace mission. Why are we opposed to SDI? It is because we believe it is a new escalation. The Russians will not let the Americans do it and not match it. When we were in government we had to make some very difficult decisions. We permitted testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. We were in favour of the two-track policy. We had an impression, or even a conviction, that the U.S.S.R. had gone ahead, so we decided to conduct more tests in an attempt to arrive at an equilibrium between the quality of armaments on both sides.
What is the other side of the two-track policy? After we have virtually reached that plateau, suffocation is supposed to come, reduction is supposed to come. SDI is against this idea. It is a new step forward. It has always been like that since 1941. It has always been a research program. When the Manhattan project was developed during the war, it was a research program.
At this time I am reading a book on Truman. Days before he dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, there was a debate in the U.S. administration as to whether it should explode the bomb in the Bay of Tokyo and not hurt any people. It would have

March 19, 1985
Supply
told the Japanese that the Americans had the bomb but they would not have had to use it. At the beginning of the program most scientists who wanted to develop the bomb hoped that it would never have to be used. But it was used. I do not know what they are up to with SDL I am not a scientist. There is much controversy about it around the world at this time, not only in Canada. The external affairs minister for England talked about that. Everyone talks about it. There has been a lot of pressure. Everyone comes onside eventually, but everyone has a lot of apprehension about it. We have apprehension. What worries me is what happens after a mistake is made.
Again in Quebec City yesterday, Defence Secretary Weinberger said: "Of course, it might be in Canada". We could have attributed that to an error, to a slip of the tongue a few months ago, but he said it again yesterday. Two weeks ago a press reporter asked Paul Nitze about it and he said "Of course". After that they clarified it. It is an indication that in the minds of the Americans they have no doubt. Of course, they say they will respect the jurisdiction of Canada. Of course, Margaret Thatcher could have said no to deployment. Of course, the Germans could have said no to deployment eventually. Some are still trying. However, when we create the climate or the environment, we are trapped and the pressure is on us.
That is exactly why we are asking the question. If it is for the good of Canada and if it is rationally explained to us, we might say yes; but as a Canadian I believe we are making a fundamental mistake in playing our cards like that. It is one thing to say to the Americans that they are welcome in Canada, that Canada is for sale and so on, but look what happened with the flow of capital in September. It has not flowed south-north, it has flowed north-south.
Look at the market. In one week there was such an outflow of capital from Canada, for many reasons, that the Government had to borrow $2.5 billion. Why? It was because American money was leaving Canada and we had to buy Canadian dollars. We had no choice. That is the reality.
As my Leader said a few minutes ago, the Americans are our best friends. What do we expect from our best friends? We expect respect and truth. I do not need anybody to pat my back. I hope my friends will come to me and tell me the truth. Those are real friends.
Very often we can be useful to the Americans, if we are not seen as the fifty-first state. We can be useful because we are a different country. We have access to some countries to which they do not.
I remember the last day I was Minister of Finance in 1979. I signed an agreement with Algeria. I asked why they wanted to do business with Canada. They told me it was because Canada is the only country in the world which could give them North American technology in French. Some 40 countries around the world have French as their first or second language. They look to Canada. Any Member of this House who travels abroad knows that they do not receive the same reaction when they show their Canadian passport. That is because we have a credibility of our own. The Americans are different. Some people look at them as having imperialist ideas. I do not look at them in that way. I do not say that they have. However, some people do believe that.
Canadians do not have any ambition like that. Canadians can go anywhere in the world with a different approach. Sometimes that can be very useful. We have not done everything that has been accomplished since 1867 to end up in 1985 wondering whether one day we will still be a country. You cannot rest all your faith for the future on Washington. If all decisions are made there, one day the urge will be for Canada to be there. On that day, it will be over: we will become the fifty-first state of America. That has been the history of this world.
Integration should come slowly. What would be the price to pay for that? With my personal cultural background, I believe that would be the end of the French fact, like it or not. There are more people who speak Spanish or Italian in the United States than there are people who speak French in Canada. When we want to have our rights protected there-


An Hon. Member:: Speak in French!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I speak in French a lot more often than anyone of you people.
And there lies the danger. We have not been fighting for 111 years to build a country just to end up tomorrow morning ... because we might just have economic benefits if we were very close to the United States. Nonsense! Right now, 83 per cent of our trade is with the United States, but we have always made sure that our own sectors were protected. When we negotiated the auto pact, we made sure there would be something in it for Canada-


John Napier Turner: And it was reciprocal!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -along with-it was reciprocal-control mechanisms. You can do all the business you want with the United States but, as the Leader of the Liberal Party said a few minutes ago, the interests of Congress often differ from those of the White House. Oftentimes the United States have protective measures which the central Government cannot-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue his speech until one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: Continue in French!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Interests do differ. Governing the United States is not an easy task. I have had dealings with American Governments for 17 years and I witnessed the frustration of their administration. Administering Canada may be difficult,
March 19, 1985

but nowhere near as much as administering the United States. More often than not protective measures are taken by American States, and when that happens there is practically nothing the central American Government can do about it. That is the kind of experience we have every day. For instance, the enforcement of American extraterritorial legislation which we are regularly faced with and about which the administration does not do anything.
Another recent problem which I want to raise in the House today-good relations are fine, but Canadian interests ought to come first-concerns a Canadian bank that was forced to break another country's law to meet the requirements of the American administration.

A few months ago there was a situation in the United States where the Bank of Nova Scotia was forced to break the laws of a third country in order to avoid United States personnel being put in jail. What kind of friendship is that? What about our own integrity?
We had the same problems in the uranium cartel. The Americans were asking the Canadian company to do certain things. Foreign companies with the head office in the United States and a branch in Canada could do things which the law of Canada did not permit them to do. There are a lot of these situations. When you go there and say "I am a nice guy, I will sing along with you", you must remember that the Americans are tough bargainers. They are not kids. They have seen people before and they know the difference between a smile and strength. They always respect strength.
It is easy to have parties and it is sometimes easier to make people laugh, but when you talk about a country like Canada which has had great success with the Americans, you have to be sure that they know that we are neighbours and not assimilated within the system. It is very frustrating when you talk to those who take Canada for granted all the time. They do not like us to ask any questions. They are offended if we do ask questions.
There is not one week when I do not pick up a magazine which shows politicians blaming the administration for this and for that. There is not one day of the week when there is not a split in the White House on policy. Therefore, should we as Canadians not be able to say what we think? What kind of maturity is that? I am sure that the President of the United States would rather have a good, frank, open discussion on an issue than to have a pat on the back. I am sure that he would listen to a good argument. Do not kid yourselves, the Americans love Canada, but they will invest in Canada only if they can make a buck. If they are going to lose money, they will not come here.
What we are very disappointed about is the lack of candour and the naivety of the Government. If the Government wants to make a deal with the Americans on SDI and wants to make Canada available for nuclear armaments, other countries have done it. Germany, England, Italy and other European countries have done it. There is no shame to it. However, do not try
to have it both ways. If you do not want it, say so. Do not create a situation where they will have the absolute right eventually to say it was not written down, but we created the condition whereby they could come if they wanted.
If you do not want to have somebody at your home on a Saturday night because you want a quiet evening, do not invite a bunch of your friends to come for a beer! Do not invite them if you do not want them. I have had that experience a few times.
It is a serious problem. The people of Canada want candour. They want the truth. If we act as a senior partner with the Americans and we treat them as an equal, even if we are smaller in terms of population, they will respect us. However, if we just play to their cue, if we just go and sing for them, they will be nice to us, but eventually we will lose our independence. Canadians from sea to sea have put too much into building a society that is different, one that is our own, that we shall never be assimilated into the United States. We are too proud to be Canadian.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the mandate given to Messrs. Davis and Lewis on acid rain includes "identifying efforts to improve the U.S. and Canadian environments". It is hard to say which efforts need to be identified after all these years. In any case, it would be a serious mistake for the Government of Canada at this point to hope that, one year from now, Messrs. Davis and Lewis will deliver on their mandate without help. Actually they need a lot of help. Their efforts have a chance to succeed if the United States will sign, next July in Helsinki, the ECE protocol on acid rain which contains a provision to cut smoke-stack emissions by 30 per cent by 1993.
From now on, Canada should launch an initiative aimed at those friendly nations ready to sign the protocol urging them to press the United States to become one of the signatory parties. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has failed to

March 19, 1985
convince President Reagan on the acid rain question. The next step is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to help Canada generate international support for our cause. If the Americans can be convinced to go to Helsinki to sign the protocol, then the foundation will have been laid for a Canada-United States agreement.
Between now and July, the focus on acid rain must shift to the international scene. Twenty nations, including Canada, have already agreed to sign-


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



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made yesterday of a further 474 layoffs by the CNR, on top of the 225 announced earlier this month, makes a mockery of the promise of Conservative Members that their election would result in jobs, jobs, and more jobs. It also exposes once again the lies the CNR told its employees about all the work that would be waiting for them if only the Crow rate were changed.
I understood that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) had undertaken to speak to the President of the CNR, and VIA, about the earlier layoffs, on the basis that cancelling coach work in anticipation of new equipment might prove to be shortsighted, particularly in light of the rail passenger services that are to be restored this year. That layoff has now been compounded by another equally short-sighted move on the part of the CNR.
When is the Government going to take charge of the CNR and order it to stop putting its short-term accounting needs ahead of the economic future of the country? The rolling stock is there to be repaired. If the Government has any confidence in its own economic policies, then why not prepare for that future, build up a fleet of rolling stock, keep people working, and families anxiety-free, and avoid the pathetic absurdity of having even more Canadians out of work when, as is so clearly the case with car men and other railroaders, there is work that could be usefully continued?



TERRORISM


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, many of us celebrated the Feast of St. Patrick on Sunday, and some celebrated in splendid colour in Quebec city. As we refreshed our Irish heritage, we acknowledged the credit that St. Patrick deserves for his saintly efforts to bring the peaceful word to
Ireland. His risks were high and sometimes violent, but he did his job and met his challenge.
Last week in Ottawa an unacceptable terrorist attack took place at the Turkish Embassy that resulted in the tragic loss of life of a Pinkerton's security man, Mr. Claude Brunelle, and caused serious injuries to the Turkish ambassador, Ambassador Kirca. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) spoke of the co-operative actions between the RCMP and the Ottawa Police Force. That is true, but I would like to underline the fact that the Ottawa Police took most of the risks in response to this unpredictable act of violence.
Protection of embassies in Ottawa is a federal responsibility, but any criminal offence that takes place within city property, whether it be public or private, federal or international in nature, in the Province of Ontario has traditionally become the immediate responsibility of the local police force. Within three minutes of being called, the Ottawa Police were on the scene. Constable Michel Prudhomme saw Ambassador Kirca lying on the ground and risked his own life by jumping a fence to pull the ambassador to safety.
A four-hour standoff ensued, under the command of Staff Inspector Wilfred Longchamps of the Ottawa Police. The terrorists were then arrested by his SWAT team, with no further loss of life. I am proud of the quick, efficient, brave and professional actions of the City of Ottawa Police. They did their job and also met their challenge. Let us give credit where credit is due.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, just six and a half months ago the people of Canada were engaged in a general election. The Progressive Conservative Party made its position very clear regarding defence. Conservative Members made it clear that we intended to spend more on NATO and our defence forces, and to increase the size of our standing army. In the same election campaign the New Democratic Party had a peace platform which was in great contrast to ours.
As a result of that election campaign, the Conservative Party gained an unprecedented number of seats in the House of Commons and the largest popular vote as well as the largest percentage of the popular vote. In contrast, the New Democratic Party lost eight seats in the West, and lowered its popular vote and the percentage of that popular vote campaigning on its defence platform.
Now that members of the NDP are in opposition, they would almost have the people of Canada believe that the Government of Canada is violating the popular will, when that will was made clear just seven months ago. It would appear
March 19, 1985

that members of the New Democratic Party agree with democratic institutions and democratic decisions only if they conform to their position.



ACCESS TO INFORMATION


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the internal investigation being undertaken by the RCMP into the Hatfield affair, Hon. Members should know what the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay), as an opposition Member, had to say about the Liberal access to information Bill. On January 29, 1981, the present Minister said:
There must be a genuine willingness in this place to give information on a reasonable basis with reasonable time limits to Hon. Members.
In particular, the Solicitor General complained about the delays he was encountering with respect to getting answers to questions on the Order Paper. He said that the delays were not in keeping with the spirit of the access to information legislation. At that time the Hon. Member said to the Government:
If you're going to talk the talk, you have got to walk the walk.
Canadians want to see the Solicitor General walk the walk. They want to see how committed he is to the noble principle of access to information.
Yesterday I placed over 200 specific questions relating to the Hatfield case on the Order Paper in an attempt to get some answers. The Canadian people, and particularly the people of New Brunswick, want some meaningful answers to questions in regard to this case, and they want them soon. They do not want secret meetings and secret internal reports, where the administration of their system of justice is concerned. I call on the Solicitor General to make public immediately the RCMP's internal investigation into the Hatfield affair.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, during the past few days, this country has witnessed important events on the international scene.
The summit meeting held in Quebec City was conducted very successfully by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister who was a source of national pride and who deserved the admiration of Canadians the world over, whatever certain Members of the Opposition may think. I felt very proud to be a Canadian and to belong to a country that was making a long-awaited return to the international scene. The cordiality and spirit of co-operation that pervaded
the meeting between the two heads of State, Mr. Reagan and the Right Hon. Prime Minister, will be a decisive factor in determining the future of our two countries.
Coming from a riding where there is a very strong military presence, I was particularly pleased with the agreement ratified by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada on upgrading the North Warning System. Over the years, our DEW line and Canadian Pine Tree line radar systems have become vulnerable. It is a good thing that Canada will be one of the best protected nations in the world in case of a conflict. Not only was this upgrading strategically desirable, but it will also inject more than $7 billion into our economy, with 88 per cent coming from the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I am justly proud to be a Quebecer and a Canadian, and to represent part of our Canadian community in this House.




Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, finally Canada has had a summit with the U.S.A. that was positive. The two leaders, of Irish stock, reached seven important agreements, one of which tackles all aspects of acid rain.
The Liberals are red faced; their 16 years in office saw acid rain pollution get worse and worse. No wonder they are green with envy. The NDP, of course, continue to specialize in bashing the Americans. Both the Liberals and the NDP are so negative that they refuse to see anything good in anything done by the Tories or the Americans.
The Liberals and the NDP do not speak for Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party was given that responsibility after the people heard and analysed its policies on acid rain, defence, and trade. They rejected both opposition Parties.
At the summit the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reflected the thinking of the vast majority of Canadians when he stood firmly and four square for the sovereignty of our nation, for international security, and for the upgrading of our northern radar system. All of these things strengthen our sovereignty. Canadians are a proud people, and we refuse to kowtow to any nation.
Canadians are proud of you, Mr. Prime Minister, and of your Ministers, and as for the harping of the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, forget it. The best way to describe that is in the words of the poet: "All is yellow to the jaundiced eye".

