1986-06-13

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, CF-18 aircraft maintenance will soon have to be provided by a Canadian company. Canadair, CAE and North West Industries have established a consortium to get this contract.
Unlike this Government, the Liberal Party is firmly committed to support Quebec's aerospace industry.
As a leader in research and development as well as in subcontracting, Canadair strengthens, supports and justifies the presence of other aerospace industries in Quebec.
Therefore, we Liberal Members of Quebec urge the Conservative Government to sustain the growth of the provincial aerospace industry when making the final decision to award the contract, and particularly to protect the jobs of all Canadair employees whose skill has been amply demonstrated.
* *
*


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, airports in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding of Manicouagan are being equipped with facilities and million-dollar instrument landing systems unheard of at airports with 10 times the air traffic. Seven small airports in Manicouagan are in line for over $19 million in grants over the next two years. Gravel-strip runways in areas with little or no traffic are being paved in other Conservative ridings.
We are aware of the Prime Minister's love of Hercules aircraft and video cameras, but it appears he is getting carried even further away with major airport upgrading projects in his riding. It is passing strange that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is heard in some ridings to say that his Department is eager to fund local airport projects. Yet where
there are needs in sizeable communities he often writes that he cannot help them at the present time due to financial restraints.
If the Prime Minister feels so insecure in his riding that he has to make these large expenditures, let him at least spend these patronage dollars on something that his own people can use and appreciate.
* *
*


TOURISM
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Government has recognized the tourism potential inherent in the currency differential between the Canadian and U.S. dollars. I have noted that in most of the Government's tourism advertising and promotion in the United States, the U.S. dollar premium is a prominent selling feature. If American tourists are treated fairly and given good value for their money in Canada, we stand a much better chance of increasing our share of one of the most lucrative tourism markets in the world.
In the summer of 1985 a survey showed that only one in 50 Americans thought of Canada as a vacation destination. However, statistics are showing a 16 per cent increase in U.S. travel to Canada so far this year. This is in large part due to better advertising by the tourism Ministry and the promotion of a fair exchange rate.
* *


IMPORTANCE OF RELATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the importance of trade relations between Canada and the United States. The United States is the main trade partner of Canada, and vice versa.
Canada-U.S. trade exchanges topped $165 billion in 1984, by far the world's most important bilateral trade relations.

June 13, 1986
More than 75 per cent of Canadian trade is done with the United States.
More than 20 per cent of United States trade is done with Canada, and Americans trade more with Ontario than with Japan, their second trade partner. They do more trade with British Columbia than with China. They do more trade with Canada than they do with the whole European Economic Community, which is made up of ten countries.
From 1964 to 1984, American exports to Canada rose more rapidly than total American exports. Mr. Speaker, our two countries have common and complementary resources. Respective access to our two markets can only enhance the quality of life of Americans and Canadians.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, during a recent visit to New Brunswick I had an opportunity to view first hand the CN shops in Moncton. I met with hundreds of workers, with the SOS committee, and with municipal officials. I can report back to the House that they are all very concerned with what is taking place.
The faces of the workers told me the story. When I spoke to them, it struck me just how deeply important it is to them and their families that these shops remain open. I assured the workers that I would do all I could within my power to ensure that the shops remain open and that jobs are protected.
Now that the CN's internal study into its maintenance requirements is finally completed, it is time for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to act. The Minister made a clear commitment that the shops would not close as long as he was a Minister. I urge him to keep his word and act accordingly-


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the economies of both Canada and Quebec depend largely on competitive and dynamic marketing of goods and services on international markets. Our Government is giving trade the vital emphasis it
deserves because it has understood the need for recovering world markets lost during the last fifteen years.
Exports represent 23 per cent of Quebec's DNP; 66 per cent of these exports go to the United States, and the people of Beauce play a vital role in this respect.
Manufacturers in the Beauce area realized the need for diversifying production and taking advantage of external markets, and as a result, the region is one of the most dynamic in the country in terms of industrial development, job creation and its steadily dropping unemployment rate.
In Quebec, exports represent nearly one quarter of DNP. We must pursue this avocation, and our Government is providing its support. We are on the right track. Beauce has got the message and is reaping the rewards.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, some attention has been given recently to the greenhouse effect, the way in which, through burning fossil fuels, using certain fluorocarbons, clearcutting and wasting our forest, and the inevitable production of methane that comes from increased population, we are fast eating away the protective ozone layer and threatening to warm up the atmosphere in ways that could make deserts of the Prairies and Atlantises of many coastal cities.
There are certain things that we already know would be helpful. A ban on the culpable aerosol sprays would not be the end of the world, yet it has not happened. Serious, massive reforestation would be an unselfish investment in the future and physically possible. Yet this does not happen, like so many other measures to protect the ecosphere.
Instead, we spend our time here yelling and shouting about who is lying to whom, about conflicts of interest, about videos and aircraft, and yes, about even more obviously important issues like free trade, all of which is just so much rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if we do not wake up to our responsibilities for acting fast to halt the fading sustainability of healthy human life on this planet. If we fail, we will be justly reviled by the unlucky survivors of our myopia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
June 13, 1986


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) announced that the low level air defence project has received final program approval by the Government, and that negotiations with Oerlikon-Buhrle have been successful in ensuring that the program is affordable under the defence capital budget. This billion dollar announcement again reinforces the Government's commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces.
The selected system will provide a capability which has no equal anywhere, and one that can effectively meet the threat of tank and aircraft strikes against our forces in Europe.
The military requirements which will make this system necessary include a training capability for the new equipment which will be established at the Air Defence Artillery School at CFB Chatham, New Brunswick. This indicates a firm military presence has indeed been guaranteed at this base.
On behalf of the people of Northumberland-Miramichi, I thank the Government for following through on a commitment which will ensure security for our forces in Europe and a future for the employees at CFB Chatham.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, recent media reports might leave the impression that this House is a babble of banshees, that Hon. Members while away the hours calling each other names, and that we are constantly amid bedlam in this Chamber.
Just for the record it should be shown that we can cooperate here and accomplish a great deal. For example, on June 11 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) introduced changes to the Canada Pension Plan Act. As reported at page 14249 of Hansard, he said:
I would like particularly to commend my two critics, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) and the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who not only have co-operated but have put forward suggestions.
Those Members responded in kind, describing how the committee discussed the reforms and how the recommendations were addressed in an orderly, adult manner. Those Members were not rewarded for their accomplishment. No bevy of microphones greeted them when they left the Chamber. No headlines trumpeted their co-operation. Barbara Frum had no time for them.

And it seems that "Le point" didn't either.

They simply got the job done, and Canadians should know that that happens quite often in the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, among the most important unfinished business in Canada is that of a just and equitable settlement of the outstanding comprehensive claims of Canada's aboriginal peoples. In order to accomplish this goal there is an urgent need for a new policy on comprehensive claims which will affirm aboriginal rights rather than call for their extinguishment. As well, the new policy must ensure that Canada's first peoples have effective participation in the management of lands and resources, that they derive direct benefit from resource development, and that the political rights of aboriginal peoples be given constitutional protection.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, for many years the National Research Council has had as a priority the aiding of Canadian industry to improve its production and its innovation. Analyses show that the $70 million IRAP program administered by NRC last year will result in $1.5 billion in new sales and $420 million in federal and provincial taxes. This is a tremendous return on the federal Government's investment, particularly when one considers that these activities will result in 12,000 full-time jobs.
Thus, for the second consecutive year the National Research Council has won the gold medal in the Canada Awards for excellence in technology transfer.
The IRAP program has been enormously successful, and I would encourage all Members of the House to endorse the continued support and enhancement of the program.

June 13, 1986
Oral Questions HUMAN RIGHTS


EL SALVADOR-GOVERNMENT'S TREATMENT OF CHURCH REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Napoleon Duarte in El Salvador continues to lose credibility and support. It is now attacking church figures, including even the Archbishop, by accusing his organization of funnelling money to the FMLN. A prisoner of the Treasury Police has also denounced an Episcopalian priest, a pastor of the Lutheran Church, an administrator in the Lutheran Church, an official of the Baptist Church, and a program worker of the Roman Catholic Diocese.
The indications are that many of Duarte's colleagues will use aid money from other countries such as Canada to build bases for themselves in the next elections when Duarte is no longer considered a viable candidate.
The European Community has a joint policy of all the European Community countries toward all of Central America, through which it apportions financial and other kinds of development aid. I urge Canada to consider consulting with the European Community before continuing with aid to such a weak and violent Government as the Duarte Government.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery today of Mr. George Bush, VicePresident of the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS OF TURKEY
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Veysel Atasoy, Minister of Transport and Communications of Turkey.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the
absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the rapidly deteriorating situation in South Africa. He knows, and the Prime Minister knows, that there is now a state of emergency there. One thousand political prisoners are being held, there are riots, and they have press censorship. That regime is offending humanity and what is happening in South Africa demands a response, I believe, from this country.
My question is the same question that Bishop Tutu is asking. When is the world going to act? My question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and through him to the Prime Minister of our country, is when is Canada going to act?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has taken a leadership role in acting with respect to the South African situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Announcements to that end were made last July and they were made again in the House yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He also discussed frankly with the House the wide range of options that were still left and would be pursued by Canada if necessary.


IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that the Prime Minister should act now and intervene personally to persuade the British Government, that today he should take advantage of the U.S. Vice-President's visit, and that he should also intervene to persuade the Government of West Germany, thus urging all three countries to agree, with Canada, on imposing severe economic sanctions on South Africa?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman would agree with me that there is a very worthwhile objective here in making every endeavour to ensure that the Commonwealth remains united and to ensure that as many western nations as possible act in concert with Canada with respect to the lead that Canada has taken.
The Prime Minister has already, as the House was informed yesterday, commenced the process of communicating with the Heads of other Governments to achieve the very purpose which the right hon. gentleman says is desirable.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REASSES SITUATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us yesterday that the Government was awaiting the Commonwealth meeting in August. We take the position that that is too long. The situation is deteriorating rapidly. The Right Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia and co-
June 13, 1986

chairman of the Eminent Persons Group, said on Canadian television last night that the situation will not wait.
Over the weekend will the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, and their colleagues, review and reassess this situation so that Canada starts showing the way in what is a very, very serious situation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is not alone in appreciating the fact that it is a serious situation. The Government has recognized that fact and acted as much as a year ago. If he assumes that the Prime Minister is doing nothing now with respect to communicating with other nations, that assumption is wrong. The Prime Minister is very pro active in his attempts to obtain the support of other Commonwealth nations. He has certainly been displaying a heck of a lot more leadership in this area than did any predecessor Government in the country.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday White House spokesmen and the President himself confirmed that the United States will no longer abide by the limitations of the SALT II Treaty. In the discussions being held today with the Vice-President of the United States has Canada made known its very deep sense of disagreement with this policy? Can the Minister tell us what actions the Government will be taking to give voice and expression to that strong disappointment and disagreement?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. gentleman was here on the day that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the position of the Canadian Government quite clear. For those who might believe there is any confusion arising out of the statement made by President Reagan yesterday and those which followed, whichever version you might wish to adopt, Canada's position has not altered one iota. It remains as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that the agreement which was signed between Canada and the United States on testing their Cruise missile was predicated upon an active pursuit of arms control. Does the Minister now agree with the recommendations put forward by the Canadian Centre for Arms Control
Oral Questions
and Disarmament that Canada should continue this arrangement only if the United States adheres to limitations of the SALT II and that, if it does not adhere to those limits, Canada should refuse to test the Cruise missile any further? Does the Minister agree with that position and will he express that to the United States Vice-President?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman would agree with me that the ultimate objective here is achieving an enhanced arms limitation agreement. That achievement cannot be unilateral. It must be by both the superpowers involved.
The Geneva talks are on-going. New proposals have been made, and no doubt will be made. I think the actions of the Government of Canada should support that far more desirable objective of an enhanced arms control agreement. I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree that that should be our ultimate objective.


APARTHEID
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister on the alarming and worsening situation in South Africa. The Minister has suggested in the House that the Government is attempting to get a united Commonwealth position on this situation. Will he confirm that, according to paragraph seven of the Accord that was reached in Nassau, since the eminent persons made a report which was not accepted by South Africa, the Government is now free to take independent action? Paragraph seven specifically alludes to that. It lists eight possible courses of action open to Commonwealth Governments to act on their own. Could the Minister tell us why the Government of Canada chose the weakest possible options in that list to act upon?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman. His own critic stated yesterday that the Government had taken actions in this connection which were far ahead of any taken by any previous administration.


John Edward Broadbent: That's not the issue.


Erik Nielsen: She appeared to me to be very supportive of what the Government was doing. She did suggest that further steps could be taken. The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not say that those steps would not be taken. Indeed, he said there was a wide range of options which remain available and that we would be proceeding to consult with other Commonwealth countries to see to it that the broadest

June 13, 1986
Oral Questions
possible degree of support could be obtained from those countries.


AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the Prime Minister's sincerity on this issue. I happen to hold him in high regard concerning his commitment to the issue. However, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he is trivializing the issue when he keeps referring to past Governments. The reality is that South Africa is on the verge of civil war. That is horribly serious as the Deputy Prime Minister will understand, I hope.
In that context, and since all the opposition Parties in the U.K. are asking that Margaret Thatcher act on the tougher options, why has the Government turned down the suggestion that it show leadership by choosing one option, the second and third on the list, which say we will not take any more agricultural imports from South Africa and that we will ban Canadian investment in South Africa? Surely that is the kind of concrete measure that the eminent persons, Bishop Tutu, and all those seriously concerned, are looking for from Canada?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. gentleman states that the Government has turned down options. He knows that is not correct. The action the Government has taken thus far in a very broad way has been highly regarded by-


John Edward Broadbent: By?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: World opinion.


Erik Nielsen: -by world opinion, and certainly by anything I have seen or read-


John Edward Broadbent: By Ray Hnatyshyn.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is very close.


Erik Nielsen: -in the media. I would remind the hon. gentleman of the statement made just yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he said:
There is no question that the wider range of economic measures and indeed other measures which Canada might wish to take against apartheid remain to be taken. We have indicated quite clearly that if necessary we will take them.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there are many people, including the former Prime Minister of Australia, Bishop Tutu, the united Opposition in the U.K.-even the U.S. Congress is introducing a Bill next week that would ban all U.S. investment in South Africa-demanding action. Are we as a member of the Commonwealth going to wait for the lead to come from the U.S. which is not even in the Commonwealth? I plead with the Deputy Prime Minister to
have the Government reconsider on the weekend and assume the traditional leadership role this country has had on Commonwealth matters, stand up for the black majority, and announce tough economic sanctions against South Africa.


Erik Nielsen: To hear the hon. gentleman speak, Sir, one would think we have not been doing just that. The fact is that this Government has been way out in front in taking the leadership role on this question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We will continue to do just that.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT NOT DELAY ACTION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, in my view the crisis is not in South Africa but here in Canada, where the Government claims the measures it has taken are adequate. Personally, I believe these cowardly measures-I am not the only one to think so, thousands of Canadians agree with me-are sending a message to South Africa and to the whole world that the Canadian Government is willing to wait instead of acting immediately.
I would like to task the Deputy Prime Minister: Since the situation is deteriorating at the speed of light, is it still the Government's position that the situation in South Africa can wait until the August meeting of Commonwealth countries?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman tries to leave the impression that this Government is standing still. That is patently absurd. The actions this Government is taking and has taken, very much in a leadership role, are visible for all to see. Naturally, monitoring is an ongong process. It is being done, and if any further steps are to be taken they will be taken. I do not know how much more positive one can be in order to get that through to the hon. gentleman.