March 19, 1985



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the cut-backs in CBC funding represent not only broken promises but disrupted services and lost opportunities. Regional programming has been especially badly hit, some regions more so than others. Newfoundland and Labrador have suffered some of the worst blows with the closing of the Gander station and the reduction of half of the sation in Labrador City.
The cuts in Gander have since been rescinded, showing that the CBC is able to respond with good sense to public outcry. It is time now for the cuts in Labrador City to be rescinded. Because of those cuts there will be no local TV programming whatsoever for a substantial area with no commercial stations.
Isolated parts of Canada vitally depend on the CBC. These are not the areas which should be cut. We have a national public broadcasting system. Its duty is to serve the whole of the country, including small and distant communities. It is a fact of life in Canada that services to such areas are costly for the size of the population served, but that is our country. Patriotic duty requires us all, urban and rural, south and north, to support necessary services for all parts of Canada.
It is time for this Parliament to send a message to Monsieur Juneau and the CBC to restore regional programming, rescind the cut-backs in Labrador City, and get on with the job of uniting Canadians.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
renovation of ministerial offices
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, since the election of September 4 the Government has embarked upon a program of cost cutting. It has cut assistance to the unemployed, terminated grants under the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, increased fees for farmers, and threatened to cut universality. You name it, it cuts it.
In the same period of restraint, some six months, Cabinet Ministers have embellished their Taj Mahal offices on Parliament Hill. Here are some examples of the cost of these office renovations. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) has spent approximately $10,000 renovating his office. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who is responsible for universality, spent $22,327. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) spent $7,887. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) spent $13,496. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) spent $7,950. And the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton), whoever that is, spent $17,712. A total of $130,000 has been spent in this manner. An amount of $ 173,000 was spent to purchase new cars, and $30,000 was spent on
car rentals. That is a thrifty Government for you, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to comment briefly on the brilliant success of the Quebec City summit.
By placing our relationship with the United States in an atmosphere of trust and friendship, the Prime Minister of Canada has given a new impetus to Canada-U.S. relations.
This decision clearly demonstrates and consolidates the politics of reconciliation initiated by our Government within our Confederation and in our relations with our neighbour to the South. By eliminating irritants between our two governments, we will increase investor confidence and promote trade between our two countries.
This meeting gave the Prime Minister an opportunity to show his guests the unique character of Quebec and the restored unity of Canada.
The 24-hour summit has accelerated the taking of steps that may lead to major decisions and definite results. The meeting was a productive one in terms of expanding trade and settling the acid rain issue. With respect to pollution and the threat it represents to the environment, the President to the United States has acknowledged the extent of the problem and mentioned the need to protect our common environment.
Where trade is concerned, there is a commitment to promote the cause of more open and multilateral trade. Initiating a freer basis for trade in goods and services cannot be other than beneficial to the Canadian economy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you were in the chair this morning when I spoke in the House setting forth our views of the meeting of the Prime Minister with the President of the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 19, 1985


John Napier Turner: I am glad we got that out of the way early, Mr. Speaker. I regret very much that the Prime Minister was not in the House this morning for the debate. I might remind him that he has not spoken on an issue since Leaders' Day at the opening of this Parliament. However, 1 want to congratulate the Prime Minister for setting a great tone in Quebec City. But what did we really achieve? Why was the Prime Minister unable to persuade the President of the United States to agree to mutually enforceable standards and regulations, and a significant commitment of money, toward cleaning up a mutual problem, namely, the poisoning of our air by the acid rain across our borders? Why was the Prime Minister forced to settle for a face-saving one-year moratorium instead of some immediate action?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed my right hon. friend's speech this morning. He said I have not spoken very often in the House. I try to speak on serious motions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The hon. gentleman asks about acid rain-


John Edward Broadbent: And you don't take acid rain seriously.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -acid rain impasse broken.

"Reagan and Mulroney break three-year impasse".
[ Translation]
The summit! The first agreement on acid rain.

I think that is the kind of-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -progress which had been lacking. There was a complete deadlock for three years-


John Edward Broadbent: Now it's just dead.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and we managed to break the deadlock, to appoint remarkable people as our envoys and do something which the poor and rather pathetic Liberals failed to do for years, namely, to begin the process of rebuilding our economies and our environments together.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I don't think you have fallen for that attempt to rewrite history.


APPOINTMENT OF ENVOYS
John Napier Turner: I suppose I should admire William Grenville Davis for volunteering, as a dollar-a-year man-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: That's all he could get, too.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Maybe he is overpaid at that. I don't know what he is supposed to do. But could the Prime Minister tell us why we need more research and more study? If the Prime Minister has already convinced the President of the United States of the gravity of the situation, then why are we not getting action? Why just two envoys, with a one-year moratorium?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition would feel it advantageous to disparage Bill Davis, one of the most outstanding public figures in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Having done such damage to his own Party, the Leader of the Opposition is now ensuring, by comments like that, that the New Democratic Party will form the Official Opposition in Ontario after the next provincial election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Can you guarantee that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: If my right hon. friend cares to read the leading editorial in Le Droit this morning:

No one in his right mind would have thought that the Quebec City summit would result in joint Canada-U.S. action on the pollution sources responsible for acid rain ... The appointment of the ex-Premier of Ontario. Bill Davis and the ex-Secretary of Transportation of the United States. Mr. Drew Lewis, is exactly what we hope to see.

I think there was an acknowledgement by all reasonably objective people, that we inherited a very serious, complex matter. We initiated-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You still have it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, indeed, because only the tooth fairy and the New Democratic Party would believe it goes away by invective.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   de Jong@: No, just a little bit of backbone.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, I knew I was going to miss you while I was away for a week, but I did not know how much.
We introduced a national program designed to clean up our acid rain. I think it is widely regarded as an outstanding initiative, and we are going to try to proceed that way with our neighbours to clean up our common environment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister almost broke up before he finished that particular

March 19, 1985
Oral Questions
sentence. If the game is to read newspaper headlines, I have one from The Globe and Mail this morning by Ronald Anderson-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -which says "Mulroney wasting mandate in vacillation and indecision".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABSENCE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL
John Napier Turner: recognize that the Prime Minister, out of friendship for the President, and in admiration of Mr. Reagan's presidential style, has now adopted his own imperial coat of arms which he carries around with him and props up for every speech. But the Prime Minister is not yet the President or Chief of State. The Queen has her own representative in this country, and I want to ask the Prime Minister why he was so discourteous as to fail to invite the Governor Genral, who represents the Head of State of this country, to meet the American Head of State, being the President, particularly when the Prime Minister entertained the President in the Governor General's own residence in the Quebec Citadel? What is the reason for this particular lack of civility on the part of the Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the
Leader of the Opposition had trouble with the name Anderson, imagine what he would do with Hnatyshyn.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: A real Canadian name.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I carry around a podium; he should carry a dictionary.
With regard to the insignia, it is one and the same Canadian insignia that Mr. Trudeau used, so there ought not to be any great concern about it.
I want to tell my right hon. friend, because I know he is aware of the esteem, indeed affection, that I have, as do we all, for Her Excellency the Governor General, that I can say that she was consulted throughout by me, and that she very kindly offered the use of the Citadel for a signing ceremony during what was a working visit, not a state visit.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It was a working visit and her staff, headed by Mr. Butler, were there. As I have had the occasion to do many times, I have conveyed my thanks to Her Excellency for this gracious gesture.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, talking about newspapers, I think that I was not too proud-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not using it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let me take this moment to say that I think the newspaper clippings are about even and we might leave it at that, please.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we need to start newspaper wars and escalate them until we get to a big one. May I indicate to all Members, please, that they should know that the production of documents in the House by way of display is not permitted. May I just simply indicate that?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to those who choose to barrack again, I did not cut off the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he did the same thing. I am trying to say that I would appreciate, please, no more of it from either side.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You know I will not use it. I just wanted to say that, after a summit like that, I think the cartoon in La Presse today indicated exactly what is happening in Canada. There is the American flag, and they have added a little Maple Leaf to it. With the kind of servility we have seen over the weekend, that is exactly what we can expect from people about the future of Canada.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, talking about serious problems, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. We all agree that we need to upgrade the DEW Line in Canada and we need the North Warning System. We all agree that we need some surveillance. But can he explain to Canadians why there will be a series of airstrips built everywhere in the North, while under the DEW Line system we did not need these airstrips? Is it for skidoo races? Is it for fishing trips?


John Napier Turner: Yukon Erik's plane.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Or is it to welcome some offensive or defensive armaments from the Americans, to be used in Canada's North in the future?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am-


Some Hon. Members:: Leader.


Charles Joseph Clark: -pleased to be able to correct the misimpression of the Hon. Member who spoke earlier in the House. Those airstrips are there to service radar aircraft which are larger than the Twin Otters that the Hon. Member was suggesting today we should be using to defend our North.

March 19, 1985


CONSTRUCTION OF AIRPORTS IN NORTH-PURPOSE OF UTILIZATION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Can the Minister convince the House or convince Canadians that if he lets the U.S. spend hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to build much bigger airports in the North, these will never be used for defence purposes but only by planes from time to time in order to service these radar stations, something we have not had to do in the past 25 years, since the DEW Line has worked perfectly well without building airports at each Northern station?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to point out that an agreement exists between Canada and the U.S., giving the Canadian Government the right to refuse the entry of nuclear weapons here in Canada. We in the Progressive Conservative Government want to exercise that right in case of a state of emergency. The former Minister has indicated that such a situation was not necessary in the past, and I agree, but as we have so often said, and I believe he will acknowledge this, there have been changes in the Soviet threat. The system that was set up for our defence is no longer adequate. We must have a system that is adequate in the light of present threats.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the accord that he has signed with President Reagan, and it concerns acid rain as well. Before the meeting in Quebec city took place, the Government of Canada indicated that its position was a call for action. The American position, before the conference, was that they wanted further studies. I understand that in negotiations there has to be some give and take, but my question is simply this. Why did the Canadian Government do all the giving and the American Government do all the taking? Why did the Canadian Government end up accepting the American position completely?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The answer, as my hon. friend knows, is that the suggestions in his question are false. I assume that he placed them in that context inadvertently because he will recognize, as a senior Member of the House and someone concerned with this issue, that in point of fact it was on hold, unfortunately, for the last three years. Nothing had been done at all.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Thanks to the United States.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely nothing. I think, if my hon. friend agrees that it is a serious issue, he should listen to the answer.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I was on that committee for four
years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, he is getting the answer he wants from his seatmate, so thank you very much.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I knew you didn't have it.


CONTENT OF ACCORD
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who does most of his research by reading newspaper clippings, just might have read the report signed by all members of the committee, including Conservative members, which said that the problem with acid rain in North America lies on the American side of the border. That was said by all Members representing all Parties.
During the past 24 hours some 77,000 tonnes of acid rain have fallen somewhere in North America. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House of Commons why he signed an accord with the United States that does not commit them to spending one more penny, to passing one more regulation, or to changing the situation one bit? As a result of this accord, a year from now we could end up with the same amount of acid rain coming from the other side of the border as comes today. Why did he so completely sell out Canadian interests on this issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that we could end up in an unacceptable situation a year from now. He may be right, because when you conclude agreements in the real world you do so on the basis of good faith and a mutual commitment. We have an acknowledgement, for the first time, of the commonality of the problem, which never existed before. We have an acknowledgement from the President of the United States that a joint program is required to resolve it. We have the appointment of two very high-ranking-which is widely acknowledged-emissaries to present programs and to help both Governments develop the consensus that is required, certainly on the American side. I think that in Canada we are generally agreed on the manner in which we would like to proceed.
If my hon. friend is fair at all, he will acknowledge that there was serious and substantial progress made on a highly complex and volatile issue. While he may be right if there was bad faith, we may turn out to be right in having taken these steps which will ensure clean air for Canadians and Americans as well. That is the beginning of the process.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 19, 1985
Ora! Questions CANADIAN POSITION


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one thing was very clear. Right after the ink was dry on the negotiation papers in Quebec city a senior official, or spokesperson for the State Department, said that President Reagan had not changed his position on acid rain one bit since arriving in Canada.
The Government put up $150 million to take action on this joint problem with the United States, for which we on this side complimented the Government. What did the Prime Minister ask of the American Government? We know that he ended up with nothing, but what did he open with? Did he ask the Americans to put up a comparable amount, such as $1.5 billion? Did he ask them to put up $600 million, or $200 million? What kind of action did the Prime Minister demand of the United States to protect our interests in acid rain, half of which problem is due to the United States of America?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree that half of the problem is due to the United States of America. We, as a national Canadian Government, sensitive to environmental questions, have responded for our half with the most massive undertaking ever announced by a national Government in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What did you ask for?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We then went further and initiated the beginnings of a process that I believe, with hard bargaining, will result in substantial-


An Hon. Member:: We don't have forever.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes indeed, it is a process that is going to take a little while. As the editorialist in Le Droit said, only if you believe in Santa Clause would you believe it would be otherwise. We don't believe in Santa Claus. We know that it is tough sledding. We know it is a serious problem, but we are ready to make that commitment and to make this project work on behalf of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the past the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues have said that there will, in no way whatsoever, ever be an involvement by this country in the star wars or SDI program. In the joint communique from the summit meeting in Quebec there was an announcement that we would now be engaged in new joint defence programs. The President of the United Sates also put
forward, in his luncheon address, an invitation for Canada to become involved in the development of the new technology.
Does this indicate that Canada is negotiating with the United States for an involvement in the $25 billion R and D program that is now under way in the United States? Will he give us assurances in the House that no Canadian firm, or subsidiary of any foreign firm operating in Canada, will in any way, shape, or form be involved in anything to do with research, development, or manufacture of star wars technology?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there has been no such request by the United States, no such invitation, and no such negotiation. For some time, including during the time when the Hon. Member was a Minister of the Crown, Canada has been involved in space research with the United States. Most Canadians were very proud of the Canadarm project. Most Canadians are very proud of Marc Garneau. Most Canadians would be alarmed by the suggestion of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that we should turn our back on any involvement with any kind of peaceful space investigation. I give the assurance to the Hon. Member that Canada will continue to respect and to be bound by, our commitment to the ABM treaty.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Governor General was not invited to the Quebec meeting, but I thought surely the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be there. If he was there, he would know that in the luncheon address of the President of the United States he clearly put forward an invitation to this country to begin sharing in the technology related to the star wars development. Furthermore, the communique enunciates that we will now be involved in negotiations in the sharing of it.
I did not ask him about Marc Garneau or the space station. I asked him whether it is the clear policy of the Government that we will not be involved in any way, shape, or form in the research and development work or activity related to the star wars technology. Can we have that assurance from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, rather than the tippy-toe dancing that he has been doing for the last few months?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, you haven't.


Charles Joseph Clark: I presume that, if the Hon. Member has any interest other than mischief, he would want to know that Canada intends to honour our obligations under the ABM treaty. Not only do we intend to honour them, but we now have a document signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada which reaffirms the
March 19, 1985

intention of both Canada and the United States to respect the ABM treaty in so far as SDI is concerned.


Lloyd Axworthy: Are we going to do R and D though?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and arises out of the so-called Shamrock Summit. The Prime Minister will recall some of the accolades that he received for his rendition of "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Given the inaction on the acid rain front, next time they meet we will all be able to join with him in a rendition of "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Given that the Canadian position is to act on acid rain and the American position is to study acid rain, and given that he came out of the meeting agreeing to study acid rain rather than to act on it, how can he maintain, with any kind of credibility, that he did not cave in to the American position on acid rain?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I had not
planned to sing today, but I would respond to an ovation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Sing your answer.


Ms. Mitchell:: You're very cute, Brian.


Lloyd Axworthy: Where's your tin cup, Brian?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think many objective commentators-


An Hon. Member:: It's serious.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know it is a serious question. I can tell, because the Hon. Member has his vest on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: When I see a socialist with a three piece suit, I know it is important.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think objective reporters and commentators everywhere have recognized and pointed out two matters. First, Canada has made a remarkable effort to clean up its own act. It is long overdue, and we recognize that. We have
Oral Questions
brought together, with the provinces and the private sector, a massive plan to clean up our own problems in these areas. I think that objective observers also recognize that we have set in place a framework in which this can be done on a continental basis as well.


APPOINTMENT OF CANADIAN ENVOY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, why on earth would the Prime Minister think it is significant to appoint the former Premier of Ontario, Mr. William Davis, as Canada's envoy in this respect, when it was the actions of the Ontario Government in the early 1980s cancelling scrubbers that were intended for Ontario Hydro generating plants that contributed to the degeneration of the political climate around acid rain originally, and produced part of the deadlock that the Prime Minister is so fond of speaking about?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, now I will have to change my mind. After that, the NDP will come third, again and again, in Ontario.
In point of fact-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Fascinating.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think there is a general-


Sheila Maureen Copps: We are waiting for the answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I came back from the summit early, because I just could not be away from that voice.
I think it is generally recognized that there is a political problem, and it is important that we have people of independent reputation and accomplishment, with access to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, because this is fundamentally a political problem.
Mr. Lewis is recognized, as a former Secretary in Mr. Reagan's Cabinet, as a man of great accomplishment, influence, and access to the President. Mr. Davis is recognized by all objective Canadians, including members of the Opposition who have learned to acquire a healthy respect for him, as an outstanding Canadian who will do a great job for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I will address my question to the Prime Minister. There must have been more substance in the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President during the summit that we have seen in the reports or in the releases. At least we would hope so.

March 19, 1985
Oral Questions
I want the Prime Minister to know that we on this side of the House want him to succeed in his relationship with the United States, and to see concrete measures take place with respect to acid rain and see major breakthroughs in trade. We all know that we have not seen them yet.
Let me give the Prime Minister this opportunity to tell us whether he dealt with the issue of saltfish quotas which has created a loss of jobs in his own riding, and upon which immediate action could be taken by the President? Did he discuss with the President immediate action on restrictions placed on foodstuffs containing sugar, which are creating hundreds of lay-offs in this country and will create many more?
While it is fine to conduct an examination of irritants, there are steps that must be taken now in order to put people back to work and find new jobs for Canadians. It is not enough to examine, discuss, and have task force studies.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for what I suppose are his words of modest congratulations. I tell him that I shall remember him with affection, because that is the first word of support that the Government of Canada has received with regard to its relationship with the United States of America from the Liberal Party since September 4.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is the first word we have had in support of an ally.


John Napier Turner: You weren't here this morning.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition said that I was not here this morning. I am sorry that I missed that outstanding speech, but I will read it as soon as I go home tonight.


Lloyd Axworthy: Another broken promise.


John Edward Broadbent: Another sacred trust.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We dealt with saltfish, foodstuffs, steel, timber, and asbestos. I believe I can say to my hon. friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount that we dealt very specifically with those concerns that trouble him and have troubled me.


Donald James Johnston: I am glad that they were dealt with, but Canadians have not yet had a concrete yardstick with which to measure the results. I hope we will hear more about what those results might be in the coming days.


FINANCE
Donald James Johnston: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
We have seen a series of good show pieces. While this is not intended as any kind of criticism, the Prime Minister must surely rank amongst the great impresarios that we have seen in this country.


John Napier Turner: There should be an amusement tax on the Prime Minister.


Donald James Johnston: Recognizing the importance of unemployment, interest rates, and giving economic direction to the country, will the Minister of Finance dispel the rumour which I heard this morning on the CBC, that the Government intends to defer its budget, not in the interest of the problems of the economy but in the interest of Mr. Miller who is rumoured to be holding an election in the month of May? Will he tell us that the budget timetable will in no way be affected by the political exigencies or imperatives of the Premier of Ontario?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can think my way through the rambling question which the Hon. Member just laid out in the House. However, if I may comment on the gist of it, I will say that nothing that is happening in the Province of Ontario will deter or delay anything that we may be doing in terms of economic policy with this Government. I know that the Liberal Party is quite concerned about the expectations of an election in the Province of Ontario, but it will have nothing to do with the timing of a budget.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. If Canada and the United States have entered into such a new era of co-operation and understanding, why did U.S. Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Whitehouse spokesman Larry Speakes, and President Reagan, all make statements clearly showing that they do not understand that Canada wants to update the North Warning System but wants no part of ballistic or Cruise missile defences? Why is there this confusion from Washington which we heard last week and even on the weekend?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion except the confusion that exists in the minds of the Hon. Member and his colleagues in that Party, and in the-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I heard them say that on television.


Erik Nielsen: I can read as well as the hon. gentleman.


John Edward Broadbent: All of the reporters and 90 per cent of the people.


Erik Nielsen: I can read as readily as the hon. gentleman. They are not going to get away with this attempt at confusing
March 19, 1985

the issue by trying repeatedly to establish the linkages that they have failed to establish, that have been repeatedly denied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by the Prime Minister, by myself, and by the official statement of the Secretary of Defense.
Allow me to read that statement for the record, in order to give some balance to what the hon. Member is saying. In the transcript of his remarks, Secretary Weinberger said: "Well, we would want to do the most effective things we could and we do. We would not do anything that in any way interfered with the sovereignty of Canada as a nation. Canada obviously, as a sovereign nation, would make its own decision."


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It sounded to most Canadians that those gentlemen from Washington who made those statements first and then corrected them, were asked to correct them. By whom, we don't know yet.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Over the weekend the Minister of National Defence signed the agreement along with the Prime Minister. Did they put back into that agreement the clause that was taken out with respect to not participating in an active way in ballistic missile defence, which the Liberals allowed to be taken out of the NORAD agreement of 1981? If that were included in the new agreement that was signed on the weekend that would clear it up completely. All I am asking is was it included or put back in?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that was cleared up long ago. I do not know where the Hon. Member has been. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has repeatedly responded to that question.


John Edward Broadbent: He just got back.


Erik Nielsen: The Member is even confusing two agreements, the NORAD agreement and the agreement that was signed over the weekend in the city of Quebec, which I will be tabling at the appropriate time this afternoon.
With respect to the preamble to the Hon. Member's question, what he was doing was citing from page 5 of the transcript of Secretary of Defence Weinberger's remarks, and I am quoting from page 6. I see no inconsistency if the whole is read in a positive way, and if the Hon. Member has any regard for the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Will the Minister re-establish the guidelines for door-to-door postal delivery service established by the last Conservative Government that, when a new subdivision or apartment building is more than 75 per cent occupied, and when the streets are paved, door-to-door postal delivery would commence, so that purchasers of new homes do not have to wait up to four years for postal delivery? Or, if necessary, will the Minister introduce a change to the Canada Post Corporation Act to mandate minimum service standards for door-to-door delivery to new developments?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I want first to thank the Hon. Member, and all of my colleagues, for the representation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that the Corporation is anxious to extend service as much as is possible. Obviously the trade-off it has to make, at a time when there is a $200 million deficit in the Corporation's accounts, is between enhanced service on the one hand and increased costs on the other.
The Corporation's estimates are before a committee at the present time. I would welcome any input from Hon. Members on ways in which that trade-off could be made, and where they feel the priorities should be. Obviously the first commitment that must be made by the Government, in addition to ensuring adequate service, is ensuring that the Corporation is run on a business-like basis and that we begin to bring down this deficit.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I can assure the Prime Minister that even if he was in a party mood on the weekend, the people of Windsor who are worrying about Domtar certainly did not feel like singing. Today, Mr. Speaker, people representing the interests of the Eastern Townships are in town and in the visitors' gallery, waiting for an opportunity to meet the Prime Minister. Further to his answer on March 6 of this year when he said he would be delighted to meet intervenors from the Eastern Townships any time, I want to ask the Prime Minister why he sent the Member for Sherbrooke with a message to the people of the Eastern Townships that he would not be meeting with them today? Has he changed his mind since March 6?

March 19, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that I arrived late last night from Quebec City and was away from the House due to my trip to Moscow last week, I did not realize my schedule was full for today and tomorrow, but I would be delighted to meet our friends from the Eastern Townships.
I can also inform my hon. friend that since the matter was raised in the House, we have been involved in serious talks with the Government of Quebec, with the co-operation of my Government colleagues and Members from the area, and through the Government with Domtar, and we hope to be able to find a way to resolve this problem.
As far as ... Well, if you want to listen to the Acting Liberal Whip who is chatting in the back, go right ahead, but if you want a serious answer, I would be delighted to meet not only with people from the Eastern Townships but also with my hon. friend and all Members from Township ridings who are interested.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROPOSAL MADE TO DOMTAR BY GOVERNMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the Prime Minister at his word. I can inform him that the people from the Eastern Townships are there, that I am available all afternoon, and that we will wait for his call.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that they were negotiating with Domtar. On Friday, no official contact had been made with Domtar. I would like to know who is telling the truth at this point. Yes or no, has the federal Government made a proposal to Domtar or is the company ignoring the federal Government's proposals? Yes or no, has the Prime Minister, through his Ministers, had any contact with Domtar with a view to making the company a serious offer? Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Has the
Liberal Member become the president and chief executive officer of Domtar? Is that what he is saying? Because I can inform the House that Domtar's principal shareholder . . . Yes, but if you do not mind, this is a serious and complex case, and we are dealing .. . And my hon. colleague from Shawinigan knows perfectly well how complex it is. We are going to work together with the Government of Quebec and Domtar to do something useful, instead of putting on a political show. I can inform them ... I did not know these gentlemen were here, but I can inform them that I would be delighted to meet with them, and I hope the people from the Eastern Townships realize what we have to put up with from the Opposition every day. I would be delighted to see them right after Oral Question Period. It will be a pleasure.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will have noticed a certain stench of hypocrisy and broken promises in the House today. He promised during the election campaign that he would be introducing an all-Party committee to review government appointments, but we found out yesterday that the Prime Minister brought out the same old Liberal approach, and we now have 13 new Tory bagmen swilling at the public trough as a result of their appointments to the board of Air Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You should have been in Saskatchewan during NDP times.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a question for the Prime Minister. If these people were not appointed simply for their Tory affiliations and being bagmen for the Party, how could he justify someone like Fernand Roberge playing a role on the board of Air Canada, one of Canada's most important Crown corporations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that, the people of Canada voted for a change-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: And you had a choice.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member may be certain that there will be changes. That he can be certain of. The Hon. Member asked about quality. For example, Peter Bawden, the owner of one of the most successful executive airlines in Canada, was appointed to the board; David Angus, an outstanding transportation lawyer with an international reputation; Ralph Fisher, a senior partner in Laventhal and Horwath and a very distinguished leader of the Jewish community in Canada. This is the quality of individual we are putting on boards.
With regard to the appointments, we have appointed people like Lloyd Francis, Stephen Lewis, Sylvia Gold, Bruce Phillips, Gerard Laforest to the Supreme Court, Jocelyne Pelchat-Johnson appointed to the board of Petro-Canada. We have reappointed Judge Francois Laporte to the court in Montreal, and there is the appointment of Helene Baillargeon-Cote. I can tell my hon. friend that today we appointed Richard J. Doyle, a very distinguished former editor of The Globe and Mail, to the Senate of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, so much for Senate reform and all that phoney blarney about being anxious to change ways. So much for Senate reform, Mr. Speaker. It is the kind of hypocrisy which the people of Canada got sick of. They thought they had made a change, but in fact they have not made a change.
March 19, 1985


AIR CANADA-APPOINTMENT OF WOMAN AS DIRECTOR
Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to ask the
Prime Minister a precise question, Mr. Speaker. He indicated the qualifications of some of the appointments made to the board of Air Canada. Last night one of the appointments to the board, Gayle Christie, said that she guessed she was appointed because she knew how to drive a car.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: At a time when there are 1.5 million out of work and when the people of Canada are wanting some kind of strong leadership, and not this pork-barrelling patronage hypocrisy, will the Prime Minister explain to us what kind of a signal that gives to the people of Canada when he makes that appointment, and the best qualification with which Gayle Christie can come up is that she knows how to drive a bloody car?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not only is that inaccurate, but it is a slur against one of the most outstanding women in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: She said it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Gayle Christie was elected Mayor of the Borough of York in Toronto. She is a very accomplished woman.
This Government has appointed more women to more senior positions than its predecessor at any time, and we are proud of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can say that within six months as Prime Minister I have made more non-partisan appointments than any of my predecessors, than any of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: If you care to examine it objectively, you will see that no Prime Minister has appointed non-Party members to such high decision-making functions in such number. I am proud of the fact that we have proceeded with such non-partisan nominations, and we are going to make more of the quality of Mr. Doyle, Gayle Christie, and others.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-
Turkish Embassy Security
Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on Monday, March 18, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on Monday, March 18, 1985, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in both official languages the exchange of notes and memorandum of understanding constituting an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on the modernization of the North American Air Defence System, signed at Quebec City on March 18, 1985.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I am pleased to lay upon the Table of the House a copy in both official languages of the treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, signed at Quebec City on March 18, 1985.


TERRORISM
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when on March 15 I rose on a point of order. I indicated that I would initiate an investigation into possible approaches to the Government made since February 13 by officials of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa regarding the security of their embassy. This investigation has established that the Government was indeed approached more recently than mid-February. Nevertheless, the investigation has also established that the RCMP acted immediately to increase their vigilance. In short, although Ministers were not

March 19, 1985
Turkish Embassy Security
directly involved with these contacts, the RCMP were, and the RCMP took action immediately.
There were two further contacts between Turkish and Canadian officials after mid-February. On February 22 there was a conversation between a representative of the Turkish Embassy and the Office of Protocol of my Department. That conservation dealt primarily with a separate issue concerning international terrorism, but the Turkish representative took the occasion to reiterate concern about the threat perceived to security of the embassy. That conversation was reported directly to the RCMP.
The second conversation occurred on March 5, when the RCMP visited the Turkish Embassy at their own initiative to discuss with embassy staff internal security provisions. At that meeting a representative of the Turkish Embassy discussed with the RCMP the level of threat to the embassy.
Before I made the statement in the House on March 14, I asked for detailed information on all contacts between Turkish officials and our Department. I was not told of the conversations that had taken place on February 22 and on March 5. As soon as I learned of them on March 15, I came back to the House to make my statement on a point of order.
Neither conversation conveyed a warning of a specific attack and neither provided new information going beyond what the Turkish authorities had given us in mid-February.
As I said last Friday, I respect this House and, once again, I apologize for inadvertently having conveyed incomplete information to the House. But I can assure the House that the missing information did not materially affect the assessment of threat to the security of the Turkish mission, and that in both cases the communications from the Turks were taken fully into account.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my brief reply by thanking the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for making a copy of his statement available to me during Question Period.
What emerges from a reading of this document is a picture of worried Turkish diplomats in this capital trying in one way and another to obtain increased security, seeking to meet with members of the RCMP to convey their concerns and seeking to meet with the Office of Protocol of the Minister's Department, again trying to receive increased security. If I can quote from a Minister in the Turkish Assembly again giving special warning to Canada, he asked that specific threats be responded to by increased levels of security.
The Minister has not succeeded in bailing out the Government on this one by the statement he has made. A few days ago in the House, on March 13, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) indicated, as reported on page 2969 of Hansard, that increased security was provided at the Turkish Embassy. What the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said today is slightly different from what was in the written statement I received. What he said was that the RCMP took action immediately in the sense of increasing security, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said.
This allegation by the Government that increased security is contradicted by the facts. It is contradicted by people of Pinkerton's who indicated that no change at all occurred as a result of the review of security which took place 30 days before the incident.
I think the Government owes it to the House to come clean with us and, if it claims that the RCMP took action and that increased security was provided, it should indicate what was done. Their assertions and their attempts to bail themselves out are contradicted by others who I think ought to be believed. I want to ask whether the House is being misled by the statements which have been made on this occasion, in addition to what increased security was provided to these worried Turkish diplomats who were attempting to obtain it.
The RCMP provided a report to the Government which I commissioned but did not receive. It was given to the new Government. That report for increased security sat with the Government for six months without being taken to Cabinet, according to the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay).
I also feel entitled to ask whether there were measures recommended by the RCMP which were not put into effect by the Government, which were not responded to positively by the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I have to advise the Hon. Member that he may have a moment later to put questions, but the time for his statement under the traditions of the House has expired, without unanimous consent of the House to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have one final question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member indicates that he has one short matter. I am sure the House is agreeable.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Between the attempts by Turkish diplomats to bring their concerns to the attention of an apparently indifferent Government, did any Turkish diplomats ask to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Solicitor General?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in his statement the Minister apologizes "for inadvertently having conveyed incomplete information to the House". The Minister did not convey incomplete information. What was told to the House was wrong; it was not a matter of being incomplete. The Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) categorically denied that there had been, subsequent to the meetings which they affirmed did take place between Government representatives and the Turkish Embassy, any other meetings of any kind to discuss security at the Turkish Embassy. Therefore, it was not a matter of incomplete information, I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark); it was a question of wrong information.
Frankly, I am angry at the tone of the statement, that the Minister would suggest that some kind of appropriate action
March 19, 1985