SUGGESTION THAT UNITED STATES TAKE MORE ENERGETIC MEASURES
Jacques Guilbault: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. So if I understand correctly, it can wait until August. Nero fiddles while Rome burns!
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, since the U.S. Vice-President, Mr. Bush, is here today-and I welcome him-is the Government going to take advantage of this opportunity and ask the United States to take more energetic measures immediately with respect to the situation in South Africa?
June 13, 1986


Erik Nielsen: The hon. gentleman, again, repeats something notwithstanding the fact that I am standing here saying the opposite. He charges us with waiting until August. That is not true. He heard me answer his Leader. He heard me answer the Leader of the New Democratic Party that we are not waiting for August.
The Prime Minister is very much in the process of communicating with other members of the Commonwealth of Nations to ensure that we get the broadest possible support for the actions Canada has already taken and, if necessary, further actions to end the evil system that exists in South Africa.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. With reference to SALT II in the reply he gave a moment ago he said that the objective of the United States Government was to achieve an enhanced arms limitation agreement. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain, since I assume he has been talking to Vice-President Bush about this, how you can achieve an enhanced arms limitation agreement when you are planning to breach the limits of an existing agreement, SALT II? How can you do that? Is that not totally inconsistent?


Erik Nielsen: It is totally inconsistent to me that one can achieve an enhanced arms limitation agreement unilaterally. One cannot achieve an arms limitation agreement when it is being constantly breached by the other party to that arms limitation agreement.
Surely what we would all desire to see is both sides agree to an enhanced arms limitation agreement. I have no doubt that that is the ultimate objective of the United States. I do have some doubts, in view of the existing breaches of that agreement by the Soviet Union, that they may not be genuine in achieving an enhanced arms limitation agreement.


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that they are constantly breaching it on the Soviet side, but has never been able to give an example. The examples he gave the other day did not relate to SALT II.
If, in fact, the United States Government determines to breach the limits established under SALT II, and, particularly, in relation to air launch Cruise missiles, will this Government
Oral Questions
say now to the United States it will not be complicit in such a breach and will, therefore, not continue with the testing of the air launch Cruise missile?


Erik Nielsen: The honourable lady makes a statement that is not accurate when she states to the House that I have failed to give examples of breaches by the Soviet Union of SALT II. There are clear breaches in the bringing on by the Soviets of the SS-25 missile. That is a clear breach. A clear breach is the construction of the Krasnoyarsk radar, that is a clear breach of SALT II. It is a clear breach of SALT II to encrypted telemetry, which the Soviets are doing. So those are three clear breaches.
If those are brought onside and the Soviet Union demonstrates that it intends to honour the provisions of SALT II, surely that is the desirable situation and would lead to more greatly enhanced arms limitation agreements that can be achieved with some confidence that they are going to be adhered to by both sides.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Could he perhaps explain to the House why 15 per cent of his current budget and 40 per cent of next year's budget for airports in Quebec will be spent in the riding of Manicouagan? And why he is going to spend more this year on the Chevery airport than on Dorval and Mirabel altogether?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, what really is at issue here is that we are overcoming years and years of neglect in that region. Many of the initiatives to which the Hon. Member has referred were discussed back in 1983, and again in 1984, and when this Government assumed office we decided to act and give the residents of Manicouagan a first-class aviation system to enhance safety and to enhance service in that region. Why would the Member want to discriminate against the people of Manicouagan?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

June 13, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF REASONS WHY GOVERNMENT IS PROVIDING FUNDS TO MANICOUAGAN AIRPORT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to discriminate against the people of Manicouagan. I am merely questioning the excessively presidential aspirations of the Prime Minister who always wants to drive around in Cadillacs or in the best-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question, please.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Transport confirm that the Prime Minister wants to bring his Hercules aircraft to his riding, which is why he wants to spend more on a small airport in Manicouagan, in terms of facilities and sophisticated equipment, than on other airports with ten, fifteen or 20 times the volume in relation to facilities in the province of Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it most disgusting that the Hon. Member opposite would want to politicize all the good things we are trying to do for the good people of Quebec. This is not the only action that has been taken on improving airport services in the country. As I said, we are overcoming years and years of neglect as a result of the Liberal administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APARTHEID
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As a follow-up to yesterday's statement on Canada's limited economic sanctions against South Africa, and since Canada supplies 100 per cent of South Africa's sulphur, will the Deputy Prime Minister, or one of his cabinet colleagues, direct Petro-Canada, the government oil company, to cease immediately the export or selling of sulphur to South Africa?


Erik Nielsen: That is certainly one of the economic options to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred yesterday, and falls within the umbrella of the answers that I have given to other questions today.


ACQUISITION OF AIRCRAFT BY WARDAIR
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since the
Government called for voluntary sanctions by the private sector, will the Government act to prevent Wardair from purchasing aircraft from South Africa and having their flight crews trained in that country?


Erik Nielsen: With respect to Wardair this is a straight deal between Wardair and South African Airways. I am informed that it involves the leasing of equipment and does not involve direct air service for cargo or passengers between South Africa and Canada. That is what Canada is committed to prevent. We have no ban on the import of goods such as aircraft at the moment.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the report prepared under the direction of his colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River, who is now the Minister of State for Science and Technology. This is a report regarding the renovation of Treaty 8. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether this report has such status with the Government that it will be used in the formulation of government policy with respect to aboriginal self-government?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member would recognize that the Minister of State for Science and Technology has been very active in terms of trying to come up with solutions which will help us, as a country, resolve the issues relating to the dilemmas that beset our native people. He put forward a report, and all that I can tell the Hon. Member today is that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will not only use the best advice he has from the Minister of State for Science and Technology, but also from other Members to try to come up with a solution to this issue. Frankly, it is an issue that needs the best advice not only from all Members of the House but from Canadians generally.


B. Keith Penner: That is a bit vague.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
B. Keith Penner: Will the Minister state more precisely whether the Government still holds the position that was enunciated by the Prime Minister on April 2, 1985, at the First Ministers' Conference, when he said: "This renovation process should provide us with a guide for building a positive, constructive relationship with other aborginal communities." Is that the position of the Government today?
June 13, 1986


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, not only was that the position of the Prime Minister and the Government at the time he made that statement at the First Ministers' meeting with aboriginal leaders, that remains the Prime Minister's very specific goal as he and the Government work toward the next meeting in 1987. The Hon. Member is well aware of these issues. I am trying to stress to him that no one person's or no one government's plan has yet brought together the solutions which we so desperately seek as a nation. The Prime Minister is deeply committed to try to solve that issue. This will help us, and I hope that we will have the support of the Official Opposition in bringing forth those best ideas.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the trade Ministers, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. What is the reaction of the Government to the latest threat to Canada-United States commercial relations, namely, the unwarranted attack by certain United States producers against Canada's lead and zinc exports?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, this request for information is provided for within Section 305 of the United States Trade Act. With regard to the reopening of the mine in the Arctic by Curraugh Resources and the proposed development for the lead smelter for Cominco, we believe that both of these are private sector initiatives and will pass any test requested.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-TERMS OF QUEBEC ACCORD
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will be aware that yesterday in Vancouver, Vice-President Bush said that President Reagan broke faith with the commitment he made to the Prime Minister in Quebec City because he had to keep faith with commitments at home and considerations in the United States. Does this mean that this Accord is no longer in place?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, no doubt that is another example of the twist that the hon. gentleman usually puts on questions of that nature. That question has been answered in the House over and over again. The answers given by the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs still hold true.


THREAT OF U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN CATTLE EXPORTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in that case the Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the United States has been launching another initiative in the last few days toward imposing a tariff on our cattle and beef exports to the United States, worth nearly one-half billion dollars annually. Did he raise the issue of this new threat against our cattlemen when he met with Vice-President Bush? Does the Prime Minister plan to raise it in his discussions, or will we simply get another "Dear Ron" letter, written after the fact?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can comment on that. Just before Question Period today a number of Ministers met with Vice-President Bush. The first item on the agenda was trade matters. The VicePresident is very much aware of the concerns that have been expressed in Canada about the actions that are being taken in the United States. I think that was reflected in the speech made by the Vice-President, not in the distortions of that speech that the Hon. Member has consistently used which do no credit to himself or to his Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is getting very close to personal comment.


TARIFF ON BOOK IMPORTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. His tariffs on American book imports, touted by him as retaliation against the Americans, while really shooting Canadians in the foot, will hit innocent bystanders like the Europeans. Today the European Economic Community's Committee 113 is meeting to consider measures of their own against Canada. Now that the seeds for a trade war have been sown, will the Minister remove this ill-advised, poorly conceived tariff on the Canadian book industry before much more serious damage is done?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that the response of the Government to the action taken by the Americans on the shakes and shingles industry was to identify those trade areas that are predominantly with the United States. In this case I believe it was 88 per cent or 90 per cent with the United States. It is not possible under the GATT rules for us to exempt other countries from that type of action. That is the basis for it. She is well aware of the reasons why we have taken that action. If we had not taken that action, I am sure she or some of her colleagues would be the first on their feet to ask why we were rolling over and playing dead when the Americans take this action against us.


Sheila Finestone: Pick the pharmaceuticals, not the books which put the cultural industries on the table.

June 13, 1986
Oral Questions RETAIL BOOK PRICES


Sheila Finestone: Is the Minister aware that people who buy English language books will have to pay more than the 10 per cent tariff and as much as 15 per cent when they want to buy their favourite Agatha Christie book because there will be adminstrative costs and tariff costs? You will need an army out there to examine all the books coming across the border and you are being discriminatory on the basis of language.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members know that references to "you" are out of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to the Hon. Member. As I have indicated, the actions we have taken in the book industry have a cost, as the actions taken by the Americans on shakes and shingles had a cost in the United States for people who want to buy that product. My officials, my staff, and the staff of the Minister of Communications have had discussions with the publishing industry. I will be meeting with representatives of the industry later this month.


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Mines). Mr. Minister, are you aware of an article in the newspaper La Tribune-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I must tell the Hon. Member that "you" references are not allowed. Questions and answers must go through the Chair, please.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware of an article in the newspaper La Tribune to the effect that the provincial MNA for the Eastern Townships, Mr. Yvon Vallieres, has complained about the lack of federal representation at the International Labour Organization conference now being held in Geneva and where asbestos is one of the major items on the agenda?
Can the Minister shed light on the role of the Canadian Government?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, anyone entertaining doubt about the Government's commitment in this matter has to be misinformed. Our Government has been supportive of asbestos workers for over 20 months, and our propositions at Geneva are expressed by all participants. About one hundred countries have been advised of our Government's position, and I have been told that the total ban option will be rejected at Geneva.


PROPOSED U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN TRUCKS CROSSING INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport in the absence of the Prime Minister. The Minister is aware that on July 7 the United States Government will start charging a tariff on trucks, railcars, and so on, crossing into the United States, thereby making our exports more expensive. Was this matter raised with the American Vice-President this morning? If so, what action is he going to take to remove this barrier to Canadian trade?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the proposal to which the Hon. Member refers. I am not aware if the issue was raised with the Vice-President or not. But I can tell the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister and the Vice-President will be meeting later on this afternoon. It may very well come up at that time.


UNITED STATES POSITION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would not agree that if this crossing fee is not withdrawn it will be yet another sign of bad faith bargaining by the American Government at a time when your side is trying to reach a free trade agreement? Would the Minister not agree with that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that observation is consistent with the New Democratic Party-


Mr. Deans:: Accurate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -which does not want to engage in a better and more enhanced trading relationship with the United States and other countries.


John Edward Broadbent: That's not true, Don. That is simply not true.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That's not true? Well, you can't have it both ways, Ed. You can't have it both ways.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You can't on the one hand mouth that you want enhanced trade and on the other hand you don't want negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
June 13, 1986


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister will know that a very serious situation has developed in Cape Breton whereby the United Mine Workers of America are presently occupying the management offices at the Glace Bay General Mining building. They are doing that out of total frustration with the Government of Canada. I ask the Minister very sincerely what steps he is prepared to take to have this matter resolved? Furthermore, would he tell the House what steps he and his colleagues are prepared to take in order to resolve the high unemployment amongst coal miners at the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which rightfully belongs within the Corporation's mandate, management, and the board of directors. Naturally, we are deeply concerned about the matter. We are very deeply concerned about the high levels of unemployment in that region. This Government is doing something about it. Close to a thousand new jobs have been created under the auspices of the initiatives of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. That work is continuing. There will be more jobs and more industrial initiatives to come in the future.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT PLANS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister, and I say it sincerely, this situation has the potential to become very serious. I do not want him to fluff it off to a highly paid executive in a Crown corporation who has demonstrated no concern or compassion for the workers in that area. Will the Minister give a directive to the President of the Cape Breton Development Corporation to commence immediately meaningful discussions on alternate plans in order to find employment for the in excess of 1,000 individuals who are without jobs at the Cape Breton Development Corporation? Would he do that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not fluffing the Hon. Member's representations off. I know he presents the problem in a very serious vein and I take his representations very seriously. I hope he would give me the opportunity to examine the situation and we will certainly see what we can do. I am in no way fluffing the issue off, but I do remind the Hon. Member of the responsibilities of the management of the Crown corporation. I think these things have to be dealt with in a very sensitive way. I hope he understands that.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


SALMON FISHERY DISPUTE IN NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, my question is directed to the Acting Minister. News reports coming out of northern British Columbia predict a conflict between Fisheries officers and Indian bands who are being given the right to establish a commercial fishery at the head waters of the rivers. In view of the fact this base for the industry is so sensitive, that the entire province depends on a strong resource base at the head waters, and that the new bylaws are threatening that base, would the Minister use the next 48 hours, which are so vital for this industry-


Ian Deans: Question.


Benno Friesen: -to do something about these bylaws because discussions are now ongoing-


Ian Deans: Question.


Benno Friesen: -which could bring unity to the industry?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that representation and pass it on to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that with respect to the bylaws which could come into effect by June 15, both the Indian and non-Indian groups who have an interest in the fishery, I understand, are making arrangements to sit down to develop a regime whereby both groups can function and by which the resource will be both maintained and enhanced. That is the position the Minister is taking, and we will pass on the Hon. Member's representation as well.


TARIFF ON IMPORTED BOOKS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Canadian Book Publishers Council told Department of Finance officials that 4,000 jobs are at risk due to the Minister's thoughtless 10 per cent book tariff. Will the Minister now finally admit that he blew this one? Will he get rid of this tariff? And will he search for retaliation which hurts Americans instead of Canadians?


Ian Deans: Hear, hear!


Mr. Boudria:: Say you're sorry and you won't do it again.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is no. As I indicated to a previous questioner, the matter has been discussed with members of my staff,

June 13, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Edwards
officials in the Department, and I personally will be meeting with representatives of the industry in due course.


REQUEST THAT DIVIDEND WITHHOLDING TAX BE INCREASED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, specifically, will the Government increase the withholding tax on U.S. dividend outflows, a move which will be much more effective to get action on the shakes and shingles issue?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are certain constraints in law by which we are bound and I am sure the Hon. Member would recognize what he has proposed falls into that category. If the Hon. Member is suggesting we break the law, I think he should rethink that one very carefully.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Bring in a Bill.

[ Translation]


TELEVISION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Minister. French television rights to the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in Calgary have been awarded to the CTV network. In turn, the CTV network has awarded the French broadcasting rights in Canada to TVA, a Quebec private sector TV network.
How does the Minister or the Government intend to make sure that the 1988 Olympic Games French TV signal will be received by all francophone communities throughout Canada? Will Radio-Canada which has a national network be authorized to transmit the 1988 Olympic Games TV broadcast to communities of 500 or more residents?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the rights for broadcasting the 1988 Calgary Olympics are assigned by the Calgary Olympic Development Authority. I will take the question as notice and make sure the Minister of Communications is well aware of the situation, and an appropriate response will be forthcoming.


REQUEST FOR SOLUTION TO PROBLEM
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Since TVA is a Quebec private sector network which does not serve francophone communities outside Quebec, at least not the western provinces nor the Maritimes, would the Parliamentary Secretary also make sure that this question will be discussed and that a solution to the problem will be found?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware of the limits to coverage area of TVA. However, I would point out to him that TVA is carried to many communities outside the province of Quebec through its carriage on the Cancom system to remote and under-served communities.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you had a dish. You should have a dish.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, one question.