was taken after the Turkish Embassy made it known (a) to Ministry officials and (b) to the RCMP that they had reason to believe that there was an increased threat to their embassy. For the Minister to suggest that some kind of appropriate action was taken is again wrong. There was no action taken of any substance.
There was one guard at the embassy in advance and there was one guard after the information was conveyed to the Minister or the Ministry and the RCMP. That guard was not adequately trained. That guard was not given additional backup. That guard was not provided with additional support in order that he could do the job that he was being inadequately paid to do.
It is with a sense of frustration that I listened to and read the Minister's statement. I would have accepted it if the Secretary of State for External Affairs had simply said that he had been given wrong information, that he apologized and that the information that he had subsequently been given was in fact consistent with what Opposition Members had been suggesting took place. However, to try to colour it in such a way as to make it appear that there was some kind of deliberate action taken either by the RCMP or by the Ministry in response to a plea for help from the Turkish Embassy is to deny the truth in the instance.
I also want to say to the Minister that given the level of protection that was afforded, given that there was a clear state of high alert as a result of the Orly airport trials and the pending trials here, given that that had been conveyed around the world by the Turkish Government, given that that had been on the agenda of the world security services of Interpol and therefore on the agenda of our security service, what was done was wrong and what is being said in the statement is unacceptable.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I am told on fairly good authority that after the demonstrations which occur on, I think, April 24, an Armenian day of celebration, there is frequently a high alert and demonstrations. I understand that either last year or the year before after such a demonstration, the Turkish ambassador came to the then Secretary of State for External Affairs with the actual rock that had gone through the window of his embassy and landed on his writing desk. He took it to the previous Liberal Government and indicated "I need more protection, especially around this period of April 24". I want to know if the Secretary of State for External Affairs can confirm that, whether he has seen that in his report. Can he indicate what the Ministry will do in the future around April 24 at the time of those kinds of demonstrations to protect the Turkish Embassy, so that those kinds of things will not happen again?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on matters that might have happened regarding former Ministers and former administrations. I can say that I know nothing of that situation. I cannot report more fully on it.
Turkish Embassy Security
With regard to the situation of the Turkish Embassy here and elsewhere, the House knows of the extreme sensitivity of that question. We have taken actions at the Turkish Embassy which in the middle of February last year the Turkish Embassy deemed to be satisfactory. Naturally we are going to look at the matter again. The Hon. Member would not want me or anyone else in this House to discuss details of security arrangements in ways that might increase the danger for individual embassies or individual representatives of other countries in Canada or elsewhere.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the suggestion that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, pursuant to its mandate to deal with terrorism and suspected terrorism in Canada, may not have alerted the RCMP, responsible for the enforcement of the law, to the heightened sense of danger which was posed in the circumstances surrounding this particular incident. I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) specifically whether CSIS did inform the RCMP and of the fact that they viewed this as a very serious matter. If CSIS did inform the RCMP of that, what specific steps did the RCMP take to respond to that heightened degree of concern on the part of CSIS?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for reasons the House will understand, I do not propose to discuss publicly specific steps that have been taken or might be taken, because that kind of discussion could very seriously jeopardize the security of the people we are trying to protect. Indeed, it could have the consequence, which no one here would intend or want, of putting them into greater danger. I indicated in my statement, and I repeat it now, that when information came to the attention of the Government, while to my great regret Ministers were not informed, the RCMP was informed and acted.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want at this time to repeat briefly questions that I asked during my statement because they have not, understandably, been addressed yet by the Minister. When the Minister says that the RCMP took action immediately, does he mean by that that the level of security at the Turkish Embassy was increased?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I mean that the RCMP took action immediately. I am sure that the former Solicitor General, as a former Minister of the Crown responsible for security activities, would not want me to get into detail on the floor of the House of Commons as to exactly what action was taken. He should know better than others that action that might have been taken in the case of an urgent situation there might also be taken in others. To reply to that kind of question would indicate patterns of response by the Government of Canada that would have the effect of putting in danger the very people we are trying to protect.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I might ask-


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for one question.

March 19, 1985
Turkish Embassy Security


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming in my question that there is a new level of security right now and that the matter I am asking about is a matter of historical and political interest, but not relevant to the level of security in the Turkish Embassy right now. I would hope that after the terrorism the Government would have learned its lesson and that the security will be different.
I want to ask the Minister as well, as I did in my earlier remarks, whether any Turkish diplomats tried to see Members of this Government during the last month, this period when the worried Turkish diplomats were trying frantically to get this Government to do something to increase their security.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my Parliamentary Secretary had a meeting with the Turkish ambassador on February 27, a 45-minute meeting in which this matter was not raised. I had a meeting with the Turkish ambassador, among other ambassadors who were present at a meeting called for another purpose which I convened, at which this matter was not raised.
This is a question, of course, on which all Members of the House should both keep their tempers and remember their responsibilities. I simply repeat to the Hon. Member opposite that I think it would serve no one's interest, certainly not the interest of those diplomats we are trying to protect, for us to publicize on the floor of the House of Commons the patterns of protection or the patterns of security that are put in place in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will take the last two questions, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, whatever pattern of security was put into place, it is obvious that it failed and failed miserably, to have one Pinkerton guard guarding the embassy. I would like the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to explain what appears to be a very obvious inconsistency. The RCMP inspector in charge of VIP protection in Ottawa stated that there was no stepped-up security prior to the incident because there was no intelligence information indicating that it might be needed. That is from the The Globe and Mail of March 13, 1985. Here we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs saying that there was stepped-up security. We have the RCMP inspector saying that there was no stepped-up security because there was no intelligence available.
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs clarify the obvious inconsistency? Could he also indicate whether the RCMP, when it was given this advance warning, advised the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) of the advance warning and whether the Security Intelligence Service was involved and was advised of this advance warning?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it does not advance the interests of the people we are trying to protect
for the Hon. Member or others to engage in fishing expeditions on the floor of the House of Commons that might result in the publication of information that would jeopardize the security of the people whom we are trying to protect.
I say to the Hon. Member, who is new here, that there are certain standards in this House of Commons and one of those standards, as I am sure he will observe, is that when there appears to be a discrepancy involving the word of an Hon. Member, the word of the Hon. Member is accepted. I have given my word by answering the question that was raised by the Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have one final question to put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). The RCMP were aware of the Turkish Embassy's concerns, and as 1 understand it, there was also additional information available to them with regard to the level of threat which was in existence not only in Canada but in other parts of the world at the time the Turkish Embassy brought to the attention of the RCMP its concerns about its own security. Does the Secretary of State believe that the actions taken by the RCMP in response to those threats, given the professional nature of that force and the responsibility it has not only to enforce law and order but to protect diplomats in Canada, were adequate?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before and as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has said, no one would pretend that response was adequate when security arrangements were breached. We all know that. We deeply regret that.
I suppose that the response that is in question, the response that troubles me, has to do with the response of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the response of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who were genuinely invited by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to co-operate with us in this most sensitive matter, a matter which has traditionally been the subject of co-operation between Governments and Opposition Parties. They refused to take part in that kind of common action to try to deal with a major security problem. Instead of helping us solve the problem, the Opposition Parties have been trying to find ways to raise questions in the House of Commons which would not help the diplomats but which could have the effect of helping the terrorists.


Ian Deans: That's nonsense. That is insulting.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Sit down.


Ian Deans: Sit down. You're a disgrace. That's insulting to say a thing like that. You know damned well we are trying to protect the people involved. Don't you dare say things like that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, why don't you co-operate?


Ian Deans: We were never given an invitation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course you were. You refused.
March 19, 1985


Ian Deans: I did not refuse. I asked for an invitation in writing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Have the House Leaders finished holding a discussion on the floor of the House of Commons? Would the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs like to finish his answer?


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, that response was one that I found troubling. It may have been a response that occurred in the heat of debate in the House of Commons. Those things occur. Certainly on behalf of the Government, I say that I hope that the Leaders of the Opposition Parties will reconsider their responsibility in this matter and help Canada offer adequate protection to diplomats who are representatives here.


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated before that I would take no further questions. I am afraid that at this point I must by our traditions cut off the question period.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of privilege.


John V. Nunziata: Point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated already that that would be the end of the question period. On a question of privilege, I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rose during this question period to try to ask what I thought was a reasonable question, one that might help the Minister. I wonder if the Minister might backtrack a bit on his remarks which accused the opposition of aiding the terrorists. There is room for-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is putting me in difficulty. He has what is clearly in his mind a legitimate question. I have already indicated, however, that in my judgment the time for questions has expired. I believe he is trying to use a point of order to introduce another question for what in his mind is good reason. Clearly, he has not raised a point of privilege, if that is the point he is making. He is really trying to continue debate through another vehicle.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if, before you cut off question period in the future, you could at least give some indication that you wish to know if anyone else in the House wishes to raise a question. Some of us on this side of the House, even though we do not continually pop up like jack-in-the-boxes, do have valid questions to ask. It is rather unfair, if I may suggest, Sir, that you cut everyone off if there are only two Members on the Opposition side who wish to ask questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the suggestion of the Hon. Member. I also suggest that Hon. Members who wish to ask questions might rise in their places to seek the floor. The only way the Speaker knows who wishes to ask a question is by seeing Members rise.
Turkish Embassy Security
Perhaps I could take 30 seconds to explain the procedure to the Hon. Member. At the end of Statements by Ministers, the Speaker normally allows some questions but with very strict time limits. The only way the Speaker can know whether to allocate supplementary questions or not is by knowing how many Hon. Members wish to rise.
With due respect to the Hon. Member, my practice has been, as I have indicated before, that I look for all Hon. Members who wish to rise as soon as possible so I can make a list and try to get everyone in the time that is available. If Hon. Members would prefer in future that I indicate that I am coming to the end of the question period and would now make a final list, that will still not change the fact that the time allowed will be over very shortly. I would be happy to consider the suggestion made by the Hon. Member and I take it in the spirit in which it is offered.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could give us some guidance by allowing the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) the opportunity to backtrack from his accusation that the Opposition was aiding the terrorists. I am sure he would welcome that opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: He is a Minister of the Crown and knows his opportunities under the roles. He is also a Member of the House of Commons and will rise if he chooses in debate to say something else. I suggest that the Hon. Member has not raised a point of order and I think he knows it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has accused the Opposition of aiding the terrorists. That is totally inaccurate and wrong. By so doing, he is affecting each and every Member of the Opposition. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be asked to retract those erroneous statements.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Libellous.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege; I think the Hon. Member knows that. I am sure the Hon. Member is fully aware, given his experience in the House, that that is not a question of privilege. If the Hon. Member is attempting to make a point of order with regard to what he believes to be unparliamentary language, that would be a different issue.
The Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has said what 1 take it he believes in his view to be a fact, and therefore it is a matter of debate as to whether or not actions or words are interpreted in certain ways. That can therefore not be a question of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the exchanges across the floor, I realized that it is clear that an interpretation is being put on my words that I did not intend. What I intended to say was two things: first, the public discussion of the details of security does not protect diplomats but does aid terrorists. We do not want to encourage that, nor I believe does anyone in the House want to encourage that.

March 19, 1985
Petitions
Second, these matters are of extreme sensitivity and in past parliamentary practice have been a subject of discussion involving Opposition Parties to work out ways in which the country could respond. I repeat the observation that I made earlier that we would welcome that kind of co-operation from the Opposition Parties in helping protect ambassadors in this country.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has long been clear that it is not proper to impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case. While the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has just risen to make some remarks which may suggest that he is withdrawing the aspersions he has cast on the motives of Hon. Members who raised questions about the Government's mishandling of the Turkish Embassy affair, I repectfully suggest that he has not done so sufficiently to fall within the rules of order.
I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that he should follow the rules in this regard, because what he is attempting to do is not only contrary to the rules but he is attempting to say that Hon. Members of this House have less right to discuss an important matter than the people of this country through the press, and that is wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: I will be more than happy to read the "blues" and to determine whether in fact a disorder has occurred. I can tell the Hon. Member what I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs say, and I am prepared to admit that I have been known to be wrong at least once in my life. What I thought I heard the Minister say was a statement to the effect that actions or statements appeared to have an effect-if that is the one which was described-but I heard no claims, at least at first blush, of imputing motives as a result of that. Now I am prepared to check the "blues". I can assure Hon. Members that had I heard such aspersions or imputations of motives, I would have been on my feet requiring the words to be withdrawn. If I have missed it, I will be happy to look for it in the "blues".


Charles Joseph Clark: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the House, but my recollection about what I said-and my "blues" will reflect the same as yours-was that I intended to cast no aspersion on the motives of Hon. Members. This is a matter of great seriousness. We treat it that way and I trust and expect all Hon. Members of the House will do the same.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have two very brief petitions to table in the House today which have arisen out of a human rights conference which was held in Smithers
over the weekend. The first petition is signed by a large number of residents of British Columbia and other parts of the country calling on the Government to endorse the Contadora negotiation process which is crucial in terms of what is going on in Central America today.


James Ross Fulton: The second petition, Mr. Speaker, arose at the same human rights conference at Smithers and is signed by a number of Canadians calling on the Government to expand its attempts to obtain the release of a Canadian citizen named Roberto Starita who has received the endorsa-tion of the new President of Brazil to be released but the federal police have not yet released him. Canadians are urgently seeking the co-operation of the Government in obtaining his release.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from citizens of Edmonton, parishioners of St. Charles Catholic Church, St. Patrick Catholic Church and Sacred Heart Parish Church, in which the petitioners submit to this House their concerns about the slow progress toward peace in Central America, and in which they call upon the Government to sign the protocol to the 1984 Contadora Peace Treaty.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of the people of my riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic. I am referring to the Centre Claude Robillard Senior Citizens' Club. They are concerned and worried about the position taken by the Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on Bill C-26.
They ask the Government to review its position and to provide the spouse's allowance program for single Canadians between 60 and 64, without discrimination on the basis of marital status.


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. 257 and 262.



March 19, 1985


Mr. Dingwall: What government departments have an Executive Exchange Program?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
The Public Service Commissionm has sole responsibility for the Interchange Canada Program, which it administers on behalf of Treasury Board Canada. This program is open to all federal government departments and agencies that fall under the Public Service Employment Act.


Mrs. Sparrow: 1.	On what date was the Western Development Fund created and from what source were funds allocated?
2.	What was the (a) total sum allocated to the Fund (b) purpose of creating the Fund?
3.	In what manner were the monies accumulated in the Fund allocated?
4.	What is the present status of the Fund?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1.
The Western Development Fund was first announced in the Budget of October 28, 1980. Initiatives associated with the fund were to be financed out of general budgetary revenues. The Fund was established partly in recognition of the increased revenues that were anticipated under the National Energy Program.
2.	(a) The October, 1980 Budget referred to $4 billion earmarked for the Fund, and made an initial allocation of $2 billion over the three fiscal years 1981-82 to 1983-84.
(b) The Fund was intended to provide for initiatives in such areas as the Western grain handling and transportation system.
3.	The Budgets of November 12, 1981 and June 28, 1982 revised, reprofiled and assigned the Fund to specific initiatives, including western transportation and native economic development.
4.	The Fund as such no longer exists, since the initiatives it was to provide for have been undertaken.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
_________________________________________3177
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House condemns the Government's failure in bilateral relations with the United States with particular reference to:
1.	the failure to obtain an agreement from the United States to make a commitment to early action on its share of environmental damage due to acid rain; and
2.	the failure to make specific, that Canada would not participate in any way in the star wars project of the United States.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "rain" and by adding the following:
", and by allowing a one-year moratorium before any concrete action is taken by the United States despite the express wish of millions of Canadians and Americans; and
(b) the failure to make specific that Canada would not participate in any way in the star wars project of the United States and, especially, the failure to obtain ironclad guarantees that no nuclear arms will be stationed or deployed in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: At the time the House adjourned we would normally have been in a question and comment period. If there are no questions and comments, we shall resume debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Oshawa and seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) which is critical of the Government for a number of reasons pertaining to the recent summit meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan. I would like to concentrate on that aspect of the motion which has to do with acid rain.
I would like to begin by saying that I implied in Question Period, Mr. Speaker, that is, by coming out of the summit meeting in the way the Prime Minister did with an agreement to the appointment of high level envoys from each country who would be responsible for a mutual study of the problem of acid rain, the Prime Minister in effect conceded to the American view of the acid rain problem. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. The American view, well known and not hidden, is that more research needs to be done on acid rain and that no action should be taken until there is more conclusive evidence that acid rain is actually as harmful as many people say it is. That is the American position. Perhaps I should say that that is the position of the present American administration and of President Reagan because, clearly, there are different views of the acid rain problem within the United States itself and it is somewhat inaccurate to talk continually about the American position as if it was totally homogeneous.
The position as expressed by President Reagan has been that more research is needed and that action at this time is not



March 19, 1985
Supply
appropriate. The position of the Canadian Government, to its credit, is to act to reduce acid rain. I say "to its credit" because it has become a kind of knee-jerk response on the part of the Government to accuse us of always being negative. I was not negative some weeks ago when the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) made the announcement with respect to the action the Government was going to take with respect to acid rain. I hope people will keep that in mind and that my criticisms at this point will be more credible for that having happened.
The fact is that the Canadian position is to act to reduce sulpher dioxide emissions by making federal money available in concert with provincial and industry money, and we hope that the Government will see through that commitment and negotiate the kinds of agreements which need to be negotiated in the very near future. We will then see an actual empirical reduction in the tonnage of acid rain which is falling here in Canada from Canadian sources.
The Prime Minister said he wanted to go to the bargaining table with clean hands-or at least with cleaner hands because it is an imperfect world-and he did that. He acted on the nitric oxide emissions from automobiles. He went to the bargaining table with a few cards to play. Even though some persons maintain that he threw them all away, I would say he had a few cards to play and it was going to be interesting to see what he came up with, not only on the basis of what action the federal Government had taken itself with respect to acid rain but also in terms of the new relationship with the United States promised by the Prime Minister. What happened? The Canadian position was that action was needed. The American position was that more study was needed. And we came away with a study. To me that means that we accepted the American position.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, and in the view of the New Democratic Party, it would have been far better and more in keeping with the kind of mature relationship, about which the Prime Minister likes to speak when he is speaking about Canada-U.S. relations, for the Prime Minister to have come out of the meeting and told us that they couldn't agree on acid rain, that the President still feels that it is not the kind of problem which demands action, but that we do and we are going to continue to act on a national basis to clean up our sources of acid rain, and that we hope in the long run our continuing action in this respect will finally be persuasive to the Americans. That would have been a much more honest and responsible course of action when talking about Canada-U.S. relations. Instead we have come away with what is obvious to everyone but the Government itself: a cosmetic process designed to save the Prime Minister from having to face up to the fact that he could not get anywhere with the President. Better to have said so. It would not have been such a horrendous failure. It would have been horrendous in the environmental sense but not politically. In my view, that would have been much more acceptable.
The problem is that the Prime Minister has himself in a little bit of a box, given the rhetoric he has been employing on acid rain for the last little while. As is the wont of all political Parties, we tend to blame our political opponents for everything. The Prime Minister has got himself into the position, either through not being totally familiar with the history of the problem or for partisan political reasons, or a combination thereof, of trying to pretend that the deadlock in acid rain negotiations between Canada and the U.S. is completely the fault of the former Liberal Government. With all due respect to the fact that many things can be blamed on the Liberal Party of Canada, the fact is that the blame for acid rain ought to be distributed a bit more evenly.
I refer Members of the House to the last report of the Subcommittee on Acid Rain which was brought back into existence near the end of the last Parliament. It produced a report called Time Lost: A Demand for Action on Acid Rain. This is a unanimous report of an all-Party committee, and I quote from the section on Canada-U.S. relations:
Unfortunately, the political will needed to tackle the problem is lacking in the United States.