IMPACT OF PROPOSED U.S. FARM BILL ON CANADIAN AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A recent secret report of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which examined the impact of the U.S. Farm Bill on Canadian agriculture stated that the U.S. is cutting its prices in the world so other exporting countries such as Canada will produce less grain. Since we are now clearly one of the targets of the U.S. Farm Bill, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether or not the Prime Minister told Vice-President Bush this morning that the U.S. Farm Bill will, as the U.S. farm report itself says, kill off the small family farm in Canada? Did he tell that to the Vice-President? Did he also tell the Vice-President not to target Canada?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that kind of discussion has already been had by the Prime Minister with President Reagan. The Prime Minister has not spoken with Vice-President Bush this morning, but he will have that opportunity in-as a matter of fact, he is engaged in that opportunity at this very moment.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is in receipt of two notices of desires to raise questions of privilege. Since they are both the same, the Chair proposes to deal with the one the Chair received first. I think that is the only fair way to deal with the matter. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Edwards).
June 13, 1986


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege arising from the Adjournment Debate last evening in which the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) interjected remarks into the debate which I feel impugned my veracity. The exchange is reported at page 14356 of yesterday's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has raised the same question of privilege; but I have a feeling the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) wishes to rise to respond.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to deal with the Hon. Member's question of privilege first.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the same question-


Mr. Speaker:: I know. I appreciate fully that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has given me notice of a similar question of privilege, but I do not think I can deal with two at once.
Does the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway wish to say something?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw the remarks but I would like to explain why-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Surely I am entitled to explain-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will know that what in fact has happened is that the Chair has had raised with it, not a question of privilege but a point of order. The point of order had to do with unparliamentary language used during a time when points of order are not normally raised. They are normally brought at this time. The Chair would have to find that unparliamentary language was used, and I take it that the Hon. Member has withdrawn and that ends it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, is this the proper time for Your Honour to deal with it, or should it have been dealt with by the Chair last night? I am in your hands on this matter, and I would like a ruling on it. I can then respond to it, if Your Honour would give us a ruling on it. Are not unparliamentary matters supposed to be raised when they happen?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that last night the Chair was faced with the matter being raised at the time. The Chair indicated that in the Chair's view at that time the matter should be raised now. Perhaps I should say to the House that unparliamentary language should be raised and withdrawn at the time. However, once the Chair had indicated that in the Chair's view the matter should be raised today, the Chair has no choice but to allow it to be dealt with today. That
Privilege-Mr. Edwards
does not change the Chair's view that the matter must be withdrawn.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given that Your Honour has ruled that way and that I have had a chance to look at the transcript of last night, I raised the point that the Government had revoked Ursula Franklin's-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that the Chair is simply saying that the language that was used was unparliamentary and that the Hon. Member must unequivocally withdraw. The Chair cannot allow anything more than an unequivocal withdrawal. The Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate why the language was used-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Chair is being very clear. The Hon. Member has used unparliamentary language. He must unequivocally withdraw it or the Chair will be given no other choice.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given that the Government lied about Ursula Franklin's appointment, I will not withdraw-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that the issue is what one may say or may not say, no matter what one thinks. The Hon. Member has used certain language and it is on the record. It was raised at the time and the Chair indicated that the Chair thought that the time to deal with it was now. I suggest to the Hon. Member, with respect, he knows our practices, and I invite him one more time to simply and unequivocally withdraw unparliamentary language.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will withdraw the matter out of respect for you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat. The Hon. Member knows that the Chair has no option but to require an unequivocal withdrawal and nothing else is appropriate. I must ask the Hon. Member to unequivocally withdraw the statement.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally withdraw the statement because there was a misunderstanding last night and I will deal with the Parliamentary Secretary personally on the matter. However, I do withdraw the statement because I do not want to be unparliamentary in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that that should dispose of the question of privilege to be raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.

June 13, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, not necessarily. I would like to have my licks at this thing also. We have been living with this difficulty for some years. The problem is that on the Adjournment Debate the Speaker must allow seven minutes for the Member speaking to the point he wishes to raise and three minutes for the response of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. Points of order pursuant to Beauchesne's and others are not allowed during the Adjournment Debate. I had the floor last night and I started to make a few remarks about Public Service pensions. If Your Honour reads Hansard he will see that it reads kind of funny.
After I stated that I was indeed talking about Public Service pensions the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said: "Those are lies." I object to that kind of language being used. Everyone knows that he has withdrawn it. However, it looks like the comment was made and not withdrawn at that time. I think that reduces my credibility, and also brings in an element which I wish to raise. The House does sit at that time. Last night the Speaker said that the House was not sitting. I disagree. The TV cameras were on. The record shows that we sat, and no matter what the Speaker thinks we were still sitting at that time. I wish to make that clear.
Second, I want to ask the Speaker that, for God's sake, we get our act together in this place at the time of adjournment and decide whether or not anyone can come into the House and start calling a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary anything and get away with it until the next day. That is my point.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me put it to the Hon. Member this way. I will take the Hon. Member's comments as intending to be constructive and not as a comment on the Chair of the time. I think he does not mean it that way. I think he also knows full well what our practices have been with regard to the Adjournment Debate. Let it be clear that there is no question in the Chair's mind that that is a proceeding and that the House is sitting. The matter under debate is: "That this House adjourn?" That is the matter under consideration at the time.
Let me say that out of this it will become clearer that such a matter of unparliamentary language should always be dealt with at exactly the time it occurs, and that is what should happen in the future.



Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the record of the proceedings of the House of Commons for yesterday, June 12,1 have just received a copy of Hansard. I refer Your Honour to page 14297 on which is reported a question asked by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I was listening to the question
myself. I heard the Hon. Member at that time ask a question with respect to conversations that took place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Towers), and an allegation was made with respect to activites at what the Hon. Member referred to as the "Peter Pocklington plant in Red Deer". Mr. Speaker, I have noted with some interest today that in Hansard it is now referred to as the "Fletcher's" plant.
I raise this because there is a substantive change, the implication in the question being that it was with respect to a particular individual who is known, and nationally known. I am just wondering if Your Honour would observe as to whether that is a substantive change in the record and, if so, how it happened and if it is allowable in terms of alteration of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the page and I see the point the Hon. Member is making. I take it that what he would like me to do is discuss and check this matter with the Editor of Hansard and with the tapes. Of course, that will be done. In the end, if Hansard thinks there is a mistake presumably Hansard will do what it normally does in such a course of events and print an erratum. However, the matter will be checked into.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just to make sure things are understood. I was here yesterday and I do think the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said "Peter Pocklington". I heard her say that. I do not think she would deny it. Perhaps in the editing somewhere someone put another word in there to make it more specific. However, I will take it up with the Hon. Member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I am pleased to table in both official languages copies of the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission on competition in the Canadian petroleum industry.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, under Standing Order 67(2), copies in both official languages of a
June 13, 1986

list of the more than 53,000 projects currently under way under the Canadian Jobs Strategy at the Department of Employment and Immigration.


PETITIONS
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government response to two petitions, Nos. 331486 and 331-518.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the report, in both official languages, of the official parliamentary delegation of the Canadian Group Interparliamentary Union to the Sixth Interparliamentary Conference on European co-operation and security in Bonn from May 26 to 31, 1986.



STRIKING


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Thirty-Ninth Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to the House two petitions from constituents in my riding, residing in the villages of
Richibucto, Cocagne and Harcourt. These petitions concern changes made in the Unemployment Insurance Act last January and demand that the changes considered unfair to early retirees be revoked.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition from young students at the Levis Polyvalente and Levis-Lauzon CEGEP. It is a message of peace which supports our Government in its efforts to promote peace in this world.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from constituents of my riding of Perth asking that any restrictions placed on the police force of Metropolitan Toronto in regard to the laying of charges under Section 251 of the Criminal Code be removed so that they may lay charges against the operators of the premises known as the Morgentaler Clinic. My constituents believe that the performance of an unlawful abortion is an affront to law-abiding citizens of Canada.



CURRENCY ACT


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-l 18, an Act to amend the Currency Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

['Agreed.\nJune 13, 1986']
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 29 to ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namley, the deteriorating situation in South Africa and the urgent need for an effective Canadian response. The reason I ask for an emergency debate at this time was clearly amplified during Question Period. Conditions in South

June 13, 1986
Order Paper Questions
Africa are changing hourly and getting worse hourly. The requirement for action is immediate.
We on this side of the House believe that it is important for Parliament to fully express not only its concern, but proposals and ideas for actions that should be taken. We believe that the opportune time for doing this is now. If we have to wait until August for a Commonwealth meeting, by that time the situation may have reached the point where it will be beyond recovery. We humbly ask you to accept our motion, Sir, so that Parliament, on behalf of the Canadian people, may express the deep-felt need for immediate and effective action by the Government at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will understand that my practice has been to announce a decision at this time, but I have to say, as the Hon. Member may know, that there were a number of other things happening this morning. I have not had the requisite time to think about this matter. I therefore propose to reserve for the moment and return to the House as quickly as I can.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the circumstances which caused you to reserve on this matter but, it being Friday, you will understand that Hon. Members have to make plans with respect to weekend obligations.
I would like to make two points. First, Beauchesne's makes reference to the fact that the Chair would consult with House Leaders with respect to the timing of this debate. I do not share the view with respect to the urgency of this matter as I think the response of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has been clear, ongoing and continuous as indicated by answers he gave to questions put during Question Period today. There will be opportunity for debate.
Notwithstanding that, I would ask if it is possible to have a decision on this matter at the earliest moment because there is now a Standing Order before the House with respect to the extension of hours and, under the reform provisions of the Standing Orders, the idea is to expedite legislation and allow for sufficient discussion. If the Chair does decide to have a debate, I anticipate it would begin at the conclusion of today's proceedings and carry on from there. I think Hon. Members would like to be aware of this at the earliest possible moment so that they may cancel their reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: I do appreciate the submission, but the Chair has to make a first decision. The Chair has to decide if the application conforms with the provisions of Standing Order 29 as written. Were the Chair to make that finding, the Hon. Member would then have the right to put the request to the House and the House would then have an option. At that point, there is a provision in the rules that allows the Chair to decide when the debate will be called. If that were to happen, there would be some consultation on timing. However, the Chair has not had sufficient time to answer the first question. I will return to the House as quickly as I can.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 566 and 569.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, did inmates in federal penitentiaries avail themselves of university programs and, if so (a) how many (b) in which penitentiaries did such programs operate (c) what was the total cost of these programs (d) in what manner and to what extent were appropriate program objectives achieved as a result of these programs?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Yes. (a) For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, average full-time students: 204, average part-time students: 94.
(b)	In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, university programs were offered at Laval Institution in Quebec; Prison for Women, Collins Bay and Millhaven Institutions in Ontario; Stony Mountain Institution in Manitoba; Saskatchewan Penitentiary in Saskatchewan; Bowden, Drumheller and Edmonton Institutions in Alberta; and Matsqui, William Head, Mountain and Kent Institutions in British Columbia. Furthermore, inmates could also avail themselves of correspondence courses at all other institutions across the country.
(c)	Total cost for university programs in 85/86: $881,000.
(d)	Educational programs are intended to provide opportunities for academic advancement as well as personal development through goal setting and achievement. The pursuit and achievement of a university degree has been found to be a positive contributing factor to the rehabilitation of the inmate-students.


Mr. Howie: In 1986, does the Department of National Defence plan to place orders for the replacement or acquisition of new ships and, if so, how many?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: No.


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


Pierre H. Vincent: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 13, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have spoken on this Bill. The question I would like to ask is how long must we put this before the Government before it realizes that this is one of the most serious measures with which it has come forward? I have said before and I will say again this afternoon that it affects a very important sector of the population and that is the young people of Canada.
To my mind, this is one of the most serious measures to be brought before the House of Commons. It impacts directly and negatively on the young people of Canada, a group the Senate committee tells us is in danger of becoming a lost generation, a group that is in need of the maximum, not minimum, attention from the Government at this time.
Before dealing with the area of education, I should like to spend some time talking about a subject which I have neglected heretofore, that is, health considerations. I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has left the Chamber because I wanted to read to him his remarks when he was in the Opposition, as reported in Hansard for March 23, 1982. He stated his opposition to the removal of the revenue guarantee of the Established Programs Financing. When referring to the federal Government, he said:
The only sign it shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial Governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending ... That is not co-operative federalism. That is predatory federalism, and it will not and cannot work in this country.
He went on to say, as reported in Hansard for March 24, 1982:
Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the Government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure.
Those were the words of the Minister of Finance when he was in Opposition. Those were his thoughts at that time. That was the position which he took. I suggest it was and is the correct position to take.
His first point was that if we were to deal with the national deficit, the Canadian deficit, we should not do so by simply shifting it from one regime or one level of Government to
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
another. That is the first important point to make if we are to see it in context today.
His second point, which I suggest was equally important and is the correct position at the present time, was that unilaterally cutting the financing as the Government is now proposing and then having some discussion with the provinces surely puts the cart before the House, and that we should be reversing the procedure.
This Government or regime was to bring in a new conciliatory mood, a mood of consultation and of co-operation. However, on this most important issue before us, we have seen the Government of Canada move unilaterally. There has not been proper consultation with the provinces. On the other hand, the Government of Canada unilaterally abrogated a five-year agreement which was made with the provinces that indeed funding for health and post-secondary education would increase over the years.
I have said before in the House that many provinces have reacted negatively to this particular move. To amplify that and to add to the list which I read previously in the House, I simply want to refer to a resolution recently passed in the Legislature of New Brunswick. That legislative assembly unanimously approved the motion presented by the Liberal Opposition condemning the unilateral action of the federal Government with regard to Bill C-96.
The motion was moved by Mr. McKenna, the Liberal Leader in New Brunswick, and amended by the Hon. J.B.M. Baxter, Q.C., a New Brunswick Minister. It indicated that it should be further resolved that if any reduction in the rate of growth of funding under the Established Programs Financing Act was agreed to, the federal Government should take steps through the equalization program to compensate the Atlantic provinces for such losses and to ensure that the equalization program provides sufficient revenue so that all provinces have the ability to provide comparable levels of public services at comparable levels of taxation.
I have referred to that resolution because this move by the Government impacts particularly upon Atlantic Canada. We have always been what has euphemistically been referred to as a developing area. Other people have called us a "have-not" area. Economically, as opposed to culturally and socially, we have not been as robust as other parts of Canada. When national cuts are made across the board, the weak are hurt more than the strong. Economically the Atlantic provinces have been weaker historically, through no fault of their own.
Also I referred to that resolution to show the seriousness, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, of the cutting of Established Programs Financing, the cutting of funds to health care and to post-secondary education.
That particular recognition of the situation in which the Atlantic provinces find themselves was adequately supported by the Canadian Medical Association in its response to the action of the Government of Canada in cutting Established Programs Financing. In its news release entitled "Proposed