Mr. Gurbin:: It was.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It goes on:
A solution to the acid rain problem must be based on a continental pollution control strategy.
They say:
-we now felt that the only useful approach to make to our American neighbours would have to be political, inasmuch as the diplomatic initiative had foundered on the intransigence of the Reagan Administration.
In summarizing the events it also points out that there were agreements in place and processes which had begun prior to the election of President Reagan in 1980.
When the Prime Minister said that this expression of concern about acid rain that he obtained in Quebec City from the President was an entirely new thing, well, it is not entirely new from the point of view of successive American administrations. That concern was expressed prior to the election of President Reagan. If anything is new at all, it is that the Prime Minister got those few sentences out of President Reagan. But I maintain that, in view of the fact no real action was agreed to, nothing new has happened and the President felt, out of politeness and in response to the fantastically acquiescent way in which the Prime Minister treated him, that at least he owed the Prime Minister a few utterances with respect to acid rain.
What the Prime Minister has been unable to say, at the Quebec summit or elsewhere, is that there is American culpability here. That has been documented time and time again by members of the various committees set up in this House to study the problem. All we want is a little honest talk about the disagreements which exist between the President and Canadians about acid rain.
March 19, 1985

In speaking about that, I would just like to say a word about what I think friendship with the United States means and what real friendship is all about. I want to begin by saying that the U.S.A. is one of Canada's greatest friends and neighbours. No one is arguing about that. What is at issue is the nature of the friendship. It seems to me that real friends can disagree with each other and still maintain respect for each other. Real friends have a responsibility which sometimes other nations do not have, and it seems to me this is the view of our Party about friendship with the U.S. Sometimes it is only your best friend who can tell you that you acted like a bully at that party the other night or you have been treating someone unkindly, or you really ought to think about the way you are behaving. These are the kinds of things that real friends are for. That is the kind of influence friends can have on each other.
I think this Government misunderstands that nature of friendship and loyalty. As the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) said earlier, loyalty and friendship have a lot to do with being willing to be openly and honestly critical, and that is all we ask of the Prime Minister with respect to acid rain. That is what we ask of him with respect to other areas where Canada should be playing a leading role in being constructively critical of American foreign policy, whether it be in Central America, on the arms race or whatever.
I want to express my own concern about the repeated accusation of anti-Americanism which we hear from the Government benches every time we do not agree with the Government's position concerning Canada-U.S. relations. There are millions and millions of American who do not agree with President Reagan's position on acid rain, or his position on star wars or Central America. Are they anti-American? If we live in a community of democracies where we are free not only to criticize our own Government but the Governments of our neighbours and friends, surely we should be able to speak our mind about what is going on in the United States without being accused of anti-Americanism by this Government. For God's sake, the United States itself abolished the Committee on Un-American Activities; let us not turn the Canadian House of Commons into a committee on un-American activities so that whenever members of the Opposition rise to say they do not agree with the position taken by the Government they are accused of being anti-American. Surely we can have a higher level of debate than that. That is the kind of debate we should be pursuing.
Many of the questions pertaining to Canada-U.S. relations are questions of immense international importance, whether they have to do with the global environment we all share or with the future of the planet itself in terms of the arms race. We ought to be able to have a decent, open and honest debate about these issues without being charged with anti-Americanism.
There are many very serious environmental questions outstanding between Canada and the U.S. The one that comes most quickly to mind is Great Lakes water quality and the fact that seven to eight million Canadians could well be on the verge of having their water supply seriously damaged by the
Supply
leakage of toxins into the Niagara River system from dumps situated on the American side of the border. Action needs to be taken on that front. We need to be firm. We are standing on firm ground on these issues. We do not have anything to apologize for. Surely we ought not to be apologetic for the fact that we are concerned about the drinking water supply of seven to eight million Canadians.
I have been to the U.S. many times and I know a good many Americans, and I think they respect people who stand up for themselves. They respect people who are open, frank and who say just what is going on and what they want people to do. They are not going to be impressed by a lot of back-slapping and head-patting and all the other sorts of things that went on in Quebec City. When it comes to questions of the environment in particular, we are on very firm ground indeed and we should be as frank and honest with the Americans as is necessary in order to get them to see that we are deadly serious about their taking action to reduce acid rain emissions that are crossing our border from their country. We must show them that we are deadly serious about cleaning up the Great Lakes. Of course, we could have better created the impression that we were deadly serious about the quality of Great Lakes water if we had not had the cancellation of the herring gull egg program. Nevertheless, these issues must transcend the day-today mistakes of the Government, and we therefore still have a very strong moral case for speaking to the Americans about that.
I would like to say a final world about the greatest environmental issue of them all. I know that others will be speaking about this. Hopefully, the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) will be able to speak later this afternoon on questions pertaining to security and disarmament. In the final analysis the greatest environmental question of them all is that of nuclear war. It is the prediction of many experts now that any significant nuclear exchange would result in what is called nuclear winter. It would result in environmental damage which would make our concerns about acid rain and toxins in the Great Lakes pale in comparison.
I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), the former Secretary of State for External Affairs in the Liberal Government. He said that if we create the environment that he believes the present Government is creating by signing these agreements with the Americans with respect to defence, when we get the call saying they want to deploy nuclear weapons on our soil we will not be in a position to say no and that we are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. Mr. Speaker, we have that environment in Canada.-U.S. relations now. It was created by years and years of Liberal Government. We have been put in a position whereby we are not able to have an independent foreign policy because we are so vulnerable to American action and response, whether economic or otherwise. The Americans play hardball when they want to get their own way with respect to the National Energy Program or whatever it happens to be. They

March 19, 1985
Supply
have a history of being very tough with regard to their own national self-interest.
Over the years we have not developed an economy or a stance with regard to foreign policy which enables us to act independently on short notice. We can thank the actions of successive Liberal Governments for that. The response of the Conservative Government to the environment created by the Liberals is to accept it. They simply say that that is the way the world is and instead of struggling against that reality they accept that environment and do their best within it.
We see this attitude not only with respect to foreign policy but also with respect to foreign investment, and a number of other fronts.
The Conservative policy is not to struggle against the dependence which has been created over the years by successive Liberal administrations, but to accept it as the way the world is and to try to do their very best within it for Canadians. That is a legitimate policy option, but we do not agree with it. We say that in the long term we must struggle against that dominance of our economy and the disability that we have acquired over the years to act independently on the world stage. We invite Canadians to do that by supporting our policy. The Government is quite right in saying that at this point in time it has the mandate. However, we also have a mandate to put forward the alternative view. We must keep reminding Canadians that there is a different way to do things and that we do not have to accept these international realities as if they were the weather which we cannot do anything about.
The world is in part created by human beings. Our social and economic realities are the result of human choices. The world can be changed, but only when and if Canadians join with us and others who are concerned to change the world in that way. That is what we are up to. We are not up to any anti-Americanism or low level carping on a day-to-day political basis. We are trying to make the point that there is an alternative way to exist in the world as Canadians and as a country. We are going to continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Duguay:: Mr. Speaker, for some time today I have been getting a lesson on the nature of friendship. The lesson includes comments like, "real friends cannot disagree", that we on this side misundertand the nature of friendship, and that we on this side are accusing those on the other side of anti-Americanism.
1 would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and other Members in the House about the nature of friendship. Members opposite have said today that when you sit down to negotiate with the Americans you must remember that they play hardball and that you have to watch them. They say that you have to be tough with the Americans or they will take advantage of you. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said this morning that Mr. Davis was the wrong person to choose to fight with the Americans on acid rain. Mr. Speaker, those on the other side have a lot to learn about the nature of friendship if they start out with the assumption that they have
to fight with the other side in order to accomplish objectives which they share. You cannot start out by assuming that your friends are wrong and that you are going to fight with them, if you ever hope to accomplish anything.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) has said confirms the fact that there are two different views of what the relationship between Canada and the United States ought to be. I assume the Hon. Member for St. Boniface would admit that there are people in this House who are friends but are on opposite sides of an issue, and who, when they are dealing with an issue, can be very tough, firm and critical, but do not feel that their friendship is endangered. I am making the same argument about relationships between countries and between politicians on either side of the border. In the final analysis, it is a question of maturity.
The Hon. Member puts a very pejorative interpretation on words like "tough" and "firm" and on observation that the Americans play hardball. They do. They have a history of being known for the tenacity with which they stick up for their own self-interests. I must say that sometimes I have been envious of that. I can at least say of Americans that they do stick up for their own interests. Sometimes I am critical of those interests, but the fact of the matter is that they do stick up for their own self-interests. They have not been the international patsy that Canada has sometimes been with regard to its own self-interest.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member, whom I consider to be a friend. Although we may agree to disagree, we can still ask questions of one another. Perhaps he could outline for the House the views of his Party with regard to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has made much of the fact that he has appointed a former First Minister from Ontario as the special envoy to carry Canada's case with regard to acid rain.
I have some concerns, as do my constituents, about his track record as it relates to acid rain. The steps he took as a provincial first Minister perhaps do not provide confidence and assurance that Canada will be sufficiently represented so that we will get a very meaningful agreement with the United States about curbing acid rain.
We heard some musings from the Hon. Member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Duguay). Does the Hon. Member or his Party know what assurances the Prime Minister sought from the President of the United States with regard to acid rain? It seems that many people in the country, including those in the news media, are not aware of what the Prime Minister actually sought in terms of consummating the agreement with the United States. Perhaps the Hon. Member could comment on those two points.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we do not know what the Prime Minister asked of President Reagan with respect to acid rain. If the Prime Minister received what he
March 19, 1985

asked for, I suppose that might be called a success. However, we hope that he at least asked for more than what is in the agreement.
The Prime Minister told me in the House before the summit that he would not tip off any New Democrats about what he would ask from President Reagan. So far he has not tipped off anyone and the summit is already over. I presume he did not even tip off the President because he is unable to tell us what commitments he requested but did not get. We do not know what the Prime Minister actually asked the President.
With respect to the appointment of the former Premier of Ontario, I tried to point out earlier in Question Period that he was responsible for cancelling an initiative which would have seen the first use of scrubbers in Canada. That initiative was regarded with a great deal of political enthusiasm in the United States but was then cancelled by Ontario Hydro when William Davis was Premier of Ontario.
Under Premier Davis, we saw an accumulation of concern about acid rain throughout the 1970s. At the same time we saw an accumulation of acid rain with no action taken on that front by the Ontario Government. There was much talk and many initiatives that were eventually cancelled and never came to fruition.
Although former Premier Davis is a distinguished Canadian in many other respects, he has hardly made a name for himself with respect to environmental issues. It is an indication of how seriously the Prime Minister regards this issue.
Remember that when he was asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) why he did not take part in this debate, the Prime Minister said that he only comes in when it is a serious motion. I suggest that that shows a great deal of contempt for Parliament and a great deal of contempt for the whole issue of acid rain. Today's motion follows a major summit between Canada and the United States. It is a motion by one of the Parties in this House and is worthy of his comment. That contempt, combined with the appointment of Premier Davis for a dollar a year to work on acid rain for the Government, shows that he does not take acid rain problems seriously.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) produced a publication from the Subcommittee on Acid Rain entitled Time Lost. For the record, I think it is clear that no one from the Government has indicated anything other than concurrence with that report. In fact, that report formed the basis for much of the action that has been taken by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and the Government. Within the short period of six months, it has produced an action plan that I suggest is unequalled in the world with respect to the issue of emissions and the acid rain control problem.
This publication is also a testimony to the action of the previous Government. In 1977, the then Minister of the Environment, Romeo LeBlanc, indicated that this was a time bomb that was ticking. From that time until the publication of that book, approximately seven years, there has been little or no
Supply
constructive action. Within six months of our taking office, owing particularly to the ability to co-operate and consult in a friendly manner rather than in the inflammatory way of the previous Minister of the Environment, we have been able to establish an action plan. We have been able to establish a relationship which includes the appointment of ambassadors who will be able to carry on with that important and constructive work.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not being exactly true to the record as it exists in Time Lost. What this document does so well is to distribute the blame. It does not try to blame all of the problems on the Liberals or on President Reagan. It states that there was some action taken in 1977 and 1979 that led to certain memorandums, intentions and understandings which then fell through after the election in 1980.
The Government makes the claim that strategy employed by the previous administration did not result in any change in the American position. While that is true, the fact is that the position of the American administration was one of "intransigence" and that also has to be taken into account.
Therefore, I would not agree with the Hon. Member that the Government has concurred in the recommendations and the views of this report totally. The one thing that the Government is not able to say and the Prime Minister was not able to say in Quebec was that intransigence on the part of the American administration was part of the problem. If the Prime Minister had the ability to say that, we would know that he is the mature friend and Prime Minister of a sovereign nation that he would have us believe he is.


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to outline what the present Government has been able to do about the environment in just six months. I cannot respond to every point raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), because the Hon. Member talked about so many different things that his speech was no longer about acid rain but a kind of mish-mash of herring gull eggs, Canada-U.S. relations, the defence system, quotes from what was said by the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), and U.S. domination of the Canadian economy. That is more or less the kind of dialogue we have going back and forth across this House, and we have reached the point where in trying to make its position known, the Government is caught up in a completely illogical debate in which the meanings of words are twisted and situations misrepresented, all of which is thoroughly confusing to Canadians who are not getting the access to information they should normally have through Hansard.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not going to discuss the philosophical aspects of friendship. I am not going to discuss herring gull eggs, something we have been talking about for the last six months. I am not going to talk about the defence system, since that is not my field. I am not going to quote the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice because I do not

March 19, 1985
Supply
think he should be quoted, since he is not an expert on the subject. And I am not going to talk about the domination of our economy, because I think our economy is alive and well. According to the latest polls, Canada's gross national product is performing far better than in other countries, unemployment is going down, and the situation should make us optimistic about the months to come, and that is what Canadians have been telling us in these polls. They are very satisfied with their Government, despite protests to the contrary by our New Democratic Party colleagues who are green with envy.
Mr. Speaker, on February 5 of this year, using an approach that has now become identified with this Government and that sets us apart from the previous Government of 15 years of confrontation, an approach characterized by conciliation and negociation, thanks to this entirely new style of government, we were able, within just a few months, to achieve with the provinces who are not our enemies but our partners, and we said so quite clearly after the election on September 4, and they believed us and they agreed to work with us, so that with the provinces, we agreed to proceed to a reduction in sulphur emissions, and each province agreed to set quotas to reduce sulphur emissions in Canada.
When the agreement was made public, the Liberal critic for the environment and the NDP critic said, substantially, that there was nothing to it. We thought there was a great deal to it, and our colleagues ... The Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party was obviously supporting the motion presented by the Liberal environmental critic. In any case, I fail to see any clear distinction between the two parties, because they are nearly always saying the same thing, acting as a team and asking questions or supporting each other motions. It was very good timing, Mr. Speaker, because the motion condemning the Government for its failure to take action with respect to the environment came the day before, exactly the day before the public announcement of the Canadian environmental clean-up program, a plan that does not have its equal in any country. So I very much appreciated the timing of my hon. colleague, the Liberal environmental critic. I thought it was most appropriate and almost miraculous, and I said to myself that as long as we have an Opposition that is following the Government's business that closely, we will not have to worry.
That is what we have done. An agreement was signed with seven Canadian provinces, while the Western provinces which are less affected by sulphur emissions offered us their active support, so that this was a Canadian consensus. Immediately after the February 5 agreement, we continued to develop at the federal level, the federal plan to clean up acid rain pollution. That enabled us on March 6 to unveil this program under which $300 million are set aside to solve the acid emission problems. It required-a very easy task since we always proceed as a team-the cooperation of twelve federal departments or agencies. On March 6, when we made this
program public, the media were practically unanimous in their praise, saying that no other country had come up with such a program to fight acid rains.
So what did they say about it? They did not say: There is nothing there, we had already said so. They told us that the program was already on file and that the Liberal Party would have made it public had it not lost the election. I began to wonder why the Liberal Party and its critic, the former Minister of Environment, who had this program ready on file during their 15 years in office, did not see fit to offer it to Canadians, but chose instead to wait until their September 4 defeat to say: Well, we had that program ready. In any event, Canadians do not pay much attention to such highfaluting statements, and we were widely commended for having come to grips with the acid rain issue. As it happened, we did manage to put the acid rain issue at the top of the agenda of a historic summit. Mr. Speaker, it was the first time since 1943 that a President of the United States and a Canadian Prime Minister got together in Quebec City, the first time, 42 years later, that acid rain was one of their priorities. So what do we hear in the House today? That the Canadian Government could not care less about acid rain, that it is indifferent, that the matter is not important, and so on. This is the kind of debate the Opposition wants to have in the House.
The President of the United States and our Prime Minister meet in a historic summit, and the first working session of the two men deals with acid rain. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of acid rain had been in limbo for at least four years. The Conservative Government can certainly not bear the blame for inaction on the part of the United States in the past four years. We get things going in six months and, through the dynamism of our Prime Minister, we succeed in calling a historic summit meeting. President Reagan agrees to put the acid rain question on the agenda. The first statement at the first working session shows that Canada and the United States see eye to eye with respect to this very complex matter which has been lying on the shelf for four years. The two men then announce the appointment of two envoys whose prestige and visibility no one can question, not even our colleagues of the Opposition.
Here are some of the remarks made by newspaper editorialists whom I consider as being very deserving and very wise people. Here is what editorialists like Jean-Louis Roy, Michel Roy or Le Droit's Alain Dexter have to say: Those two men are outstanding lobbyists. The two men, President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney, have just given a powerful lobby to environmentalists. They have given them two prestigious and highly-regarded men who will look exclusively into this issue, who will combine their efforts to seek a way out of the acid rain deadlock between the United States and Canada. Indeed, it must be acknowledged that the deadlook is due in part to the behaviour of the former Government which approached every problem as if it were a conflict. It was a never-ending guerilla.
March 19, 1985

They would go to the United States and insult everybody within hearing distance. They were interviewed on television only to voice further insults, and then they were wondering why joint decisions could not be reached.
Now, these two men are well thought of in both countries. It is recognized, in editorials that they surely will hasten the debate on pollution control.
This is what Mr. Roy has to say: We welcome the appointment of two great artists. Why does he refer to them as artists? Because the acid rain issue is no longer something that should be discussed by representatives of the scientific community. Quite simply because scientists have told us all there is to know about acid rain, and there is not much dispute at that level. This is why these two men, experienced as they are in the ramifications and complexity of politics, are asked to debug the issue over the coming year and entrusted with an extremely interesting responsibility. Mr. Davis and Mr. Lewis will be expected to consult on the statutes and regulations pertaining to pollutants.
Canada will be consulted on its own statutes and regulations that govern pollutants, and will be in a position to give its version, its assessment of the regulations. They have been entrusted with the responsibility of enhancing co-operation in research endeavours and here I want to refer to a research report submitted by the Royal Society of Canada to the Environment critic of the Liberal Party when he was Minister of the Environment, in which it was emphasized that research on acid rain was in a terrible mess. This was not said by me, but by the Royal Society of Canada. Clearly, the Environment critic has not said much about that, nor did he try to clear up the mess research on acid rain was in at the federal government level when he was a minister of the Crown and a member of Cabinet.
Therefore, the two appointees will have to discuss at length the question of research, to secure in their respective countries co-ordination of research endeavours and the interrelationship of research activities in both countries. They will also have to look for means to widen the exchange of scientific information in order to avoid duplication, I assume, and make a survey of all of the initiatives taken to improve the Canadian and American environment.
These two men of distinction would not have accepted the responsibility of dealing with that issue simply to sweep it under the carpet. They are men of action. They have accepted the job because they know how important it is for the environment in their respective countries, because they are convinced that they will be able to break the deadlock to which we had come because of the previous government, and to propose concrete initiatives during the upcoming year. They will be facing powerful lobbies, especially from South of the border. They will also be facing powerful unions.
The acid rain problem is tremendously complex, first because it involves huge amounts of money, and secondly
Supply
because it could affect thousands of jobs. Those are aspects that are not to be taken lightly. And a whole year to try and find ways to arrive at solutions that will safeguard jobs and ensure depollution, after having had a government that did nothing for 15 years, is something that is quite acceptable in my view.
These two men are therefore both exceptional people and the former Ontario Premier, Mr. Bill Davis, is not the type to accept, to use the words of the editorial writer:
-simply to go through the motions in this regard.
The same editorial writer also said: What it was logical to except from the Quebec meeting on the issue of acid rain was that its basically political character would be recognized. For the first time, the American President, without saying so, but by his actions, has put an end to the research process, has recognized the problem of acid rain, recognized that it exists and that it is a problem common to the United States and Canada, and has agreed to appoint a prestigious envoy, who is also a personal friend of his to try to make some progress on this issue.
Therefore there will be a powerful lobby to support the efforts of environmentalist groups, which would of course have preferred us to go further. I recognize that if the problem of acid rain could have been solved in a day or two, it would have made me very happy. However, since the former Government took no action in this regard during 15 years although it made many statements on the subject, it seems to me that we have made enormous progress in achieving all we have in a period of a little over six months since our taking over.
Mr. Speaker, the climate of the negotiations is most important, because if there is a favourable climate and agreement between the negotiators, as well as mutual respect, then it is certain that progress will be made in any deadlock and those who, like myself, have been involved in negotiating labour contracts and in labour relations know that the climate of any negotiations should never be underestimated. This is true where countries are concerned, as the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) obviously knows and is always displaying, and it is also true as far as relations between the provinces and the Federal Government are concerned. This is why, in recognizing this principle through our actions, we were able to achieve quite incredible results in a very short time.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Minister for her grade three public school essay. She attempted to rewrite Canadian history according to the latest Progressive Conservative theology. I will ask her a few questions, and she can choose which ones she wants to answer. Of course, we on this side of the House are very flexible and leave the choice to her.
3184

March 19, 1985
Supply
What are the views of the Hon. Minister with respect to the fact that environmental groups across the country, for the first time since the election, are not supportive of the Progressive Conservative Government decision on acid rain? Why is that? Does she really consider it progress, if she compares the statement of President Reagan in Quebec City on Sunday who said just about the same things on acid rain as he did in 1981 when he visited Ottawa? Why, in her view, did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan sidestep the issue, decide not to give leadership on acid rain and allow, in a way, the National Coal Association to win? The Executive Vice-President of that Association, Danny Ellerman, was quoted as saying that acid rain "is a subterfuge". The President of that Association, Carl Bagge, was quoted a month ago in The New York Times as congratulating the Prime Minister for his stand on acid rain. Is that not a strange source of praise? Perhaps the Minister could explain why the Prime Minister failed to give leaderhip on this matter by giving away Canada's bargaining position two months ago?
Did he draw the President's attention to Canada's record on a 25 per cent reduction in emissions between 1980 and 1990? Did he draw the attention of President Reagan to our commitment on March 6, 1984, to which the provinces and the federal Government unanimously agreed, to cut it by a further 25 per cent? Did he make use of the memorandum of intent which was signed by Canada and the United States on August 5, 1980? Did he draw the President's attention to the fact that on research Canada spends, on a per capita basis, twice as much as the U.S.? Did he draw the attention of President Reagan to the fact that S02 emissions or smoke-stack emissions in the U.S. are over five times those in Canada and that nitrogen car emissions in the U.S. are over ten times those in Canada?
Finally, what does the Minister have to say about the fact that the Prime Minister, having gone to Quebec City on his environmental knees and instead of putting the acid rain question squarely on the table with President Reagan, chickened out on Sunday and yielded to U.S. pressures? He admitted that research was still needed, taking a position with which no Canadian would agree. Not even the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences would agree with that position. He agreed with further research, which is the last thing he should have done. Were Mr. Davis and Mr. Lewis given a task under the agreement? This bears upon what the Minister just said on the question of research. Why were they given in the mandate, among other things, the assignment to improve co-operation between the two nations in research efforts and to pursue ways to increase exchanges of relevant scientific information? The Minister has the choice to answer.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I have just discovered a new approach in my hon. colleague. Now that he can no longer attack the Government since we have done much more than he did when he was a Minister, he is asking questions. I shall try to reply to all of them.
As far as the first question is concerned, unlike the Liberal environment critic, I do not try to take credit for initiatives which are not my own. It would never cross my mind to say that a Canadian program as significant as the one which was announced was part of my plans when I was in the Government if I had not implemented this program myself, because I would be admitting that I was doing nothing as Minister of the Environment. I think that this is exactly what the environment critic was doing. When he was Minister of the Environment he did make statements but nothing else. If the action plan was one of his projects, it is unfortunate for him and it shows that he was not very effective as a Minister. As for me, after putting together the Canadian action plan, I succeeded in having it approved by all my Cabinet colleagues, and six months later, it was made public. There it is.
This morning or yesterday, the environment critic quoted the President of the United States and suggested that the President had said nothing more than on his visit to Canada on March 11, 1981. Therefore I went back to Hansard and read what the President of the United States said at that time to see whether progress had been made or not. Having been a research professor, I love doing research. In Hansard for March 11, 1981, we can see that Mr. Reagan said exactly the following about acid rain, and I shall quote him in English:

We have continued our efforts begun with the Great Lakes Water Quality agreement of 1972 to protect our joint heritage in the Great Lakes. We want to continue to work co-operatively to understand and control the air and water pollution that respects no borders.

The Environment critic infers from that quotation that Canada made no progress at the summit in Quebec City. I will say quite frankly that if we never made any other progress than that made in Quebec City, I would still be quite pleased with our record compared to that of the former government. I think that the U.S. President has taken a great step forward since his 1981 statement.
As for environmental groups which disagree with our approach, some are old friends of the former minister. Once again, I will quote an editor but I do not want to blame anyone. This commentator declared: We were quite surprised at the reaction of some environmental groups and I will skip the names when the name of both envoys was announced. I quote: "Those organizations seem to have reacted too quickly when they sharply criticized the decision of Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan to ask two exceptional politicians to take part in the debate on acid rain". Without blaming environmental groups, I find that criticisms were made rather too quickly. Let us give to these distinguished envoys the chance to meet, which they will do so within ten days, and to develop an action plan. Then we may criticize them.
March 19, 1985


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Greni-er) said that after 15 years she did not know how one more year would make much of a difference. There are two things with respect to that. When we are talking about just one year, we are obviously talking about more than one year. Even if some highly significant agreement came out of the discussions between Bill Davis and Mr. Lewis of the United States, that would be an agreement to do something later than a year from now. We are not just talking about one year; we are talking about a number of years.
Something else the Minister should keep in mind when we are talking about this problem is that acid rain is the kind of environmental problem which is cumulative. The year at the end of 15 years is much more significant than the year at the beginning of the 15-year period. The Minister should try not to think in purely numerical terms about the kind of time-frame that we may be working in with respect to acid rain and a number of other environmental problems. I invite her to reflect on the nature of time as it pertains to environmental questions like this.
I have a question for her. How can she maintain that the appointment of these individuals to study acid rain was a consensus position? She used the word consensus. Presumably a consensus position is one that you arrive at after you have had two different positions. You arrive at a position that is not the same as either of the two original positions. I want to know how she can call it a consensus if the Canadian Government had the view that acid rain was something that had to be acted on and the Americans had the view that it was something that should be studied, and we agreed to study it. That is what the Minister calls a consensus. That is what I and many other people call a concession, not a consensus.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member should buy himself a pocket dictionary to carry around constantly with him. Where did he get the notion that it would be impossible for countries to use negotiations to reach a compromise? A compromise is a common position arrived at by people holding different views initially. And how could this paralyze the action of a good government? 1 feel that the government should be commended for breaking a deadlock which had existed for nearly four years.
I suggest that a compromise is reached for pragmatic considerations. We had recognized that because of the complexity of the issue and the interests involved, it was necessary to focus on it for a while and entrust it to two senior officials with direct access, one to the President of the United States, and the other to the Prime Minister of Canada.
I think nobody can rightfully claim that this was not a way to recognize the seriousness of the matter; moreover, I know that the word "compromise" simply does not exist in the NDP dictionary.
Supply


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, returning to the first part of the New Democratic Party motion today expressing our concern about possible future linkage between the development of star wars and the uses to which our new Early Warning System may be put and the related matter of the stationing of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, let me first say a word or two and try to make as clear as I possibly can what our concerns are regarding the moedernization of the DEW Line, now called the North Warning System.
If it were indeed today and for all time a radar system purely used for detection and the communication of information, I do not think any of us would have any great concern. However, when in fact the modernization of the DEW Line is seen by the authorities in the Pentagon as having what they describe as collateral benefits for the development of the President's Strategic Defence Initiative, as star wars is formally called, we are very concerned indeed.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said this morning that we were sowing fear in the country because of our concern. Quite frankly, The Canadian public is already concerned about the possibility of the escalation of the nuclear arms race and indeed the militarization of outer space. We have not created the concern. The concern has been generated over several years now, and particularly since the President first announced two years ago the possibility of the militarization of space and the extension of the arms race into space. I think it is important to reiterate that. This lies at the root of the concern of the public. It is bad enough having an arms race on land, at sea and in the air, but when it is extended into space, with all the uncontrollable and destabilizing elements that would then be involved, surely the public is quite justified in being concerned.
As I have said, we are not dreaming up the idea that there is a relationship between the modernization of the DEW line and future collateral benefits, to use the words of the Pentagon, for star wars. We have read about these things. In a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) to which he did not respond, I asked whether or not he had actually read the minutes of the hearings of the committee on armed services of the United States Senate which occurred last spring and again last fall.
It was from reading the minutes of the hearings held before the U.S. Senate committee on armed services that I first realized fully how the Strategic Defence Initiative of the President was to be aided and abetted by certain other developments down the line. I am not saying that this will happen tomorrow. It will happen down the line. After all, star wars is at the research stage now. We have never said that anything would happen tomorrow.
The testimony recorded in those minutes to which I refer explicitly states that both the space shuttle and the modernization of the DEW line would provide collateral benefits to the