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Changes in Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Threaten Health Care", the association had the following to say about the Atlantic provinces:
Although the Atlantic provinces spend more of their provincial revenues on health care than do other provinces, there are disparities in the range of services available to their populations ... If special provisions are not made for the health care system in the Atlantic provinces we can only expect disparities to widen and the national character of health care in Canada to be seriously endangered.
I call the attention of the Government to that plea from the Canadian Medical Association. If it persists in its move in the area of health care, it will not only have an impact upon the country as a whole, but a more serious and greater impact in the Atlantic provinces. There is nothing more important than health care. It is a primary consideration of all Canadian citizens.
I should like to refer to the comments of Justice Hall in his review of the health care system of Canada. He provided us with a reminder that Canadians supported the concept of medicare in the First place, that almost all Canadians were agreed. Justice Hall argued:
-that the trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline to death, are burdens enough for the human being to bear without the added burden of medical or hospital bills penalizing the patient at the moment of vulnerability. The Canadian people determined that they should band together to pay medical bills and hospital bills when they were well and income earning. Health services were no longer items to be bought off the shelf and paid for at the check-out stand. Nor was their price to be bargained for at the time they were sought. They were a fundamental need like education, which Canadians could meet collectively and pay through taxes.
Those words of Mr. Justice Hall are accurate, correct, and true; they are just as valid today as they were then.
We should be proud that we have one of the greatest systems of health care in the world. The ongoing battle in the Province of Ontario simply dramatizes and highlights that. It brings it to our attention very dramatically. We in Canada are not prepared to let individuals, particularly those who cannot afford to bear the burden, bear the undue burden of health services. We are not prepared to put that burden on the backs of the economically weak in society. We believe that it should be shared by all people. However, if the funds for doing that are cut, then it will be impossible for provincial Governments to carry on and to keep up the high standard of which we in Canada have been so proud for so many years.
I plead once more with the Minister of Finance to review his words of 1982. I will read them to him again because he is here in the Chamber. He said:
Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the Government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure.
I say to the Minister now that indeed he should reverse this procedure. He should keep up the transfer of funds for health care all across the country, but particularly in the Atlantic provinces where I have just shown that we are going to be more affected than other regions of the country. The Minister should review his words of 1982. He should abide by those
words and abide by his position because the position which the Minister took in 1982 was the correct position. The position he is taking now is the wrong position. It will hurt health care in Canada. It will hurt ordinary Canadians, particularly the elderly, particularly the sick, particularly the young, particularly single mothers and families and those are the people we should be looking after. I plead with the Government again to review its decision on health care, to change its mind and to keep up the transfer of payments for health care.
With regard to education, and I have spoken on this before, since I spoke there have been other voices raised in the country constantly and consistently to amplify our position on this most important issue. The voice raised most recently that has been given wide respect, as it should be, is the voice of the Chief Justice of Canada. The Chief Justice spoke recently and talked about the second-class future of universities and post-secondary education if the present measures are adopted. Here are some of the quotes from the speech of the Chief Justice.
Second-class funding of universities will inevitably lead to second-class teachers, second-class students and-ultimately-a second-class nation.
He went on to say:
-the lack of funding is bordering on tragic.
The Chief Justice urged Governments not to choke off universities and went on:
It has been said by many people that education is too important to be left to educators. That may be true. But it is also true that education is too important to be left to ministers of finance.
His is a respected voice in Canada. It is a voice that I think spoke with knowledge or forethought, knowing what he said, knowing who he was, knowing what position he commanded and knowing that he was going to be listened to. I hope the Chief Justice will be listened to, Mr. Speaker. I hope all of us who raise our voices on this side of the House and in other parts of the country will be listened to by the Government on this most serious issue.
As I said at the beginning, this affects one of the most important groups, if not the most important group, our young people. The Liberal Party has just finished a task force review of post-secondary education in the Atlantic provinces. We visited Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and my own Province of Newfoundland. In all of those provinces we heard from university presidents and student groups. The message was the same; this action if it goes ahead will seriously impact on the quality of education and the future of young people, particularly those in the Atlantic area. At Memorial University in Newfoundland, the student population is increasing, yet because of the lack of funds to pay for postsecondary education there is a great danger of a faculty outflow. Memorial University, because it is getting less money than it got in the past, cannot afford to pay its faculty the same rates as faculty are paid in other parts of the country. The order is something like 10 per cent or 15 per cent less. Therefore, faculty are only going to go to the Atlantic provinces if there are other reasons than financial. It is not the
June 13, 1986

financial reason that will attract them to the Atlantic provinces. The reverse is true, they will go elsewhere. That is a very serious situation, and a direct result of the cutting of transfer payments for post-secondary education. We found that same situation elsewhere.
Let me give you an idea of the magnitude of the funds that will be cut. Here are the figures for the Province of Newfoundland. Over the next five years we in Newfoundland will receive $187 million less than we had anticipated. There will be an increase, Mr. Speaker. The Government will say that postsecondary education is getting more money this year than it got the previous year. That is true. But provinces are getting less money than they anticipated. There was a federal-provincial five-year agreement with certain agreed on figures. The provinces were basing their expenditures on those figures and the universities were basing their expenditures on those figures. But now we are seeing the Government saying unilaterally that Newfoundland is going to get $187 million less than it anticipated, less than was promised, less than was agreed, less than it bargained for. It is somehow going to have to make that up. How is it going to make it up, asks Newfoundland? Is it going to make it up by cutting out health care, cutting down on hospital care, cutting out beds, cutting down the salaries of nurses? How is it going to make up that deficiency of $187 million?
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, the House and the Government that we are talking about a province with the lowest per capita income in the country, a province which has the highest retail sales taxes anywhere in the country, a province with the highest unemployment rate anywhere in the country, a province with the weakest fiscal capacity anywhere in the country. Yet we are telling this province that it will receive $187 million less over the next five years than it had anticipated.
What are the young people of Newfoundland supposed to do about that, Mr. Speaker? Let me tell you. In the Province of Newfoundland there is close to a 50 per cent unemployment rate among young people eligible for employment. The unemployment rate is well over 40 per cent and getting close to 50 per cent. That is the unemployment rate of the young people in Newfoundland who are going to be affected by this Bill.
I know my time is short but I want to make a last plea to the Government. Let me say to the Minister of Finance, who is a passionate and thoughtful man and I believe a man of fairness, that I understand his problem with the deficit. But let us not put the burden of that deficit on the group in the country to whom we should be paying most attention and for whom we have the greatest responsibility, our young people. If there is any future for this country it lies in their hands. I remind the Minister of the words of the Chief Justice, that we should not choke off the universities. He said that if we do that it will lead to second-class students and ultimately a second-class nation. That is something I and my Party cannot tolerate. I hope
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Members on that side of the House in the Government of Canada will not tolerate it either.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a different matter. After Question Period a report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission was tabled by a Minister on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. C6te) who was not here. My office and that of the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), our consumer critic, have been trying to get copies of that report. We were unable to get copies until a few minutes ago. There was a lockup this morning, We could not get in the lock-up. All the oil industry representatives got into that lock-up.


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I raise that because I think the privileges of an MP are affected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I can appreciate the fact that the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) may have a point which can be brought up at some time in a different context, but not at this time in this debate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that point of order. I would like to make a submission with regard to the appropriateness of the raising of a point of order. It is necessary in order for a point to be sustainable that the point be raised at the earliest possible moment. This is the earliest possible moment. We would be in a very difficult position if we did not at least give notice of our intent to raise this point at a subsequent time.
If the Chair is ruling that we should make the argumentation later, of course we will abide by that. However, it is absolutely crucial that a point of order or question of privilege be brought to the Chair's attention immediately when it becomes known. I would, therefore, ask the Chair's indulgence to accept that we have now given notice of our desire to raise a point of order and to allow us to raise it either later this day or on Monday in keeping with the normal practices.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Chair will take that as notice. I will simply clarify the point I was attempting to make without going on for very long on this issue. In the context of this debate that is not a point of order. I understand that the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway may have a greivance following a procedure. It is my understanding that the report has been tabled, and also my understanding that it will be distributed today. If the Member and the House Leader for the New Democratic Party feel they have a point, they can put it down in writing and bring it up at the appropriate time. I was going to say that I hope this puts the matter to rest, but I see the Member for Hamilton Mountain on his feet.


Ian Deans: I am rising on debate.

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: At this time we will proceed to questions and comments. I was about to say that before we entered into the other debate. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on questions and comments.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with a great deal of interest, particularly as he quoted Chief Justice Brian Dickson. The Chief Justice also said that it has been said by many people that education is too important to be left to educators. He went on to say that while that may be true it is also true that education is too important to be left to Ministers of Finance.
The governing Party, which the electors put into office to carry out certain mandates, has a responsibility to develop a philosophy and policy to reflect its commitments and concerns. I bring to the attention of my hon. colleague and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that at the Quebec caucus meeting held in Sherbrooke on July 26, 1984, the Conservative Party promised to:
-respect the federal obligation to fund provincial health care through Established Programs Financing, and make additional funds available to the provinces on a cost shared basis for the establishment or enrichment of programs deemed most likely to improve the general level of health and limit long-term costs. This determination to be made following a national conference of health ministers and health care professionals.
The Conservative Party made many other promises. One was to increase research and development expenditures to 2.5 per cent of GNP. They went on to say:
Our research and development commitment is fundamental to our over-all programs for economic and social development. We are committed to doubling Canada's R and D budget to 2.5 per cent of GNP.
Perhaps there was a lack of understanding, a lack of commitment, or a number of other factors which have come into play. The Minister seems to be preoccupied with transferring the federal deficit to the backs of other people and other interests within our society. My hon. friend read into the record the concerns of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. When I brought this issue to the attention of the House the Members from Quebec said that the Quebec Minister of Finance did not understand what was going on. I have the feeling he understood very well.
Mr. Hamel, the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said that the business community is increasingly concerned that the squeeze on post-secondary education funding will make it impossible for universities to meet the demand for research and development or even to provide adequate basic training which will then be transferred to businesses so that they can become competitive in this increasingly competitive world. Mr. Anderson, the President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers said:
Proposed federal cuts to post-secondary education could place a university education beyond the reach of many students-
Canada prides itself on equal and fair treatment and access. What happened to fairness, consultation and all those other wonderful promises?
Donald Savage, the President of CAUT said that the consequence is poor quality education. Mr. Shapiro, the President of the Social Science Federation of Canada said:
Canada's entry into free trade discussions with the U.S. provides a clear example of the importance of an educated public and a strong national identity to "preserve our sovereignty"-
I think Members across the way ought to think about that. If the Government recognized that as a fundamental value, that the Canadians like being Canadians and being different and do not want to be the Fifty-first state of the United States, it might put more money into post-secondary education, R and D and support for our health services, the things which we all value which distinguish us as Canadians. I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to comment?


Bill Rompkey: I certainly would, Mr. Speaker. I consider this to be one of the most important topics that we can talk about in the House. My colleague has said it better than I. She has put on the record the growing opinion of eminent spokesmen across the country about what is happening. She made the point about the maturity of Canada now. We are entering into a period in which we will have to compete in an increasingly small and more competitive world. The Government of Canada is telling us that it wants to get into a free trade situation so that mature Canadian businesses can compete head to head. We on this side are saying that it should be multi-lateral, that Canada should be competing head to head with countries throughout the world.
Eminent authors have said that Canada is coming of age in the 1980s and 1990s. We are throwing off our sense of inferiority and coming out from under the shadow of the United States. We are becoming a mature nation with mature businesses which can compete anywhere in the world. However, a mature nation must have an educated and aware population which can take advantage of those opportunities. You cannot have a trade, financial or industrial strategy unless you have an education strategy. They must go hand in hand. Canada does not have that. At the same time as the Government of Canada is talking about trade, an industrial strategy and job creation, it is cutting back on the funds which our young people need to give them the wherewithal to take those jobs and compete with other people in the world.
There is absolutely no comparison between our educational policy and that of Japan or West Germany. My colleague is absolutely right when she says there must be a commitment to post-secondary education. It is not there at present. She has said that even the back-benchers of that Party opposite have said the Government must make that commitment to R and D and post-secondary education.
I simply say to the Government once again that it must change its mind. If you have to do something about the deficit, and you do, do not, for goodness' sake, do it on the backs of our young people. Do not call on them to shoulder the burden. Give them the chance to compete for the jobs you say you are

. -
June 13, 1986

going to create. Give them a chance to compete with other young people in the world in the 1980s and 1990s.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the problem with what the Government is doing I think can best be described if I were to start by saying that I doubt very much if it has fully analysed the potential danger of the EPF cuts. I have difficulty believing that even the Government would knowingly take steps the end result of which might be the undermining of both the post-secondary educational system and the universality of our health care programs. Yet as you start to analyse the impact of a reduction in the rate of increase and juxtapose that with increases in other areas, you begin to wonder whether the Government has its priorities straight.
I want to deal primarily with the impact on the Province of Ontario. I want to set the stage by putting to the House two statements which I believe sum up the view I would like to leave with whoever happens to hear these words. What we have here is a question of priorities. The future of medicare and higher education is being placed behind the best interests of oil companies, investors, banks and, I might add, even such things as new uniforms for the military. The Department of Defence will see an increase over the course of the next five years in its expenditure level of some 41 per cent. At the same time health care will see an increase of only 14 per cent. I see the Minister sitting here. We will of course at some point no doubt have a difference of opinion on this, but to the best of my knowledge what I am saying is as accurate as I can ascertain it to be.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They are wrong.


Ian Deans: The second point I want to leave with whoever happens to think about this is that medicare and postsecondary education are already in a financial bind. I do not think anyone can deny that access to post-secondary education has been severely limited over the last few years by actions taken both here in Ottawa and in the various provinces. Opportunities for the young of Canada to continue through the post-secondary educational system and achieve an education from which we will all benefit in one way or another have become considerably lessened. Their ability to obtain the necessary funds through grants, bursaries or loans has been severely inhibited, as has their opportunity to find employment. Notwithstanding the statements the Government might make about its efforts in that regard, employment opportunities for young people which will enable them to earn the necessary funds to continue with their education at the postsecondary level have also been inhibited to a large extent. I am not going to blame the Government for that particular problem, it just happens to be a fact of life. There simply are not the same number of jobs available on a part-time or shortterm basis this year as there were 10 years ago. That means those who do not happen to have wealthy parents or come from the upper 10 per cent or 15 per cent of income earners in
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Canada will find it much more difficult to get through the post-secondary educational system.
Not only that, the quality of education has also deteriorated. This is not because of any lack of desire on the part of those who run the universities, or because of a lack of expertise on the part of those who do the lecturing. It is not because of anything that is the fault of the universities themselves, but because their budgets have had to be cut by virtue of the restrictions placed on them. That has resulted in a deteriorating plant and deteriorating research capability. Universities without proper plant and research capabilities will not be able to keep pace with the changing times. The end result will be that, while there will still be universities, they will not be of a standard sufficient to maintain the level of excellence this country expects of them.
We are losing ground in our ability to provide top level education at the post-secondary level for the youth of Canada when measured against the capacity of other countries to do so. I make that statement without trying to leave the impression that that is true in every classroom, every lecture room, in every part of every university. I make it as a general observation about what is going on, and I contend it is most certainly true. We are unable to maintain the excellent level of education we have been developing since the early part of the 1950s. That, to all intents and purposes, was when universal access to post-secondary education became a much more acceptable practice to be pursued.
I put it to the Minister that the decrease in the rate of increase, which is what we are talking about, in the funds to be made available to the provinces for post-secondary education will only increase the speed, if you will, of the downward trend which has already begun. We cannot afford that. Yet it is, quite frankly, the risk we run by allowing this situation to occur, and it will bear terrible consequences in the future. If we are to be successful as a nation it will only be because our post-secondary education is of a standard of excellence second to none and if, as a result, we are able to derive the economic benefit which flows from that level of educational standing.
I therefore make the point that the Government, in setting its priorities, clearly should have understood this. It is true of all Governments, not just this Government but provincial Governments as well. The Government must set its priorities with a clear understanding and recognition that the future of Canada rests more in developing the level of excellence of the educational system than it does by developing any other single aspect of our economic or social life. I therefore say to the Government that it is vitally important that education be, if not the number one priority, and we all set our priorities differently from time to time and I am prepared to concede that, a priority rating near if not at the top in government thinking.
Having said that I turn to the second victim of this Government's lack of proper priority setting, the health care system. I
14380

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
can remember the debates that took place in Canada, and I was involved in the debate that took place in the Ontario Legislature in the latter part of the 1960s when the then Premier of Ontario, the late Right Hon. John Robarts, was dragged, kicking and screaming into universal medicare. I can remember the degree of reluctance that there was within the Ontario Conservative Party at the time to acknowledge the necessity for a comprehensive and universal medical care program that would allow each and every citizen of Ontario, and which was intended to allow each and every citizen of Canada, equal and unfettered access to the very best health care that was available. No longer were we going to see the day when only those who were able to raise the money could be made well. No longer were we going to see the day when people were going to have to go out and take out mortgages on their homes in order to pay the bills that were being levied against them for the hospital care they required or for the physician care they required. That debate was a tough debate, but common sense and good judgment won the day.
The Government of Canada, notwithstanding the protestation of the then Premier of Ontario, among others, forced the province to move to the establishment of universality and public health care. Immediately after, of course, there were sufficient funds made available. Since the middle part of the 1970s, and again during my period as a member of the Legislature in the Province of Ontario, the number of dollars made available for the ongoing research and day to day medical care necessary for the well being of Ontario families, at least, began to be undercut.
First provinces re-established their priorities, and in reestablishing those priorities the provinces shifted more of the burden from general revenue to individual payment programs. We went from OMSIP, as I recall, through OHIP, and the premium levels rose by leaps and bounds, with families being asked to pay, in the final analysis, considerably more than those at the lower end of the income scale could reasonably afford. In the final analysis we found ourselves in this province having to close hospital beds, having to close hospital wings, having to close whole hospitals in certain areas of the province limiting access in many geographic areas, and continuing to add to the burden of cost.
As it now stands in the Province of Ontario there is not sufficient funding available to most of the teaching hospitals to maintain the level of technological advancement necessary to keep pace with changing demands. The submissions that have been made to me on a number of occasions have led me to believe that the opportunity to advance medically, utilizing our own medical research facilities here in this province, are fewer now than they were some ten years ago.
I put to the Government that the move it is now proposing to take will further undercut those opportunities. The move this Government proposes to take will result in a substantial
decrease in the numbers of dollars available for health care purposes, in addition to what I said about post-secondary education, and that that can only result in one of three things. There will either be cuts in the medical research capability and cuts in the availability of beds and personnel, or there will be dramatic increases in the fees to be charged to the individual families who need to be covered under the comprehensive medical care program.
It will not necessarily be an either or situation. It is entirely possible that in some cases it will be all three, or two of the three, or a combination that will result in higher costs to the individual, paid through the premium structure, in addition to a decrease in the availability or accessibility of health care, and a dramatic decrease in the amount of health care research done in this country.
For the Province of Ontario alone the impact of the EPF cuts, those cuts that we are speaking about today, in 1986-87 will be $114.2 million less than had been anticipated; in 198788, $243 million less than had been anticipated; in 1988-89, $387.6 million less than had been anticipated; in 1989-90, $546.6 million less than had been anticipated; and in 1990-91, $722.7 million less than had been anticipated for postsecondary education and health care expenditures. The total reduction in dollars available for the ongoing work that I have been speaking about by the year 1991 will be $2,014.1 million.
Given the fragile nature of the post-secondary educational system, and given the equally fragile nature of the health care system there is no way to raise an additional $2 billion, and the system itself cannot survive and provide an adequate level of care or teaching if it does not have the $2 billion. I am suggesting to the Government that in its effort to trim the federal budget and its expenditures it has run a serious risk with the capacity of the health care and post-secondary educational systems to meet the legitimate needs, even now at a level that could hardly be called superior. I think it is at an already deteriorating level.
I want to suggest, if I may, that it is a mistake for the Government not to recognize the importance of health and education. If cuts are to be made, they cannot be made in areas that will have a detrimental and long-lasting effect on the country. If cuts are to be made, surely they can be made in areas where the effect will be less devastating, both in the short and long run.
The Government may ask where it should make the cuts. I can only say that when it was proposing these cuts it was telling us that there was no money. Yet, within weeks, it found a $1 billion to bail out failing banks. I can only suggest that that probably speaks more clearly to the priority-setting of the Government than anything more I can say.
June 13, 1986



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair had indicated an intention to rule as soon as possible on the application made under Standing Order 29 by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The Chair has examined both the precedents and the modifications that have been made in the rule, as well as the comments that have been made about it. I have concluded that the application meets the terms of Standing Order 29. Since it is finally up to the House, does the Hon. Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, leave is granted and debate is set down for three o'clock p.m. this day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: Questions and comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)? Debate.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words concerning Bill C-96 which is in its final, third reading, stage in this chamber. Undoubtedly, the Government majority will ensure its passage at third reading so that it will then become law.
I want to deal with a specific example of the effect that Bill C-96 will have on my Province of Newfoundland. According to the formula contained in this Bill, there will be a cut of $7.3 million in 1986-87. In 1987-88 there will be a cut of $15.5 million; a cut of $24.8 million in 1988-89; a cut of $35 million in 1989-90; a cut of $46.3 million in 1990-91; and a cut of $58.9 million in 1991-92. In that short period between 1986 and 1992 there will be a total cut of $187.7 million to the provincial treasury of Newfoundland.
Newfoundland is a province which cannot afford to put water systems in communities where, according to the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
bacterial counts by the Department of Health, the water in the wells is contaminated and unfit for human consumption. I am amazed that the provincial Government of Newfoundland has not really objected to these cuts. It is not the people or the Province of Newfoundland that has objected, but the Government, and I find it strange that a Government like that in Newfoundland, with its Premier and cabinet Ministers, has not objected to this Bill that cuts $187.7 million from its treasury between March 31, 1986 and March 31, 1991. That poor starving province cannot afford to do what other provinces do today because it does not have the fiscal manoeuverability. Yet that Government does not object to these cuts.
I suggest that it is a clear example of straight, pure, unadulterated politics. Our system in this country is such that when there is a political Party of one stripe provincially and the same political Party in office federally, the provincial Government occasionally hesitates to object to policies about which they should object.
I took the trouble to get a copy of the Green Paper on "Health Care System Expenditures and Funding" from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is dated January, 1986. This Green Paper is referred to in a statement from the Manitoba Government dated June, 1986, which was presented to Members of Parliament yesterday. That statement by the Manitoba Government is called: "Setting priorities straight" and it refers to the Newfoundland Government's Green Paper of which I have a copy.
The Manitoba Government points out that the Newfoundland Government states in its Green Paper of January, 1986 that it faces three alternatives as a result of the Bill before us now. The first is privatization, including premiums, user-fees and extra billing. The second alternative is expenditure cuts and service reductions. The third is deficit financing and tax increases. As the Green Paper stated: "No options are particularly attractive."
That Green Paper was issued by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in January, 1986 in anticipation of this Bill presently before the House. I want to state for the record that the federal Government is not cutting health care or post-secondary education funding through this Bill. Those are areas of provincial Government responsibility according to the Constitution of this country.
We have a system whereby the federal Government contributes funds to the provincial treasury so that it can supply the services and supposedly make them equal across the country. The House will know that this money is given in lump sums. While the federal Government designates this as higher education and health care benefits, when it provides a cheque in an amount that is calculated according to the formula of what is needed, there is no guarantee that the money will be spent for higher education or that for which it was intended according to the federal formula.
We are talking about a squeeze on the provincial treasuries that affects the over-all budget of the provincial Governments.

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
In order for Newfoundland to recover the $187.7 million shortfall as a result of this Bill, the people of Newfoundland will have to accept the provincial Government's action, which will be to increase taxes or institute user-fees in the hospitals. That means, of course, charging for hospital beds, which they were doing for a while until the previous Liberal Government stepped in and said: "You had better stop that because we'll start cutting the payments we give to you". They will have to institute extra billing premiums, expenditure cuts, or increase taxes. None of those options are attactrive but they will probably opt for the tax increases. Or perhaps what they will do is cut back on services in other areas to make up for the loss of revenue they would have received from the federal Government.
To set the record straight, it is not that the federal Government is actually cutting the services themselves, but that the transfers to the provincial treasuries will be cut. What will be cut is the amount of money which results from the formula used to transfer money from the federal Treasury to the provincial treasury in order to equalize health care, education and everthing else. In other words, we are supposed to have, which we do not, some semblance of uniformity in social security, health and education. We do not see that.
There is no uniformity in Canada, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. How much money an old age pensioner who lives in a nursing home or senior citizens' home will receive in his pension cheque will depend on which province he lives in. That is rather interesting. Each province has its own rules. It is called "comforts allowances" to our senior citizens. An old age pensioner in a senior citizens' home in British Columbia will receive a different amount of money in his cheque from someone in Ontario or in Newfoundland.
The same thing applies with health care. It is the provincial Government which determines the health services. We have a formula whereby moneys are transferred to try to even it out, but the provinces control the money. They decide if hospitals will be built and whether they will limit the numbers of doctors practising in their province, which is an entirely stupid idea. The Government of British Columbia recently announced it was actually limiting the numbers of doctors who could practice in that particular province. The doctors are saying they should have the right to extra bill. It is probably the only profession which is so controlled by Government that they cannot extra bill. Then the provincial Government limits the numbers of doctors who are allowed to practice in British Columbia. The claim is that this practice is going to spread right across Canada. In other words, doctors who are being churned out of medical schools are not allowed to practice in the particular province of their choice. Provincial officials go to Scotland and other countries trying to encourage doctors to come to Canada. Some provincial administrations are doing that on a daily basis. Then another provincial Government says it is going to limit the number of doctors who are allowed to practice in its particular province. So there is no uniformity.
That really says to the Canadian people that there should be some sort of umbrella organization which will try to at least aim for some uniformity in practice across the country.
This particular Bill before the House is just one of many measures which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has instituted on behalf of the Government in the form of trying to cut back on federal expenditures. That is the bottom line of this particular Bill in its final closing stage of third reading. There is just one simple reason, and that is deficit reduction and cutting the costs to the federal Treasury.
We have seen that in hundreds of areas of federal jurisdiction. We saw it in Newfoundland last week. The provincial Government of Newfoundland will probably have to step into an area which is not under its jurisdiction, that is the enforcement of salmon regulations. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) is in Newfoundland today for a big press conference. He is addressing the St. John's Board of Trade. Last week he cut the numbers of river guardians in Newfoundland and today he is going to stand up, after addressing the Tory fund raising dinner last night, and try to mend the fences. Well, it is not going to work.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) stands in this Chamber every single day and brags about the number of jobs created. But yesterday morning project officers in her own Department of Employment and Immigration in Newfoundland were called into the office and told they were being given two weeks' notice and they are laid off. One third of all the project officers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador received their lay-off notices yesterday morning from the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She is laying off the people who are supposed to be creating employment. Those people cannot draw unemployment insurance because of the change made by the Government, that if they receive separation pay or their sickness benefits back it is deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits. So the people who are being laid off in the Department of Employment and Immigration cannot get unemployment insurance benefits when they are unemployed, which they will be as of two weeks from now. One third of all of the project officers in the employment offices in Newfoundland have received their lay-off notices effective two weeks from yesterday.
This Bill is only a continuation of what the Government is doing in the area of program cuts. As I mentioned, this Bill will shift the burden to the provincial treasuries. Those are the cold hard facts and the reality of the situation. It will hit the poorest provinces the most. In the submission of the Manitoba Government in June of 1986 it is spelled out again. Newfoundland will be hit the worst. Its fiscal maneuvreability is the lowest of any province in Canada.
What does "fiscal maneuverability" mean, Mr. Speaker? It means the ability of a provincial Government and its administration to go with the tide, in other words, when the unemployment is high in a province, by its own intrusion into the economy, to be able to bring the numbers up. In a very simple
June 13, 1986

way, that is what it means. Over the years there were several reports from the Economic Council of Canada which suggested the way to cure high unemployment areas of Canada is provincial Governments using their own fiscal maneuverability at those times of the year to try to get more people employed. The Government of Newfoundland has the least fiscal maneuverability of any province in Canada. In fact, it only has 60 per cent of the fiscal maneuverability of the national average. What this Bill will do is cut for those five years $187.7 million from the Newfoundland provincial treasury. There are unpaved roads in Newfoundland. The federal Government is saying to the Province of Newfoundland: "We are going to chop the money we are going to give you so you will have to leave your roads unpaved unless you sacrifice in other areas". The water systems which are needed will perhaps have to wait now because the Government believes that the province should be kicking in more of its own money. Therfore, the money has to come from the capital expenditure areas of the Newfoundland Government.
Basically, the Government is saying to the poorer provinces of Canada: "We are going to cut more from you. You have either to increase your taxes or reduce services in those departments, or you have to shift your financial burden from one department to another and give up something that is already in existence". The problem with that argument is that when we examine Newfoundland, which has the least fiscal manoeuvreability, we find that it has the least number of programs from which it can shift money. In other words, under the Canada Assistance Plan, which includes welfare, daycare centres and the like, it can be seen that a rich province which has a high fiscal manoeuvreability is able to fund those programs.
One wonders why there are no daycare centres in Newfoundland. It is the only province in Canada which has no agreement with respect to daycare centres. The reason given by the Government of Newfoundland for this is that it does not have the money-the 50 per cent-to put in to the pot in order to sign a daycare agreement. Thus how rich a provincial Treasury is determines what social programs there will be and what type of services will be available for the people of Newfoundland, or for the people of any other province.
The Bill before us hits the poorest provinces the worst. For the federal Government to be instituting this measure, and not giving these provinces an opportunity to really have the matter examined and voice their opinions, is a black mark on the Government's record. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I cannot understand why the provincial Government of Newfoundland is taking this measure lying down. It was only a couple of years ago when the Liberal Government was in federally that the Government of Newfoundland was calling press conferences daily. Members of the Government were wearing black armbands, carrying around coffins, declaring days of mourning, and giving everyone in the province a holiday. Where are they now? The Premier of the province has
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
gone into hibernation for the summer. He has not said a single syllable with respect to this particular Bill. Why? Because the Tories are in power in Ottawa, and one does not object to the Minister of Finance if one is a member of a Tory provincial Government. So the Newfoundland Government is seen as it should be seen in the right context. It is playing the political game. In this instance it is giving up the concerns it had expressed over the years with previous Governments as far as health care and higher education is concerned in the Province of Newfoundland.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Mr. Garneau:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleage from Gander-Twillingate-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: For what?


Raymond Garneau: -for his excellent speech. He very precisely described what the situation will be in his province as a result of the decisions made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with respect to cutting the deficit and transferring the burden on to the backs of the provinces. I wish to congratulate him for giving to the House the point of view of the people of Newfoundland. I would also like him to elaborate further with respect to the possibility that the people of Newfoundland will have to suffer a cut in services.
The Hon. Member has said that the fiscal plan is so tight that he cannot imagine any tax increase being imposed, since there is no room for one. Does the Hon. Member think that the people of the province will have to suffer a cut in services?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Government of Newfoundland will not opt for any of the options it put forward in its Green Paper in January. If the Minister of Finance was bad enough to go ahead with this Bill and if the Government of Canada would be so crude as to go ahead with his measures then the Government of Newfoundland very clearly spelled out its reaction. It has said that it would have to go to privatization, including premiums, user fees and extra billing. The second option is with respect to expenditure cuts and services reductions. Third, it would have to undertake deficit financing, and fourth, tax increases. The Green Paper states: "No options are particularly attractive".
Knowing the Government of Newfoundland, which has been in place for some time, I think since 1971 or 1972, and having watched it over the years, this is what I predict it will do as a result of this Bill; it will shift its money from one expenditure pattern to another. In other words, it will have to decrease what it would normally spend on major capital expenditure programs, and there are only two which work on a continuous basis and for which there is no cost recovery from the federal Treasury. When one looks to its expenditure programs one sees that those programs are water and sewer services and road paving.