March 19, 1985
Supply
Strategic Defence Initiative as it becomes developed and deployed. As Hon. Ministers would discover if they were to read the reports of the Senate committee, there is no question in the minds of the committee members of the United States Senate committee on armed services that the President's Strategic Defence Initiative will go through to deployment. In fact, they conclude their remarks by saying that the committee wants to contribute to making the president's vision a reality.
When the United States Secretary of Defense said on television the other day that missile launchers might in fact be located in Canada, he was only referring to what will happen down the line when Canada gets further and further involved in the Strategic Defence Initiative. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), quite rightly, went on to point out that Secretary Weinberger had said that these missile launchers would not be placed in Canada without Canadian consent. This question of consent only confuses the issue even more.
Before I say a few words on that matter, which very much affects the arguments the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence have been making, let me put on the record the words of Sir Geoffrey Howe regarding the entire star wars concept.
It is clear that this Government has accepted research into star wars and has accepted what the President deems to be the frontier of a ballistic missile defence. I have not heard anyone from the government side, let alone the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), deny their support for the concept of a ballistic missile defence. Indeed, this morning the Minister came quite close to saying that if such a defence is contrary to the ABM treaty, there would have to be negotiations presumably to work our way out of that treaty.
Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the United Kingdom, has very grave reservations indeed about the development of star wars. As reported in the Ottawa Citizen of March 16, he said the following at a meeting last week:
"the enormous technological expertise and potential of the United States" is very great.
He paid tribute to that technology. I am only reading the parts of the article which are in quotes because I have not yet read the full speech. He then went on to say:
"there would be no advantage in creating a new Maginot Line of the 21st century, liable to be outflanked by relatively simpler and demonstrably cheaper countermeasures."
He went on:
"We must make sure we are not developing what might prove to be only a limited defence against weapons of devastating, destructive force," ...
"We must be especially on our guard against raising hopes that it may be impossible to fulfill."
He then went on to discuss the holes in the dike or the holes in the Maginot Line of the Strategic Defence Initiative of President Reagan. He asks:
"Would these holes in the dike,"... "produce and even encourage a nuclear flood?"
We all feel that we in this House have not had a sufficient discussion of the implications of star wars on the strategic balance and indeed we have not had sufficient discussion of its technical feasibility let alone its strategic desirability. I gather from the BBC news that Sir Geoffrey Howe's remarks are the top story in the United Kingdom today joined with the story of very similar remarks made yesterday by the West German Foreign Minister, Hans Dietrich Genscher, who was again questioning both the technical feasibility and the strategic desirability of star wars.
Again our Ministers will say to us that they have only approved the Reagan initiative so far as research is concerned. The Minister from the United Kingdom and West Germany are questioning the research. That is the point I wish to get through to our Ministers. We and the NDP are not the only ones questioning the research. Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom and West Germany are questioning it because they do see it as being destabilizing. They do see it as changing the entire strategic balance. They do see it as being an escalation of the arms race into space.
The Minister said that he came before the committee to discuss this matter. He came before the committee for 64 minutes. He said that he was asked no more questions after that time. Unfortunately I was ill on that day and could not be present. I read the minutes very carefully. I will take this matter up with him again when he comes before the committee. However, at page 42 of the minutes of February 14, he did say:
The question has been raised whether or not more questions should be asked. I am in the hands of the committee on that question and will look forward to hearing from the chairman.
The Chairman tells me that he did ask the Minister to come before the committee, that he phoned the Minister's office many times to ask him to come to the committee prior to the signing of the North Warning System agreement, and that the Minister declined to come before the committee as did the Minister of National Defence. It is a little excessive on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for him to say that he gave the committee all the time it needed and wanted. We desperately wanted more time with the Minister, but he did not oblige us by coming on any one of the three days last week on which I am told by the Chairman he was asked to come.
On the related matter of the North Warning System, which is also embodied in the Liberal amendment of our motion, the matter of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, again I want to make it absolutely clear to the Minister that we are trying to address this as carefully and as clearly as we can. I know he is as well. Indeed, I took down his words exactly this morning. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said this morning that in the agreement there is "a guarantee that any Canadian Government would have the right to refuse the stationing of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil". I have two points: first, that is not what we are asking. What we are asking, which is quite different, is a commitment from the Government now
' . . . ' ' [DOT][DOT] ' ' '
March 19, 1985

that nuclear weapons will never be stationed on Canadian soil. The Minister must know that by the time a crisis exists, or an advanced alert comes about, there is no time to be consulted. A country has no option at that stage. I am not talking about a state of war. I am talking of a state of crisis.
Does one imagine that the B-52 bombers, loaded with Cruise missiles, which are supposed to scramble from their base in California to Cold Lake, Alberta, at the moment an alert is signalled are going to be held up until the Canadian Government agrees? If that is the case, then I want the Minister to tell us that the United States has agreed to hold up any stationing or sending of nuclear missiles to Canadian soil on the B-52 bomber or in whatever other way until we have said OK. The Minister has not told us that that is what will be done because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is not what would be done.
Hon. Members will remember what happened when Mr. Nixon called the state of alert in 1974. There was no consultation, nor would there be, nor can there be, at that late stage. The Minister said there would be consultation before there would be any deployment of nuclear depth bombs at Comox and Greenwood. But one has to make some preparations, as the chief of our own general staff said, for the acceptance of those nuclear depth bombs. One has to make some preparation at the bases, as he himself quite rightly pointed out when he was interviewed on this.
So the Minister in a sense is deceiving us when he says that the Canadian Government would have the right to refuse the stationing of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. That right is not an option which in practice we would have should a time of crisis arise. So what I am asking the Minister, if he does not agree with what I have just said, is to tell me exactly how we would be consulted in the instances I have just given. If he cannot do that, then would he give some assurance to us now that nuclear weapons will never be stationed on Canadian soil?
The Minister asked today why he should have brought the North Warning System agreement to the House of Commons. Other agreements in the past had not been brought to the House of Commons, so why should there be, therefore, any public discussion through the Parliament of Canada? I found that a very alarming statement. In the first place, it is inaccurate. After all, the NORAD agreement was brought before the House. Mr. Diefenbaker did not want to do that. If one goes back to the 1958 debates one will see that Mr. Diefenbaker did not want the NORAD agreement brought before the House of Commons. But he finally agreed and it was brought before the House, chiefly because his Secretary of State for External Affairs of that day argued him into bringing it before the House, which is more than I can say for the present Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The NORAD agreement was brought before the House, it was debated and it was voted upon, so there is a precedent. Furthermore, when the Conservatives were in opposition they argued, at least my hon. friend from Victoria, whom I see here today, argued, that one of the most significant developments which should have come before the House of Commons when
Supply
the Liberals were in power was the framework agreement which enabled the testing of Cruise missiles. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and I were quite energetic about it, and other Hon. Members of the Conservative Party, I am sure, were equally concerned that that agreement did not come before Parliament. Yet today and yesterday both Ministers refused any further meetings with the committee. Sixty-four minutes was enough. They have refused to hold hearings where Canadians and other experts in the field could be heard on the long-term implications of the modernization of the DEW Line for the Strategic Defence Initiative, as well as the possibility or otherwise of Canada really having a choice in refusing nuclear weapons on its soil. Instead of doing that, instead of bringing it before committee and allowing experts to talk and explain, they passed it as quickly as possible through Cabinet in order to sign it with President Reagan this past weekend.
President Reagan was, of course, delighted. In fact, as I considered the whole weekend, I could not help thinking that our Prime Minister was like the young man who is taking the boss home for dinner. That is the way he behaved during that whole weekend. He did not at any point give me the confidence or the feeling that he was even asking the right questions.


An Hon. Member:: You would rather he had insulted him, I suppose.


Pauline Jewett: No, I would not want the Prime Minister to insult him. I don't believe in insulting people myself and I don't believe he needed to insult him. But I think all Canadians should be pretty concerned that he did not ask the kinds of questions I am asking today and for which we have never had answers from either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence. I would like to hear from both, their comments on what Sir Geoffrey Howe is saying as well as what Hans Deitrich Genscher is saying.
The Canadian Government and the Prime Minister did not challenge the President of the United States, as far as I can discover, on any American positions, even that on Central America, about which I would have thought this Government had at least a somewhat different view from President Reagan. I have now decided that it does not. It cannot have. President Reagan made that incredible lunch-time speech yesterday, blasting away at Nicaragua once again-which he has been doing for the last weeks-supporting the Contras, and we just sat meekly by. We, who have provided expertise for the Contadora peace plan, knowing full well that the President of the United States is doing his very best to scuttle that plan, do not say a word to President Reagan.
In the midst of the arms negotiations in Geneva between the United States and the U.S.S.R., President Reagan made the most vehement, almost blasphemous, references to the position of the U.S.S.R. which I ever heard. I thought, by the way, Mr. Speaker, it was an insult to come to Canada and make those kinds of remarks about the Government of Nicaragua, the support for the Contras, and the Soviet approach toward arms control. He made those remarks, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, only

March 19, 1985
Supply
because, as in the case of star wars, he knew that he had our Prime Minister in his pocket.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out what the Canadian people are really concerned about. The Hon. Member for New Westminster (Ms. Jewett) might want to trust the communists, but I am afraid that there is enough evidence at hand to know that we cannot trust the communists. We can see that from their actions in Afghanistan where they burned children in front of their parents. They dropped booby-trapped toys which blew off the hands and fingers of children. So we have serious doubts about taking their word-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).


A. Daniel McKenzie: The speech dealt with star wars, and what we and the Canadian people are concerned about is the star wars equipment on both sides, not just that of the United States. We want both sides to abandon their star wars equipment, not just the United States. The reason the U.S. has to develop the star wars equipment is to keep up with the U.S.S.R. We hope that at the top they will both agree to disband everything and get rid of all nuclear weapons as well as chemical weapons.
Russia has a number of types of star wars equipment. They have RORSAT, a radar ocean-reconnaissance satellite. This is an advanced piece of weaponry. It can probably detect destroyer and aircraft carrier-size ships in good weather. The Russians also have ERORSAT, which is another electronic intelligence ocean-reconnaissance satellite and which is used with RORSAT for detecting and tracking of naval vessels in open or coastal waters. If we are to sit back and do nothing and allow them to develop this kind of equipment, we will have nothing with which to protect ourselves. We would be absolutely vulnerable. The ERORSAT is the Soviet-based space system which is possibly most capable of sea target detection, so you can see they are way ahead of us. They also have ELINT III. This is the third generation electronic intelligence satellite. They operate in a record playback mode and can locate pulsed emitters to a best accuracy of about 10 kilometres. They can detect radars on operating air fields if they use pulsed emitters and possibly provide an after-the-fact assessment of the location of airborne warning and control systems. The Russians also have the advanced ELINT, and experts anticipate deployment of that system by the end of 1985.
I do not understand the NDP and its position that it is just the United States that we have to concern ourselves about. We have to concern ourselves about the Warsaw Pact countries with nuclear and chemical weapons, as well as star wars equipment, and we have to be sure we can defend ourselves against their advanced development. So we in the Conservative Party want to see disarmament on both sides, not unilateral
disarmament. Criticism should be levelled also at the Warsaw Pact countries. They are the ones who are ahead of us. I have never spoken to any Canadian who wants just us on this side to disarm. We know that that would be absolute suicide. That would be the end of us for all time.
There is no such a thing as not having to co-operate with the United States. The majority of Canadians now understand why we have to test the Cruise missile and they understand why we have to do research into star wars. It is because of the Warsaw Pact build-up. So it is a two way street. If we did not have to develop star wars we would have all the money in the world to wipe out acid rain. We want to wish the negotiators the best of luck on this question, but we want both sides to disarm.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is going to Russia in a couple of weeks and I am sure he will be discussing our concerns with the Russians. We want them to eliminate their star wars equipment and chemical warfare weapons and all the rest. We want disarmament on both sides, not just this side.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the Hon. Member say that. I am more than delighted because, as he probably does not know, the U.S.S.R. is not advanced at all in star wars technology compared with the U.S. Indeed, most American experts in the field will concede that. The Hon. Member has said they both should stop their star wars development. Boy, am I ever in favour of that. We are all in favour of that, so I am glad to see he is on side.


A. Daniel McKenzie: You finally said it.


Pauline Jewett: That is exactly what we want to see. He probably does not realize that the U.S. would not dream of stopping, but I am glad to see that he wants them to stop, as well as the Soviet Union.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) and I would like to comment on comments she made about the speech that was given by Geoffrey Howe, which she seemed to support in its entirety. I am curious as to whether she has read the London Times which blasted Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe and said that his speech was "mealy-mouthed, muddled in conception, negative, and, in effect if not intentions, a wrecking amendment to the whole plan". The newspaper said, "he had handed Mr. Gorbachev all the best lines with which to oppose SDI and drive a wedge between Europe and the United States". It went on:
With the Geneva talks beginning and Mr. Gorbachev poised to exploit the historic Soviet aim of decoupling Europe from America, it is indeed astonishing that the British government chooses this moment to be so negative about what ministers know is the core of the Reagan administration's strategic philosophy.
We have not yet got late enough news to know whether the Government of Britain supports Mr. Howe in his speech.
The other news that is breaking is that Belgium, after a very great deal of soul searching, has decided to deploy the Cruise missiles, which is another thing bitterly opposed by the Hon.
March 19, 1985

Member. I am curious as to why she seems always to be on the same side of these difficult decisions, that is in favour of the position taken by the U.S.S.R. and opposed to the one taken by NATO.


Pauline Jewett: I do not think the Hon. Member means to suggest that Sir Geoffrey Howe is a closet communist. That is about the way he sounds. As the Hon. Member knows, the fact is that a major speech of that kind would require the prior approval of the Prime Minister of the country. Unless there has been a slip-up, I would assume that the speech he made had the Prime Minister's approval.
As to the Belgian question, there is no doubt in my mind that it was a very difficult decision for the Belgian Government to make. One can see this from what I think was 100,000 people who marched in protest on Sunday. I would not say, given the outcry from the populace over the decision, that it is a decision that they will be able to keep. They may have to change that decision or there may even have to be a change in government.
I am sure the Hon. Member, because we have talked about these matters many times, would agree with me that there is always and must be in our society an interaction between what governments do and what the strong feelings of people are. At the same time, there is an attempt to have an intellectual discourse and, quite frankly, I do believe that is what Geoffrey Howe was doing. He was asking if we want a Maginot Line in space. Surely the Hon. Member is not suggesting that we should not ask those questions and try to find answers. Surely not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen).


Charles L. Caccia: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the Minister but I just want to raise with you the question of whether or not it might not be more in keeping with parliamentary practice, this being a day devoted to the Opposition, to allow the Official Opposition to have three speakers, as has the NDP. If we move over to the government side, and looking at the clock, they would then have more speakers than the Official Opposition by the time this debate ends. I am pointing out to you, Your Honour, the desirability of recognizing a speaker on our side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I realize this is an Opposition Day, with the main motion being that of the NDP. So far we have had five speakers from the combined opposition Parties and only two from the Government. That is why I recognized the Deputy Prime Minister. However, there will most likely be some time left. At that time the debate will be closed with a speaker from the Official Opposition. I recognize for debate the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence.
Supply


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the North Warning System element of this debate. I want to do it in the political context in which the discussion is taking place this afternoon. Contrary to the belief of the Hon. Member who has just resumed her seat, I will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Thursday at or about 3.30 in the afternoon. I sincerely hope that she will not be ill at that time so that she will be able to be present and put forth whatever questions she did not have the opportunity to put forth because of her absence when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) appeared before that committee.
I would like to open my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, with the following quote:
Canada is a veteran of the two world wars and of Korea. We have acquired our national sovereignty honourably, in important measure through the enormous sacrifice of generations of Canadians who with genuine courage-and in many cases, with their very lives-spoke for our unshakeable commitment to freedom, our unquenchable belief in democracy. Having thus acquired our independence, we shall surrender no part of it any time in any circumstance.
That was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speaking at Quebec City over the weekend. That is the stance of the Government with respect to the several questions which members of the Opposition, and others outside of this place, have been raising in order to sow fear and doubt in the minds of Canadians with respect to the real purpose of NWS.
The Member who just resumed her seat said herself that she would not be alarmed, as most Canadians would not be alarmed, if the purpose of NWS was radar surveillance. I see her nodding in affirmation from where she is standing behind the curtains. However, she will not accept that NWS is exactly that. In upgrading and modernizing NWS we are precisely replacing the system that is in place. The assistance which that system gives to civil aviation is a dimension which has not been addressed. If the Hon. Member had flown as many hours as I have in the north using that system, she would have a different view. That is all that NWS is intended to do and will do.
What the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) has called the most radical change in Canada-U.S. relations in this century, in reference to the Quebec summit, is simply a return to the civility and readiness to live up to responsibilities that are implicit in treaties that this country has been a party to for many years. As co-signers of NORAD we undertook certain defence obligations embracing the defence of this continent and of the free world. We are living up to those commitments. The only radical change is that our Government is acting as though we intended to live up to those arrangements and to be active and participating partners in our own defence.
I need only refer you to history, Sir, to indicate the very short shrift of those nations which have left the responsibility of their defence to others. That is precisely what the NDP is advocating. If we have learned one thing from history, it is that countries which lose interest in their defence come to lose their liberty, freedom and independence. That is what they are advocating over there. They are advocating the hands-off approach. They believe that we can put off the fact that we are now living in a nuclear age. The NDP appears to believe that