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
In a great part of my riding there are only dirt roads-dirty, rotten, filthy dirt roads. People in those areas cannot paint their homes on account of the dust. If one visits these places at some times of the year one will find one's car bogged down to the axle in mud. And this is 1986! The other major problem is with respect to water and sewer services. Since this is an area which falls under provincial Government responsibility, the capital resources were not there to make water and sewer services available to all of the communities in Newfoundland, or even to half of them. Not even half of them have water, running water, community water systems. What we are doing in this respect is using the Canada Works Program of the federal Department of Employment and Immigration and local initiative programs to put in small water systems.
A funny thing happened when the Tories took over. We have all heard that Tory times are tough times. Now those tough times are really repeating themselves. What happened was that the new program brought in by the Minister of Employment and Immigration was said to shift the emphasis from the project on which one was working to training people to perform a particular job. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has stood up in the House and said that many times. This has has ended the financing on a regular basis year after year of these community water systems, places such as Whales Gulch, Newville, Davidsville, and Indian Cove in my riding. I have 200 communities in my riding and those are only four of them.
I was talking to people from those areas just yesterday. They told me that there are two phases under the ground. In other words, $100,000 has been spent each year under the ground, and then it has stopped. That is because the Tories took over and because the programs no longer qualified for funding. The provincial Government claims that it cannot put the money in because it does not have it to put into those particular communities. Sometimes when we are talking about things in this Chamber, which some Members find absolutely important, I have extreme difficulty relating to the subjects, because I have to deal every day and every night on the phone with these types of problems.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, yes, the provincial Government will simply turn around and decrease its expenditures in those areas which affect capital expenditures. I would predict, if the truth be known, that over the years this will be the result in terms of road construction and water and sewer services. Those two services would be affected.
The Government is shifting the financial burden. The provinces are not receiving enough to maintain the very little they have. There is only one university in Newfoundland. There are three or four universities in Nova Scotia, and in New Brunswick there are universities in Fredericton and Sackville. There is only one university in Newfoundland and I would suggest that there are fewer hospitals as well.
Now that the province's budget is being decreased further, it will have to make up the money from other capital expenditures without increasing the taxes. As you know, people who live in Newfoundland pay higher taxes than those who live in any other province. Some people think Quebec has the highest taxes, but they are wrong. In Newfoundland, the provincial tax take is the highest of any province of Canada. Sales taxes are higher and so are every other kind of taxes. The Government cannot afford to increase the taxes so it would shift the burden from another absolute necessity to this absolute necessity.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have another opportunity to speak against this Bill. I wish to remind Hon. Members who are present and those who might be watching t.v. in their offices as well as the public of the words of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who said that this is a deplorable piece of legislation. Of course, he did not say that this year. The Hon. Member for St. John's West was then speaking in opposition and was attacking a Liberal Bill.
The fact is that the Government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), is carrying out a very simple program. It plans to reduce the federal contribution to health and postsecondary education in order to force the provincial Governments to spend more. Of course, Members speaking on behalf of the Government will say that the money is being increased. They would not dare claim that the increase keeps up with either rising costs of health and post-secondary education or with rising federal revenues because of course it does not.
To say that the Government is paying as much as or more than it paid a few years ago is entirely beside the point. When costs, taxes and federal revenues are rising, universities and medical services need increased revenues just as much. Health care and post-secondary education are not luxuries, they are necessities. The Government has decided to cut to about one-third the increases needed by these services just to keep pace with their own increased revenues and the increased costs of the services.
This is not a new idea. It is not a new discovery made by this Government. It is only copying what the Liberal Government did before it and what it condemned roundly at the time. The Minister of Finance got quite indignant and sounded as if he believed what he was saying when he condemned the Liberal Government for doing what he is doing now. Others on that side said the same.
When the Minister of Finance was in opposition, he said that the Liberal Government wanted to shift the problem over to the provinces and to shift the deficit problem at the federal level down to the provincial level. Of course, he was not alone in voicing that opinion. His colleagues, including the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) all said the same thing.
Now that the Minister of Finance has crossed over to the right-hand side of the Speaker, he is adopting the very same
June 13, 1986

policy he attacked with such high sounding words a very short time ago. It may be that the Minister of Finance thinks Canada does not need universities. It may be that he thinks any research Canada may want can be bought offshore from the Americans, the Germans, the Chinese or the Chileans. The Chilean universities have been cut in half by a Government that followed the same sort of policy. The American universities are being gutted by the demands of military expenditures. It is not clear where the Minister thinks we can buy research if he destroys the ability of Canada to do the kind of research that he says we need to bolster our industry and the general cultural life of Canada.
I do not know if the Minister thinks we can buy health care offshore. Of course, he has not spoken to either of these points. He seems to imagine that we can cut back the health services available to Canadians without damaging the morale, productivity and taxation ability of Canada. I know he is very interested in the ability to tax.
It appears that the overriding concern is some sort of grudge against the provincial Governments. There appears to be a desire to get back at the provincial Governments. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South said that the only way we can really get back at the provinces for the revenues we created for them is to change their EPF arrangements. In other words, the Government is not concerned with the continued growth of health and education but with a feud between the Government and the provincial Governments.
This Government claims that somehow or other, the provincial Governments have more money than they should have, so the Government is going to figure out a way to take it away from them or else make the provinces suffer. It is very doubtful if that will force the provinces to bring forward the money that is required, and I will return to that point later.
The fact is that this is a cut. It is a cut in the provision of the amount needed by health care and education services to keep up with the growth of Canada. This kind of cut is not necessary. The fact is that the Government has taken measures to generate a great deal of new revenue. Without saying that I approve of all the measures the Government has taken, it has used its power to vote through a Budget, tax measures, changes in the Canada Shipping Act and all kinds of other measures designed to charge new or larger fees for all kinds of public services.
There will be much larger fees to use provincial parks, new or larger fees to use Canada's waterways, new fees for services like immigration and new fees for all kinds of public services under the Department of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard). The Government reckons that those new charges will bring in $35 billion of new revenue in addition to what it received before. Out of that, only $1 billion will go to the universities and colleges and the health system. In other words, about 3 per cent of the new revenue will go to these two services which are basic necessities in any modern country.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
There is no reason to be cutting back. There is no reason for the Minister not to allow the same percentage that was used before, 11 per cent of those new revenues, to be used again. The fact is that he has decided, for reasons he has not really explained to us, to cut education and to cut health. To argue that the provinces could make up the difference is a very, very biased argument. To the extent that the provinces can do it, to the extent that it is financially possible for them to do it, only a few of them can.
I am referring to a study set out by the Province of Manitoba this year called "Setting Priorities Straight". They made a comparison of the ability of the provinces to raise money, taxation, and similar revenue. Let us say that 100 per cent is sort of the average, and that some are above and some are below. My Province of Ontario comes very close to the 100 per cent; it would have 98 per cent of the ability about which they are talking. My province would not suffer as badly as some will. Conceivably Ontario might generate the revenues about which they are talking.
Certainly a province like Alberta, whose ability to generate taxes is 200 per cent, could do a great deal better than any other province. British Columbia is at 104 per cent. Saskatchewan is at 105 per cent. Those provinces which have a strong natural resource base could perhaps scrape by and raise the revenues which the Minister of Finance is demanding that they raise. However, Newfoundland can only raise 60 per cent. If a dollar is needed, Newfoundland has the ability to raise no more than 60 cents. Prince Edward Island is at 61 per cent; Nova Scotia, 72 per cent; New Brunswick, 67 per cent; Quebec, 79 per cent; and Manitoba, 81 per cent. Even Manitoba will be falling behind at that rate, let alone all the provinces east of Ontario.
The Minister of Finance comes from Ontario, as I do. Perhaps he does not feel or perceive the pinch. However, there is an old story from "the dirty thirties" about a group of unemployed people who went to Toronto City Hall to talk to the Mayor and ask for help. Alderman Smith, who was leading them, was their spokesperson. The Mayor first turned to some of the men and said: "Where do you come from?" They said that they came from Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland. Then he turned to Alderman Smith and said: "Mr. Smith, why do you suppose all these jobless people have come to Toronto?" Alderman Smith said: "Well, Mr. Mayor, I suppose they are following the money". That is the long and short of it.
If the Minister of Finance expects to drain money out of the poorest provinces of Canada, he will also be draining the people out of them, and they will head for Toronto. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will refer those who land in Spadina to Etobicoke. I will tell them that not only is Etobicoke where the money is but Etobicoke is where the money man is, the Minister of Finance. I will tell them that they should explain to him how he has impoverished their provinces

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
and forced them to move from their homes and come to Toronto in order to subsist. I hope he does not run away from them; I hope he will stay and face them, because once they have camped on his doorstep they will be his constituents.
What the Minister seems to be proposing is not only copying what the Liberals did. It seems to be also copying what President Reagan has done to the south of us. President Reagan is developing with a vengeance the principle that the rich shall get richer and the poor shall get poorer. In short it is called Reaganization. The Minister's proposal for the health system in Canada will Reaganize health. His proposal for the education system will Reaganize education. In other words, the provinces such as all the eastern provinces east of Ontario and Manitoba, which do not now have the money raising or taxation ability to carry a proper health and education system will have less ability to do it. They will provide still less health care and still less education. Compared with them, provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia will be wealthy. In fact, they will be more wealthy. The rule which the Minister is establishing is that the rich provinces will get relatively richer and the poor provinces will get relatively poorer.
The only group which appeared before the committee to approve this was the Chamber of Commerce. We know where its main base is; we know which cities it mainly operates in- the cities of the rich provinces. The Chamber of Commerce is quite happy to have the money concentrated in cities like Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver. It is quite happy to have the money concentrated there because that makes a greater pool for the investors, the banks, the insurance companies, and the get rich quick investment schemes which spend billions of dollars in takeovers between companies. It is quite happy to have the money drained out of eastern Canada and out of Manitoba because the Chamber of Commerce then figures it will be the beneficiary. The Chamber of Commerce will have access to the wealth of the rich which has been drained out of the poor provinces of Canada.
It will probably work for a short time. It might work for the rest of the term of office of the Government. I doubt that it will work well enough to put them back into power because that is a long time. Another year, two years, or three years is a long time for people to go without, for people to see their health and education systems deteriorating.
It will not only be the people of the eastern provinces. In Toronto, the University of Toronto is suffering serious deterioration. It is not only courses such as the arts, which perhaps the Minister of Finance might think do not matter. Perhaps he thinks it does not matter that they reduce staff in faculties which teach languages, history, and so on. I am not sure that he is really so happy at the idea that they reduce staff in the teaching of physics, that they reduce laboratory facilities available to students, or that laboratories become obsolete and are not updated. I am not sure he is so happy that they reduce the teaching of mathematics and computer sciences by requiring a growing number of students in those growing fields
to use the same limited amount of equipment, working on shifts around the clock. Even on shifts they do not have enough time to carry out their studies and researches properly. Even the biggest university in the country is suffering through lack of equipment, lack of everything in its budget. Other universities have reported that they are losing some of their top researchers to the United States.
We know what the Government of the same Party did three decades ago when it cancelled the Avro Arrow and provided no alternative employment for the skilled people or the team producing the Arrow. The Government has not learned anything from the experience of the previous Conservative Government because it is going to do the very same thing again.
It would be possible for this Government, by spending only
10	per cent or 11 per cent of the new revenues, to increase what it gives to higher education and health. In other words, by keeping the same percentage of expenditure for the new revenues as for the old revenues, it would be possible for the Government to enable the health and education services of Canada to maintain their present level.
The Government boasts about the economic recovery that it says it is bringing about. If that is so, there will be more revenue next year without an increase in tax rates. There will be more revenue because of more jobs and more income, so the Government says. If the Government believes what it is saying, although I am not sure that the Government does, and if the Government can keep the Financing level this year for the universities and the health system, that is to give 10 per cent or
11	per cent instead of cutting the amount to one-third of that, then next year the Government should be able to increase the funding to the universities, which would catch up for years of neglect. The present Government blames the previous Government for years of neglect, so it should be trying to do something to remedy the situation. It is not too late to withdraw or amend this Bill and cut out this disastrous mistake the Government is making which is destroying our health and education systems.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about the Bill before the House, Bill C-96. I admit it is not the first time I have had occasion to speak to this Bill. However, it seems to matter very little whether we come to the House to share our views with the Government Members. It does not do much good, because since the very beginning, they have been pushing this Bill-from First reading to second and third reading-without making the major changes that should be made, which means that Canadians are going to pay a very high price for this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the way this Bill is being forced on Canadians, and I say "forced". A year and a half or so ago, it was said with a great deal of emphasis that a new era of
June 13, 1986

consultation had begun for Canada. Everything would be done with as much consultation as possible. The provinces would be asked to provide input for any Bill that would affect them. We were led to believe that before 1984, everything had been done in an utterly disorganized fashion and that there had never been any consultation at all.
In this context of consultation, Mr. Speaker, this new era in which we were going to talk to and understand each other and work together as friends, perhaps we should consider and reflect on what is being said in the various provinces, and I am of course going to start with my own province, New Brunswick. What are they saying about this Bill in New Brunswick? At this point, perhaps I may mention a debate that took place in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. Listen to this. Mr. McKenna moved a motion, and you will say, of course he wanted to change the Bill, as the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Leader in the province of New Brunswick-indeed, and quite a leader he is, Mr. Speaker-and the motion was adopted unanimously by the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, I shall if I may read you the text of this motion:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has announced that the rate of growth in transfer payments under the Established Programs Financing Act will be decreased commencing in 19S6; and
WHEREAS this reduction in the rate of growth will cost New Brunswick $9 million this year and will total an estimated $160 million by 1990-91; and
WHEREAS New Brunswick does not have the economic base to absorb such a loss;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick requests the Government of Canada to reconsider its unilateral decision and restore the Established Programs Financing to the level agreed to in 1982; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick request the Government of Canada to enter into discussions with the Provinces in an effort to mutually agree to the level of funding under the Established Programs Financing Act for 1987-88 and beyond; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should any reduction in the rate of growth of funding under the Established Programs Financing Act be agreed to that the federal government take steps through the equalization program to compensate the Atlantic Provinces for such EPF losses, and ensure that the equalization program provide sufficient revenues so that all provinces have the ability to provide comparable levels of public services at comparable levels of taxation.

So this was the conclusion at the end of the debate held in the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly, and the word which sticks out in this text is "unilateral": "The unilateral decision of the Government of Canada to change its programs." That, Mr. Speaker, flies in the face of every statement made by the new Government when it took office.
The people of New Brunswick are very disappointed. Very disappointed. They even say they have been misled because the people of New Brunswick wanted to believe in this new era of consultation. They had faith. But, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that the people of New Brunswick are seriously pondering over
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
what has happened and what is happening. They are seriously reflecting upon these events. They are very disappointed.
And New Brunswick is not the only province with does not take kindly to this Bill. Manitoba as well is saying:
The Government of Manitoba believes that passage of this Bill would lead Canada in the wrong directions. Bill C-96 suggests that Canadians should devote a declining share of our economy to health and higher education services at a time when all forecasts show that needs are clearly increasing and evidence suggests that our country can afford to maintain and improve our services;

So when the provinces make statements such as this one, it does look as though the Canadian Government does not believe it shares any kind of responsibility for health care and postsecondary education, or at least that it would like Canadians to think that its responsibility has diminished.
I could go on reading the comments made by the Province of Manitoba, but I will refer instead to the Province of Ontario and quote Premier David Peterson of Ontario:
This reduction in funds provided the provinces will translate into a reduction in services. There will be fewer hospital beds, warned the Premier of Ontario, David Peterson, who also thinks that in 1990, his province will lose 75,000 places in its colleges and universities.
And I could go on with Gerard D. Levesque, the Quebec Minister of Finance, who says:

It is unfair to the provinces, because they have been counting on the amounts agreed to in the accords.

And we have the Premier of the Province of New Brunswick, a staunch supporter of the Conservative Government here in Ottawa. Nevertheless, Mr. Hatfield said:
I will have no choice but to increase user fees for medical services.
And his Minister of Finance, Mr. John Baxter, went on to
say:

It is unreasonable for the federal Government to think that provinces which have taken difficult measures to deal with their own financial situation can also be expected to absorb part of the problem at the federal level.

Mr. Speaker, those were a few of the reactions we are getting from the provinces, who are very disappointed in the fact that this action was taken unilaterally, without any consultation and without the provinces knowing when and how these funds were going to be cut.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on to quote other Canadians who are also disappointed, and I would like to mention what was said by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada:

An article in The Globe and Mail reads:

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The systematic underfinancing of Canada's university system is reaching tragic proportions, the Chief Justice of Canada said yesterday in a speech that delved unusually far into public policy issues.
Chief Justice Brian Dickson implored governments to save the higher education system before it begins producing second-class teachers and students "and, ultimately, a second-class nation".
[ Translation]
And these words have a particular impact in New Brunswick. Why? Because we in New Brunswick do not have the same resources that certain other provinces in Canada enjoy. It is going to have a very severe impact on us. We will be far worse off than the rest of Canada.
And I could go on, and I want to quote the Canadian Medical Association, which is very concerned about the changes Bill C-96 will bring. The Association recommends, in its first recommendation:

That this legislation be restricted to a short-term basis only-and only if absolutely essential to the future eonomy of the country;

And it goes on with a second recommendation.