March 19, 1985
Supply
Canada can sit on its hands and leave its defence and, I presume, the defence of the free world, to the United States. It believes that we can have a free ride. That is not what we believe. I do not think that attitude will commend itself to the majority of Canadians. The Government intends to meet its obligations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I almost saw the halo of the hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) slipping down around his eyes as he was breast-beating in his haste to dissociate himself and his Party with any thought that they would have any anti-Americanism seeds in their bosoms. However, with them that is a fact. It is a course of irreponsibility, in my view, and it is difficult to discern any difference between the defence posture of the NDP and that which I heard outlined in TASS according to news reports of yesterday.
I think it is equally regrettable that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), whose Party has paid lip service to NATO and whose Government approved each and every defence arrangement leading up to the summit, should now adopt an irresponsible attitude of partisanship. That is precisely what they were doing today as came forward in the speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition. No matter how hard they try, they cannot wipe out the past participation of that Party in the arrangements that he was criticizing today. His position can be summarized very simply. It is not a strong principle sustained by strong men.
At least the position of the Leader of the NDP is clear. He distrusts the Americans and everything they stand for. That, at least, is consistent. It has always been the policy of his Party, no matter how much the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill hastens to scurry away from that position at this late date.
I can only describe the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition as an enigma wrapped in obscurity. He approves our objectives. He whole-heartedly supports closer relations. He wants to live up to our responsibilities. He is just put out because we were the ones to do these things. He and his Party had 10 years in which to do them but they did little or nothing. When the Liberal Party left office, relations with the United States were at their lowest ebb since 1812. His attitude of trying to ride in both directions at the same time is certainly not conducive to creative relations. What is really eating their hearts out, Mr. Speaker, is that the summit in Quebec was a success, that there was real progress made. That is what is eating them.
As an aside, I would indicate that the summit has done more than any other single event in my recollection to sow the seeds of national unity in this country. He again trotted out the Trudeau dictum of even-handed justice to both superpowers. This demonstrates once again the Liberal party's inability to draw the line between our friends and those who have not demonstrated the kind of friendship and understanding of western democracy that we expect from friends. In the very next breath, he said, "Of course the Americans are our friends". We agree with that. However, where we seem to part
company is that we intend to give our friends the benefit of the doubt.
As I have already mentioned, there is some excuse for the NDP, given its traditional distrust of the Americans, but there is no excuse for the carping, critical, uninformed and petty attitude of members of the Official Opposition. I would ask them, in all sincerity, to look around the world and gain a perception of present realities and future opportunities.
Canadians are entitled to a real and honest appreciation of the real problems of our time. What we got from the Leader of the Official Opposition was warmed over Trudeauism. Tom Axworthy may be gone but his spirit lived on this morning in the sorry, sad diatribe of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
The Prime Minister of Canada and President Reagan confirmed in Quebec honest and positive policies and progress between our two countries. They confirmed that friends and allies must work together. They confirmed that friends and allies must be honest with each other. They confirmed that friends and allies must make real efforts to keep lines of communication open. That was a historic restoration of a relationship which has been allowed to wither and die under 16 years of Liberal office.
At Quebec, the Prime Minister addressed himself to the realities of which Canadians are all aware each day of our lives and took steps to restore a relationship of civility and honest endeavour between Canada and the United States.
The benefits of that epochal action will flow into every phase of our economic and commercial life in this country in the months ahead. No amount of carping and criticism from the NDP and no amount of nostalgic posturing-for it can only be called that-by the Leader of the Opposition will alter the fact that a powerful blow for Canadian sovereignty was struck at Quebec over the weekend. Our Government has taken a step forward in history while the Grits are dragging their feet and the NDP is at least dragging its prejudices, if not something worse.
The majority of Canadians will understand and approve what took place because they have more confidence in Canada and more confidence in friends and allies than either of the two discredited Parties on the opposite side of the House. It cannot be emphasized too often that the Strategic Defence Initiative is, first, a research project and, second, strictly an American initiative which will go on whether Canada or any other country approves. To attempt to tie in, as they have done in their very motion, SDI with an updated radar warning system in the North, is about as logical as to say-and I am certainly not advocating this-that issuing Canadian troops with Enfield rifles constitutes a back-up for SDL
Obviously the Opposition strategy now is that any defence development, whether it is in aircraft, in tanks, in ships or in guns, will immediately be described by them as a back-up to SDL I think they should get their minds out of Hollywood movies and deal with these important matters as they really are. This applies again to the Official Opposition above all and
March 19, 1985

particularly to former Ministers sitting over there now who were present and who actively contributed when the system and agreements were put together.
It would be, on reflection, very useful to see what they are really saying in the Official Opposition as well as in the NDP. On the one hand they say that if it is only a radar system, they have no cause for alarm. But then they proceed methodically and for their own motives to provide the linkage in order to create the fear-


Pauline Jewett: It is right here.


Erik Nielsen: No matter how many documents-


Pauline Jewett: From the U.S. Senate.


Erik Nielsen: -the Hon. Member holds up, no matter how often she says it, she will have to appreciate that sooner or later she must accept the word of myself, the word of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the word of the Prime Minister that there is no linkage between the two systems.


Pauline Jewett: Why don't you read this?


Erik Nielsen: I don't care how many times you say it-for the Liberals to be advancing that nonsense, it is-


Pauline Jewett: It is unbelievable.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, it is unbelievable that that kind of political posturing should be done by the Hon. Member with no justification whatsoever. She is telling us not to proceed with NWS and not to proceed with updating our radar surveillance in this country because there may be a linkage with SDI. She is really saying that there should be no updating of that radar system. Her Party is saying that Canadians should not be operating that system and should not be maintaining that system. She is saying, "So what, 11,500 jobs? What the heck". That is what it will mean in jobs for Canadians.


Pauline Jewett: Now we are on jobs.


Erik Nielsen: She is saying, "So what for industrial and commercial spinoffs that will result from this project." All it is doing is bringing a woefully inadequate, costly to maintain, radar system up to date. Sooner or later she will digest that.


Pauline Jewett: Why don't you talk about missile launchers?


Erik Nielsen: Right now, I can tell her that, given the present system, and knowing the system, there are gaps in it which would permit intrusion of our air space without any knowledge on the part of Canadians.
What she is saying as a result of her Party adopting the position that they are advocating is that we should not under any circumstances ensure that Canadians know who is coming into our air space. She does not realize that it has nothing to do with space.
Supply
1 believe that Members should not delude themselves into believing that such systems are not operating in other countries. One only has to recall the Korean airliner to know very well that they do operate in other countries. It is not a quantum leap to arrive at that conclusion.
The simple fact is that whether we do it with the Americans or not, the North Warning System must be updated. That decision was reached and that work was done, going back nine years, long before SDI was even thought of.
Hon. Members must realize that they must at least start to accept responsibility, to discuss these matters in an intelligent and coherent way without trying to diffuse and confuse an issue such as NWS by linking it with SDI.
I wish I had the time because I would like to demonstrate to the Hon. Member and others, who probably have limited experience in Arctic flying and Arctic navigation, the value that radar has in flying over 1.3 million square miles of Arctic where compass unreliability is at its highest. I think that if the Hon. Members were exposed to that kind of experience, certainly as crew members they would have some appreciation of the civil aviation dimension that is inherent in an efficient, well operated radar surveillance system, which is what NWS is.
I close, Sir, as I began by reminding Hon. Members of the words of the Prime Minister in Quebec calling our attention to the fact that we are a veteran of two world wars and Korea, that we have acquired our national sovereignty honourably and, in important measure, owing to the enormous sacrifice of generations of Canadians who, with genuine courage and in many cases with their very lives, ensured that we would be able to function in this mode discussing matters such as this. Once again, let me caution Members that countries that do not pay attention to history and its lessons, that neglect the defence of their country, that lose interest in the defence of their country, are very soon the victims of the loss of their liberties, loss of their freedoms, loss of their independence and, indeed, loss of their country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have one very short question which requires a very short answer. Would the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) tell us whether he supports the use of AECL funds for the development of nuclear power for the North Warning System? Would he support the powering of the North Warning System sites with nuclear power in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, I think that the Hon. Member is alluding to the so-called nuclear battery, which is very much in the experimental stage. At the moment the power source for the system itself has not yet been determined.
AECL quite independently is working on research into the nuclear battery. What that will lead to we do not know. We

March 19, 1985
Supply
are in the world of hypothesis. I am not going to venture a yes or a no answer to a question about a nuclear battery that may not ever come about or a radar system that will function on power generated from quite a different source. At the moment I would expect that the conventional sources of supplying power are those contemplated, but that could change.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in the most recent Congressional Budget there is a suggestion that two of the sites in Canada will be powered in 1986-87 with the nuclear generation system that is being developed in Los Alamos. Following completion of testing in Los Alamos, if it is suggested for implementation at those two or more sites, would the Minister of National Defence support that kind of powering for sites north of 60?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think I have enough problems looking after our own budgetary problems and have very little spare time to be studying the budgets of other countries. I can tell the Hon. Member that, regardless of what might be displayed in the budgets of other countries, we will make the decisions on behalf of Canadians in Canada for Canada.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Could the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), insofar as is possible in this forum, describe the limitations that are present in the current system? I understand the gaps, but could he explain more fully what other limitations the system might have that we now have in place?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the big limitation is in the millions of dollars per year maintenance because the system is outmoded and inefficient.
There are, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs described, holes in the atmospheric roof that have to be plugged. Those are mainly in central and eastern Canada and in the High Arctic adjacent to those areas. But given the modernized NWS that is contemplated, there will be a tight and total surveillance capacity over the entire air space of Canada. It is meant and intended to be for the defence of Canada in asserting our sovereignty over that air space so we know what aircraft are intruding into that air space and so we can make decisions with respect to that intrusion. But gaps there are and those gaps will have to be plugged and will be plugged by the modernization of the system.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a contrast between the glowing terms with which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) describes the Quebec meeting last weekend and the comments by a conservatively inclined newspaper of Toronto, The Toronto Sun. The column written by Claire Hoy, from which I will quote briefly, just to put things back into a different perspective at least, reads:
Like a small child tugging at his mother's skirts for attention. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney yesterday took our natural intercontinental friendship with the U.S. into the uncomfortable realm of mindless obedience to a powerful parent.
The so-called Shamrock summit-is supposed to demonstrate how two relatively equal sovereign states can resolve their common differences.
Instead, it has all the appearance of an American master being greeted by a panting Canadian lapdog, wagging his tail furiously hoping to have a few bones tossed in his direction.
The first and most important bone was an agreement by the two leaders to name former Ontario Premier Bill Davis and former U.S. Transportation Secretary Andrew Lewis as special envoys to resolve the joint issue of acid rain.
The appointment is instructive because it demonstrates how stage-managed this event is, and underscores the fact that if you want to defuse the volatile political issue, nobody could bury it better than Davis.
This, of course, is by way of background commentary. I would not want to elaborate further in that direction. What I would like to do briefly is to bring to your attention the fact, as a result of the announcement on acid rain over the weekend, for the first time this Progressive Conservative Government is facing an environmental community of non-governmental groups which, for the first time since election, are not supportive of the Conservative Government decision on acid rain.
Why is that coming about for the first time? Evidently there is profound disappointment and not only just within the ranks of non-governmental groups.
President Reagan, if you look at the record, said in Quebec City just about the same on acid rain as he did in 1981 when he came to Ottawa. Can that be called progress? I suppose in Progressive Conservative terms that can be called progress, but the Conservatives will be alone with that kind of assessment.
In Quebec City the Prime Minister and President Reagan failed to give leadership on this important question. They side-stepped the issue and really the winner on that day was the National Coal Association. The Executive Vice-President, Danny Ellerman, speaking on acid rain said, "Acid rain is a subterfuge". This is the same Coal Association whose President, Carl Bagge, wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) some weeks ago complimenting him on his stand on acid rain. Isn't that a strange source for praise, Mr. Speaker?
The question is, why did the Prime Minister fail to give leadership? Why did he give away Canada's bargaining position two months ago? Why did he not draw to the attention of the President that smoke-stack emissions in Canada are 4.6 million tonnes compared with 26 million tonnes in the United States, theirs being over five times ours and we being downwind of theirs? Why did he not bring to their attention that in terms of research in Canada we spend on a per capita basis twice as much as the U.S.? Why did he not bring to their attention that in terms of car emissions, tonnage per year, U.S. emissions are ten times ours? Did he make any use of the memorandum of understanding which was signed in August 1980? Why did he feel he had to go to Quebec City on his environmental knees instead of putting the issue squarely to President Reagan for solution because it can only be dealt with at the political level?
Scientific communities in Canada and in the United States have agreed that there is enough scientific knowledge to move with a decision. This statement was made back in 1983 by the United States National Academy of Sciences. In essence, the Prime Minister agreed to further research.
It is quite clear from the interventions this afternoon that the Progressive Conservative Government is desperately trying
March 19, 1985

to rewrite history and to convince the Canadian public that the acid rain story began on September 4, 1984. It might be worthwhile to put on the record the fact that on August 5, 1980 the memorandum of intent on acid rain between Canada and the United States was signed. It raised a lot of hope, and quite rightly so. We thought we could continue in the fine tradition of settling trans-boundary environmental issues jointly, as we did with Lake Erie and on many other occasions. Efforts followed, but when it became evident that not even William Ruckelshaus, in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, could convince his own Government to proceed with a control program in the winter of 1983-84, we had to make a decision on our own. On March 6, 1984, provincial and federal Ministers of the Environment jointly decided to go for a cut of 50 per cent by 1984. On March 20 of the same year, here in Ottawa, nine friendly and similarly inclined nations joined us in a declaration whereby we would commit ourselves to a minimum cut of 30 per cent by 1993. In May of that year, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, through its Minister, produced a paper for the modernization of non-ferrous smelters, indicating how a reduction in emissions could be achieved. In June of that year, the political commitment was renewed again in Ottawa. Also we had the satisfaction in Munich of seeing the number go up from 10 to 20 nations committed to join in the 30 per cent cut by 1993.
The focus is now shifting away from Ottawa and Washington. Apparently it is in the hands of Messrs. Davis and Lewis. We should ask ourselves what will bring Americans to the negotiating table to cut down S02 emissions. There are only two considerations which one has to keep in mind. Either the U.S. Government will be motivated by domestic economic considerations-and evidently those considerations have not yet emerged in their political mind-or by international pressures by the international community urging the United States administration to join this minimum group of nations willing to cut down the emissions by 30 per cent by 1993.
We have an opportunity between now and next July in Helsinki when EEC member nations will be meeting to sign the protocol. I urge the Government to pay attention to this opportunity. It is through that group that we might be able to bring the United States Government to the table to join with us in the cuts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply now before the House in accordance with Standing Order 62(9). Accordingly, the question is the following one. Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That this House condemns the Government's failure in bilateral relations with the United States with particular reference to:
1.	the failure to obtain an agreement from the United States to make a commitment to early action on its share of environmental damage due to acid rain; and
2.	the failure to make specific, that Canada would not participate in any way in the star wars project of the United States.
____________________________3]93
Supply
In amendment thereto, Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Chretien, moves:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "rain" and by adding the following:
", and by allowing a one-year moratorium before any concrete action is taken by the United States despite the express wish of millions of Canadians and Americans; and
"(b) the failure to make specific that Canada would not participate in any way in the star wars project of the United States and, especially, the failure to obtain ironclad guarantees that no nuclear arms will be stationed or deployed in Canada."
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the motion lost.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, unless there is some reason for Members to change their mind, I think the same vote could be recorded on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I sense a disposition on this matter.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as much as I enjoy votes these days, I will agree with the proposition being put forward. I love those votes!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) on a point of order.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the first vote, but 1 wish to be counted for the second vote.


Mr. Benjamin:: The question is, Mr. Speaker, which way does he want to be counted?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Member indicated he wanted to be counted the same way as the gentleman beside him was counted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We can't assume that.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.16 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 20, 1985