That the financially disadvantaged Atlantic provinces be excluded from the provisions of this legislation, i.e. that they continue to receive increasing financial support for health care programs on the basis of the existing Established Program Funding formula;

And the same CMA goes on to say that-

The Atlantic provinces must be excluded from proposed federal legislation which would reduce the amount of money expected by the provinces from the federal Government for health care and higher education.
"We are alarmed with the potential impact of this legislation in the Atlantic provinces," said Dr. William Vail, President of the Canadian Medical Association-
[ Translation]
And it went on to say:

The federal Government must ensure that its proposed legislation regarding changes in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements be applied on a short-term basis only and that it exclude the Atlantic provinces. In addition, the federal and provincial governments should proceed immediately to negotiate a formal agreement for the future financing of health care in Canada.
[ Translation]
So when we say that Atlantic Canada will be particularly affected, Mr. Speaker, you can see in light of everything I have been saying that we will indeed feel the direct impact of this Bill. I am really concerned that the people of New Brunswick will be very seriously affected, in the sense that our services will be reduced and especially that our young people will not have the same opportunities as others elsewhere in Canada. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would mention the University of Moncton, the institution which provides young Acadians with an opportunity to continue their studies. Well, this young
university will be very hard-pressed because it is just starting and needs more funding than it is getting, ever more. There is no doubt that this Bill will harm the University of Moncton as well as the other universities in New Brunswick and all people, all New Brunswickers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Before proceeding to the questions and comments period, I should like to make the following statement:

Earlier today the House accepted a motion to debate an issue under the provisions of Standing Order 29, which debate the Chair has set down for three o'clock p.m. this day. Since the provisions of Standing Order 29 do not allow for Private Members' Hour, I have instructed the Table Officers to drop to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence the items scheduled for debate in the name of the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


Mr. Ray Skeliy (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments and observations on the proposal of the Government in Bill C-96 to cut substantially spending health care and post-secondary education. I think it is important to state at the outset that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has not given Canadian people a clear picture of the intentions of the Government. For the Prime Minister to say that the federal Government has not cut spending on health care and post-secondary education is wrong. The Government has reneged on a commitment and obligation to provide adequate funding with the provinces to ensure that people have free access to a decent level of health care, and equal access to education.
The Prime Minister is going to put in place, knowingly and deliberately, a two-tier system of health care and postsecondary education. Those with an adequate income will be able to obtain a post-secondary education. Over the years, as costs increase and the federal Government's share decreases, people will gain access to learning institutions only by paying the user fees required. As time goes by, those with more money will have access, and those with less will not.
Many of my colleagues have spoken today about the postsecondary education crisis precipitated by this Government. I would like to make some observations about health care. Earlier this year the Government of Newfoundland produced a Green Paper which showed that the province could no longer afford to provide health care to its citizens if the federal Government reneged on its commitment to pay a share of those costs. The cost of health care was rapidly moving beyond the capacity of the provincial Government to deal with it.
The Green Paper pointed out that Newfoundland had strained its revenue sources to the very limit. It pointed out that the provincial sales tax was among the highest in the country. Corporate and personal income taxes were the highest of any province. If Newfoundland increased its taxes it would
June 13, 1986

drive people and businesses out of the province and its revenue position would be worse. It pointed out that health care was extremely important, yet there was literally not a nickel left in the system to pay for it.
It was pointed out as well that the Newfoundland health care system had been cut to the bone. It was as lean as it could possibly be. Any further cuts would mean that it could not adequately deliver services to the people. Staff had been cut, capital purchases had been cut, and it could not be cut any more and still be called a health care system.
The point was made very effectively that citizens of Newfoundland are also citizens of Canada and have a right to a decent health care system. The federal Government has no right to renege on its obligation towards an equitable sharing of the costs. When the Prime Minister of Canada, at the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax, said we are not cutting funding to the health care system, he was absolutely wrong.
The Newfoundland Government came up with a number of suggestions in the Green Paper. It considered revenue increases but rejected them. It examined a further cutting of the system and said that this was not possible. It examined the question of privatizing the health care system, turning it over to the private sector. That suggestion, of course, would lead us down the road to disaster. If that is a solution for Newfoundland today, it would be a solution for British Columbia or Saskatchewan tommorrow. Yet the privatizing of the health care system is being promoted by this Government. It is an absolutely wrong direction in which to go and will of course give us a two-tier system such as they have in the U.S.
Many years ago Norman Bethune, who contracted tuberculosis but had enough money in his family to obtain expensive treatment in a sanatorium, said, after being cured, that he was one of the fortunate ones at that time because there are really two types of tuberculosis in Canada. There is tuberculosis for the rich; you pay money and are cured. Then there is tuberculosis for the poor; you have no money and you die. That is the ultimate end of a two-tier health care system. If you cannot afford to buy private health care insurance, if you cannot afford to pay for extra billing, if you cannot afford to pay user fees, you do not make it.
Newfoundland asks this question. Is this a legitimate way for the Conservative Government of Canada to go? Does it want to renege on its share of the cost of an adequate health care system? Is it only prepared to pay a 2 per cent increase in the cost of health care when costs are increasing at a rate of 7 per cent? That 5 per cent shortfall will mean that a province like Newfoundland will have to turn to other sources or a two-tier system. This is an extremely serious matter and it is my hope that members of the Conservative Party will feel a responsibility to maintain the Government's commitment to give Canadians a decent, effective health care system such as they have had over the years.
Another thing that is very disturbing to me is that in my province Premier Bennett decided that the Prime Minister of
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Canada had found a very constructive way of saving the Government money by trimming the amount spent to preserve the health and dignity of all citizens of this country. I understand that the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Devine, supported the Prime Minister as well. Yet no one else in this country would have taken such a completely irresponsible step. It is probably only in British Columbia, under a Social Credit Government, that education has been reduced to one of the lowest levels in this country. The removal of opportunities for young people has been so drastic in that province that parents are rising up and saying, "enough". That Government can no longer stay in power as long as it has that kind of attitude toward its citizens and that kind of attitude towards its future by depriving its most precious natural resource, its children, of an education. It is absolute and complete irresponsibility.
Premier Bennett did not stop there in his support of the Conservative Government in Ottawa. He felt that even the health care sytem could be further gutted. The Bennett Government in British Columbia has made massive cut-backs in the health care system. It has cut back hospital spending. It has cut it back to the point where large wings of hospitals are now closed, where hospitals cannot acquire, over a number of years, equipment that is seriously needed. The B. C. Government has created a situation where important surgery is backlogged to the point where it cannot be done and people's lives have been placed in jeopardy.
This is the kind of leadership that has been coming out of the Province of British Columbia. This is the kind of support that the Prime Minister of Canada is getting for his proposed cut-backs in the health care system. Mr. Bennett, I assume, would see the Prime Minister turn around and create a health care system that looks like the one in British Columbia, which would be a disaster.
I assume that when the next election is called in British Columbia the people will rectify that. For people who are concerned about the future of their children and the future of the province, the ability to obtain decent health care will be a major item of concern.
It certainly is a hope of mine that this Government will reconsider its position on the proposed cut-backs to health care spending at the federal level. There are areas in the rapid growth of health care that really need to be addressed. There is a need for attention to senior citizens. There needs to be a serious expansion of prevention and education in health care where the federal Government would pay dollars today that would, in fact, save enormous amounts of money in the future by educating people in proper health care practices. The whole process of education and prevention would pay enormous dividends. If the proper investment were made in that area today we would see a reduction of health care costs in the future.
Another concern is the home care program for the elderly. This is something that has been chopped in British Columbia

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
and very badly handled in many areas of the country. It is extremely important that home nursing programs be permitted to grow and expand as that need is required. It allows elderly people to live in their homes, to maintain the kind of life that they had had in the past into senior years. Yet, with shortterm, shortsighted approaches that the Government of British Columbia has put in place, and that this Government in Ottawa would emulate by its cut-backs in funding, those home care programs will force the elderly out of their own homes and force them into institutional care at a very high cost. We have to stop that trend with forward thinking and new approaches to health care which will require some serious initial investment to realize the savings down the road.
While on the subject of dignity and proper care for senior citizens there are many senior citizens who can maintain an independent existence, with an increment of care provided to them. This federal Government should be making investments in that kind of independent care preventing the full institutional care of people by providing intermediate care facilities with access to some nursing assistance. That type of positive program which would give senior citizens a better quality of life has been chopped in British Columbia, and the kind of action taken by the Mulroney Government in cut-backs to health care funding is certainly going to create that shortsighted and very harsh system in Canada today.
I am extremely disappointed, as are many people in this country, that these cut-backs in funding are going to mean great difficulty for people, especially senior citizens. They emulate the kind of very negative health care program afoot in British Columbia.
Then we have the extended care facilities. There are many extended care facilities in which the staff and the people in those facilities with limited resources are doing a magnificent job, a job that is extremely difficult. Senior citizens there are getting the best care available. The attitude of the Government in British Columbia toward building sufficient extended care facilities for those senior citizens is extremely negative. The British Columbia Government sees that as an area of cut-back, an area of limited funding. We have the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, congratulating the Prime Minister of Canada for his attempt to cut back funding of the health care system.
As the average age of this population increases, there is going to be a greater need for funding for senior citizens, for funding in the intermediate care area, for funding in the extended care area, and we should be looking toward providing a partnership in that funding, not just to the very narrow limits to which this Bill addresses itself, and certainly not to the cutback in the level of health care increases that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Conservative Government envision.
This is a very serious matter. The senior citizens of Canada have been badly treated by this particular Government in the suggested cut-backs to the old age pension. The situation of retired members of the Armed Forces has been badly handled
by this Government in its cut-backs to unemployment insurance that are extremely important in making the adjustment from active wage earners to an age of retirement. This Government has not paid adequate, fair, and decent attention to the senior citizens of this country. No more clearly is it illustrated than in this particular area of cut-backs in health care.
Senior citizens are not the only ones who are very badly treated. So are Canadians who live in remote areas of this country, who are involved in resource extraction, who provide the factories of this country and the major centres with the raw materials they need. In many cases these people do not have medical doctors. In many cases they do not have nursing facilities. They depend on air ambulances. They depend on clinics that are seeing funding cut at this point in time. Clinics in those areas are saying they can no longer provide service at a level you would expect because the federal Government is reneging on cost-sharing. It would be my hope that Conservative Members of Parliament on the government side would be prepared to put this legislation down as extremely unfair, as inequitable for Canadians, and would see a full and fair partnership in the sharing of health costs in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleagues across for their warm reception and applause as I commence my remarks this afternoon on Bill C-96.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as you know, many Members of this House are very disappointed in Bill C-96. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is my third speech on this Bill-


Pierre H. Vincent: And that's enough.


Don Boudria: -and the Hon. Member opposite says that's enough, Mr. Speaker. That is interesting. Am I to conclude that the Hon. Member agrees the Conservative Government is making a mistake with this Bill? And considering the fact that-


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is putting words in my mouth which are in fact the exact opposite of what I think. I wish he would stop these insinuations, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as you may have noticed, this was not a point of order. It wasn't even a good argument. It was a very weak defence to support the indefensible, namely Bill C-96.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a very slim document, as you may have noticed. And it also has very little to offer the various provincial governments of our country.
Mr. Speaker, if you think for one minute that I am being partisan, which is definitely not the case, but if you do, let me
June 13, 1986

tell you what others have said about this Bill, people who definitely do not have a political axe to grind.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from sources who you will have no doubt are non-partisan, in case you mistakingly thought that I was partisan.
Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court said in an interview with The Globe and Mail:
Please do not choke off the funding of universities. Canada must have good universities with outstanding teachers and world-class research facilities.
Those are the words of our Chief Justice. I could go on to quote from other people who also thought that the funding that we transfer to our provinces should not be cut off. Let me read the following:

Mr. Speaker, I quote:
The only sign' its shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending . .. That is not co-operative federalism. That is predatory federalism, and it will not and cannot work in this country.
Mr. Speaker, do you know whom I just quoted? The present Minister of Finance, who on March 23, 1982, when he was in the Opposition, said those words. Mr. Speaker, what happened since then? What happened to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to bring about a conversion, a total reversal in his thinking?

Let me read what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), when he was in opposition, said on March 24, 1982, as reported at page 15774 of Hansard. He said:
Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure.
It is almost unbelievable that the Minister of Finance has done exactly what he said should never be done. As a matter of fact, he has done even worse because he did not even consult with the provinces. It is true that he lent them an ear, just as he lends an ear to opposition Members of the House. But it is a futile effort.
This is the third time I have had to rise in the House to attempt, as best I can, to convince the Government of Canada that what it wants to do is wrong. One would think that after being told three times, it would understand. One would think that after all other opposition Members have told the Government that what it is doing is wrong, that it would understand. However, that is not the case.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Let me explain the effects of Bill C-96 on the province which I have the honour and privilege to represent in the House.

The Province of Ontario will lose $114 million in 1986-87 if Bill C-96 is adopted by the House. The loss would amount to $243.4 million in 1987-88, and $387.5 million in 1988-89. The figures keep going up year after year. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of Ontario would stand up in this House to object to this Bill? No, Sir, no wonder. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Members of Ontario, particularly Government Members who do not rise in the House today are neglecting their constituents by failing to make the same kind of representations we are making before you this afternoon.

I am sure the House will recall that the Tories made several promises during the election campaign. In fact, they made 338 promises and I happen to have a booklet entitled "338 Tory Promises", appropriately enough. Most of these promises have been broken by now, as I am sure you will understand, Mr. Speaker, since you had to listen to them as I did during the election campaign. Being the non-partisan person you are, you probably found those promises very objectionable, as I did.
I am sure you may want to read through the "338 Tory promises" to familiarize yourself with them and, if you so desire, I am quite willing to give you or any Canadian a copy of the book "338 Tory Promises", which is free for the asking, of course.
Page 15 of the book of promises concerns government processing. I am sure that the cabinet Minister who is heckling will recall-


Sheila Finestone: He is uncomfortable.


Don Boudria: As the distinguished Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) says, he is uncomfortable. He ought to be uncomfortable after reneging on commitments which he made to the people of Canada.
Let me read some of the promises that relate to funding. Promise no. 7 is to recognize the legitimate role on jurisdiction of the provinces in economic and social policy issues. How can the provinces possibly fulfil that role without money? Perhaps the Hon. cabinet Minister opposite will stand in his place and explain how the provinces can deliver social services without money.


Sheila Finestone: And without consultation.


Don Boudria: Without consultation too, as the Member for Mount Royal very appropriately says.
Let me read some of the promises concerning social programs. The Tories said that they would maintain programs to help Canadians through economic crises. Those of us who represent areas dependent on textiles and so on, as you and I do, Mr. Speaker, know that with the abolition of the CIRB

June 13, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
program and other measures, the Government has not kept that promise. The Government's cut-back in that area has added a burden on the social programs that provinces and municipalities must deliver. However, perhaps that is a topic for another time.
Let me remind you of other promises, Mr. Speaker. The Tories said they would support the critical role of the voluntary sector, that they would consult with provinces, groups, individuals and health care professionals in making improvements to the system. I suppose they never said they would consult with the provinces, groups and individuals when destroying the system. So perhaps that promise has not been breached. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when the people of Canada listened to that commitment from the Conservative Party during the election campaign, they did not expect to see these cut-backs in funding, which will have the very serious results expressed by Chief Justice Brian Dickson.
The Tories said they would use the system so it acts in a preventive manner, raising the health care standards of Canadians. If we do not have any money to take care of health care needs, how could we further add to the preventive function? How can we do that if we cannot even do what needs to be done on an emergency and urgent basis? The Tories said they would use health care resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible. That most effective way must be preventive health care. The only way we can engage further in that area is by providing the immediate funding so we will not have this long-term pain. We need to provide money immediately and in the short term in order to create the appropriate atmosphere which will cause us to save in the long run and which will assist us in having a healthier society.
Perhaps some Tories opposite are not yet entirely convinced. Perhaps they still think some of us could be partisan and not totally objective.
[ Translation]
But, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the Canadian Medical Association had to say when Dr. W. J. Vail appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-96. I will read just a few lines of the statement made by the Canadian Medical Association: "The CMA is seriously concerned about the harmful consequences the proposed amendments may have on the financing of health care, therefore on the system of health services offerred to Canadians, as much with respect to accessibility to the system as to the availability and quality of care."
This is what Dr. Vail said, Mr. Speaker, and as you know, many people in the medical profession are not as big fans of the Liberal Party as they used to be, especially in Ontario, but whatever the political affiliations of Dr. Vail, we have to note that, according to his association, the Conservative Government and its present policies are detrimental to health care in Canada. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read ... This is interesting, Mr. Speaker. I see that the Hon. Member
opposite seems to side with the Ontario doctors rather than with the population of his province. That is interesting and I am certain that the people of Ontario will remember it. I wonder whether that represents the official position of the Federal Conservative Party about health care in Ontario.
The national union of farm women and its representative, Kathy Connors, said this when they appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-96 on May 28: "We are very concerned by the fact that the Government has decided unilateraly what the framework of financing agreements will be. There is no consultation or consensus when a single party decides and the others are only entitled to react."
As you see, Mr. Speaker, many Canadians from various sectors of our society believe that Bill C-96 is not to the advantage of Canadians.
And the reason why we are here today, Mr. Speaker, as I remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent), is that we represent those Canadians. And if we are here to represent them, why will this Conservative Government not listen?
I would now like to deal briefly with the university community, because those cuts as proposed in Bill C-96 will have negative effects not only on health care but also on education, something I would like to bring for your attention, Mr. Speaker.
As we know, there were students here on Parliament Hill, and more specifically I remember that day, on March 14, when 300 students were here, students from the University of Ottawa and Carleton University, a good many of whom reside and vote in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. It is therefore a double privilege to speak on the matter on behalf, as always, of citizens of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The newspaper Le Droit had this to say on March 14: "More than 300 students from the University of Ottawa and Carleton University demonstrated on Parliament Hill around noon yesterday, condemning the cut-backs announced by the Conservative Government in post-secondary education funding." It went on: "Ottawa is considering a $5 billion cutback in transfer payments for education and health care by 1990, as revealed recently in Bill C-96. This statement was made by the President of the Canadian Federation of students, John Casola. About a third of that amount was to be used for education."
As we see, those cut-backs as proposed in Bill C-96 will have a negative impact on education and health care.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has said. Earlier I referred to the Minister of Finance before his conversion, when he was in Opposition. In those days he opposed a certain consultation process saying it was inadequate.
But when he himself became Minister, as I was saying earlier and as you certainly remember quite well, Mr. Speaker, he decided to do what he wanted and did not consult anybody.
June 13, 1986

I should like to quote part of a press release dated February 14, 1986, published under the authority of the Minister of Finance. I do so, Mr. Speaker, because, as you know, the Government has in circulation a great many press releases, so that it is really impossible to keep track of all of them. I should like to refer to that part, for it is important. I quote:
"This serves to confirm unequivocally the Government's commitment to provide considerable support to provincial health care and education programs'', said the Minister.
But you see what is happening, Mr. Speaker! When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was sitting in the Opposition, he used to denounce the cut backs decided by the previous Government, claiming that there had not been enough consultations. Now, he does not consult anybody; he hands down major cuts, as I demonstrated earlier, and then he pats himself on the back while uttering the statement I have just quoted-congratulating himself for a job well done on behalf of the Canadian people.
It is not surprising that the Conservative Party is losing the public support of Canadians, for Government Members think they are doing right even when they are doing wrong.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, since you are signaling ... I would have a lot more to tell you and this Conservative Government about Bill C-96.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 29 APARTHEID-SITUATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Speaker:: Leave has been granted to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the deteriorating situation in South Africa.


Lloyd Axworthy: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I recognize how much a privilege it is to have an emergency debate on an adjournment motion. It is one of those parliamentary techniques which must, and should, be used sparingly and only in appropriate circumstances when conditions in the country and around the world warrant it. I wish to say to Your Honour that I appreciate the judgment which you made in granting this debate, and I know that other Members of the House are in accord with the motion. Friday afternoon may not be the most propitious moment for bringing to public attention a matter of such severity and seriousness as the conditions taking place in South Africa. However, I believe
that it would have been negligent of Members of Parliament to have returned to our ridings without having had the opportunity to call attention to what we consider to be the seriousness of the circumstance and the need for more effective government action to respond in a way that we believe Canada can respond.
I wish to make it clear that I am not here this afternoon to condemn the Government. That is not the artifice of the Opposition. Over the past several months the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and other members of the Government have given very important and significant declarations about their concern for the situation in South Africa, that is, the rising violence and repression which is occurring there. We have no quarrel at all with the forthrightness of their statements. What we are here to talk about this afternoon is the action that Canada can most effectively take to give expression to those concerns and to provide the type of leadership that the world requires at this time to make something happen to stop the deterioration of the situation there.
As was clearly stated by the Eminent Persons Group when it reported on Thursday, it may be a matter of just days, or weeks, until we see a major confrontation in the structures of that society which will cause it to unravel totally. Primarily, we are here to argue not as to what is happening in South Africa and the degree of Canadian concern about it but what we believe to be an opportunity-in fact an obligation-for Canada to make an effective response to provide the direction that I believe the world is asking for and, in fact, needs.
I do not think I have to recite the events which have taken place in South Africa. However, they have rolled before us very quickly. Sometimes, when one sees them happening on television or reads about them, the full weight of what is taking place in that country day-by-day begins to be a blur. I ask Hon. Members to consider the last 48 hours in that country. Emergency measures have been imposed in the State of South Africa by a Government that is using those measures not to maintain stability but to break the back of the black movement. I recommend that Hon. Members read the column in this morning's The Globe and Mail by Michael Valpy who is a respected journalist and who knows the situation well. He said that at last the South African Government is comfortable with itself. It is now giving itself the tools of the army and the police to do what it has always believed it right to do, that is, totally repress the black movement in South Africa. That is one reason why it is urgent to take action today. If these emergency measures succeed by the putting in prison of thousands of people, by the use of force and restraint, then whatever evolution has occurred to give more rights to the majority in that country will be lost. It would be an act of shame if we did not cry out and say that that must stop. It would be something that I do not think any Canadian would support if we stood by to watch a deliberate and conscious decision being made to put a halt to the rights of blacks in that

June 13, 1986
country. Let us not delude ourselves with respect to what is really going on.
Beyond that, we all have to be shocked by the increasing signs of division and conflict. Nothing was more tragic to watch than the events at the Crossroads settlement over the last two days in which we saw black against black, battles fomented once again by official agents of that Government. What can be more diabolical, more machiavellian, than that type of cynical abuse of power that is taking place?
Even the last threshold of civility is being denied through the imposition of censorship. Officials in that country do not want the world to know what is going on, so the cameras are being pulled away and the journalists are being jailed. The last example of freedom of expression is being denied not only to the citizens of South Africa but to the rest of the world. We say in our motion that deterioration is taking place. I wish I could find stronger words to express it. I wish there were more deliberate parliamentary language to give full description to the conditions of evil that are taking place in that country at the present time-everything abhorrent. Therefore I believe strongly that Canadians want to cry out and say: "Enough is enough".
This is why we take objection to the words of advice that have been offered by the Government. They sound acceptable. The Government wants to take a slow and measured response building up to some form of consensus or agreement at the Commonwealth meeting in August. August may be too late. It is two months away. I ask Hon. Members to think of what could happen in the meantime to that country and the people in it. The time for action is now. We want the Government to take strong and effective action far more than what it has been prepared to do thus far. We have no quarrel with the objective and no substantial objection to the means of attaining it.
I believe that Canada has a role of leadership to play in this case. I think we are strategically positioned to provide a bold and perhaps heroic step forward. I feel that the Canadian public is often far ahead of its Government when it says that it is time to break out of the conventional modes, out of the diplomatic niceties, the minuets of the international world. At some point one must take one's conscience in one's hands and go with it, let it lead and not follow. I think it is one of those times, one of those open windows in history from which we can move forward to say something which I believe can mobilize and galvanize all types of other countries and people to take similar action.
I was reading a report today which stated that the Foreign Ministers of the European Economic Community are meeting on Monday. They will provide the same type of verbal condemnation at that time. They will close their embassies as we will close ours. But what would happen if, in the meantime, say this weekend, Canada, which is a highly respected member of the community of nations, a country which is known not to make false or adventuresome judgments, were to say that we want to have a full ban on economic activity? What would that do to the Denmarks in the EEC which are trying to fight for
the same thing in that community? Would it not provide the kind of catalyst that might move those European Economic Community nations, West Germany and Great Britain, at least to reconsider and do something different from simply once again hiding behind their diplomatic language?
We talk a lot in this country about being a mature nation, a highly regarded one. It is time now to put the chips on the table. What are we storing them up for if every time it comes to a crossroads and we see a chance to act we say: "Oh no, we are going to move slowly, in measured terms"? I think Canadians want, through their Government, to become a leader in this area and to provide the kind of direction that is necessary to move the world community.
Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of what is happening today. I am not privy to the discussions that went on in Cabinet with Vice-President Bush, but I do know that there could be an emergency meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations on Monday to talk about mandatory, effective economic sanctions. However, in the past the United States has used its veto power to stop such action.
Vice-President Bush is in the capital today. Would it not have been an important step forward if Vice-President Bush and the Prime Minister prepared a joint communique which said that they had agreed to go to the emergency meeting of the United Nations to put this matter on the table and let the world community have a say? What would that have done for world opinion? What would that have done for the British House of Commons which is trying to persuade the Prime Minister to take a different course of action? What would it have done for West Germany and other countries if they had heard the most important country and one of the most respected countries in the Western Alliance say that it is time to take a different course of action? That is why we are calling for more effective action. The opportunities are there.
Let me draw to the attention of the House the actions announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He announced the cancellation of tourist advertising and restrictions on visas for four attaches located in Washington. He announced the elimination of government procurement of South African goods and services, which amount to less than $1 million. Will that really prick the conscience of South Africa? Will that really signal to the world community that we are serious?
The Government tried to say that it took an important step forward. However, the public knows what we could have done and what actions were available to us. Last week, an article appeared in the Toronto Star talking about major Government businesses. Our own Crown corporation, Eldorado, run by the Government, is taking uranium ore from South Africa and refining it here to the tune of millions of dollars. Uranium is being extracted from Libya, that country is being plundered, the uranium is being brought to Canada and our Crown corporation is involved. Would it not have been seen as an
June 13, 1986

important action if the Government of Canada had finally said enough of that? That would have been an important step which might have had the kind of heavy symbolic value for which we are looking.
Representatives of businesses involved in South African trade say that it is business as usual and nothing has changed. The Government called for voluntary sanctions and we supported that. We thought that was a good step. However, it was taken months ago and the report today is that one representative after the other says that it has made no difference and they are still doing things as usual.
We know that if there is to be any change at all in South Africa, it will not come from its Government but from its private sector recognizing that its network of connections and its economic survival is at risk. We know that that is the kind of action we must take. Even a man of such passive resistance as Bishop Tutu who previously said that we should wait is now calling for that action. He is saying that the time is now and that we should not wait.
The opportunities existed for taking many other kinds of actions, actions far stronger, far more evocative and far more demanding. If these actions had been adopted, it would have provided for that magnet that could have mobilized actions in other countries around the world. That then may have been sufficient to tell the South African Government that enough is enough and it must start negotiating and making progress.
In a matter of days, people in South Africa will be marking the anniversary of the Soweto massacres. It will be the culmination of a time of enormous frustration. Is it not crucial that all those brave souls in South Africa who are fighting day in and day out against the worst kind of repression know that outside their boundaries, they are joined in harmony and sympathy by others? It is not enough for them to hear the words. They have to see that action is being taken. It is not enough to simply make one more rhetoric flourish. The only way we can be seen to be a part of them is by taking action.
I do not want to get theological about this, but in the kind of religion I practise, at least, one is known not by one's words but by one's deeds. That is the reason for this emergency debate. It is not to condemn or to be critical but to say that we now have an opportunity, an obligation and a responsibility to act. We give full credit to the commitments the Prime Minister expressed at the United Nations, in Nassau and elsewhere. We do not argue with that at all. However, we do say that now is the time to give effect to those words.
Franklin Roosevelt said that there are many ways to go forward but there is only one way of standing still. If we add it all up, we will see that we are really only treading water. We are not doing all that we can. We are not giving our words their full force and weight. This could be a coming of age for Canada. We could take advantage of all the years we have developed good offices, good reputations and a good standing and put them on the line for the people of South Africa. If we
are to be a country that will take a leadership role in demanding the expression of human rights in South Africa, the Soviet Union, Nicaragua or Central America, we have to be bold about it. We cannot hide our light under a bushel.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone) might help me, but I believe that there is a saying in the Talmud that if you save one life, you have saved the whole world. It may be within our power as a country to save some lives in South Africa by our actions. It may be within our power to provide that invitation to other countries to take similar action.
Other countries have taken action. The Danes have full economic sanctions in place and the Swedes are beginning to do the same thing. These are countries with which we have long associated ourselves, countries that try to represent a higher standard of behaviour in world affairs. They are waiting for us. It is our time and place to do something about it. We are using this debate to say to members of the Government that they have made a commitment and they should now live up to that commitment by their actions and deeds.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for granting this emergency debate today because the situation is an emergency. We want to see the Government of Canada take action this weekend and therefore it is absolutely essential to have this debate today. We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for making it possible.
I would like to begin by reminding the House of the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) spoken exactly nine months ago today in the House. On September 13, 1985, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the following:
-Canadians are offended by, and abhor, the practice of institutionalized racism by a society that claims to share our values-
It is very important that he went on to say the following:
The Government of South Africa should have no doubt that we will invoke full sanctions unless there is tangible movement away from apartheid.
That is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said so eloquently and forcefully nine months ago today. He said that the Government of South Africa should have no doubt that we will invoke full sanctions unless there is tangible movement away from apartheid.
A month later, in October 1985, the Commonwealth Accord was agreed to in Nassau. It imposed a very limited set of sanctions upon South Africa but, most important, it called upon that Government to take a number of steps in a genuine manner and as a matter of urgency.
There were five particular steps. First, declare that the system of apartheid will be dismantled and specific and meaningful action taken in fulfilment of that intent. Second, terminate the existing state of emergency. Third, release immediately and unconditionally Nelson Mandela and all

June 13, 1986
others imprisoned and detained for their oppositon to apartheid. Fourth, establish political freedom and specifically lift the existing ban on the African National Congress and other political parties. Fifth, initiate in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics, and religion, with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative Government. That was the Accord; that was what South Africa was asked to do.
Has there been any movement at all to fulfil any of those steps? Far from dismantling or even beginning to dismantle apartheid, the Government of South Africa has reinforced it. Far from terminating the existing state of emergency, although it was done briefly, we now see in the last few days a horrendous and brutal state of emergency reimposed with thousands imprisoned and thousands more beaten. Is that progress? Was Nelson Mandela released? Were others who were imprisoned and detained for their opposition to apartheid released as was asked? Far from it. As I said a moment ago, under the new state of emergency, thousands more are being detained. Was political freedom established? Was the ban on the African National Congress and other Parties removed? Nothing was done.
Nothing was done on the final step of creating dialogue across lines of colour, politics, and religion. Not only was nothing done, but the minute the Eminent Persons Group found that all aspects of the African National Congress were willing to enter into dialogue, the Government of South Africa cracked down even more than ever before. It was not even willing to engage in dialogue.
I remind the House of those five steps which were asked of South Africa in October. I now ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs why we are not doing what he said we would do in his eloquent speech of September 13, 1985. Why are we not invoking full sanctions? The Minister said that South Africa should have no doubt that unless there is tangible movement away from apartheid, we will invoke full sanctions. This is why the debate is so absolutely essential today. The Government has not done what it said it would do if there had been no tangible movement away from apartheid. I reiterate, not only has there been no tangible movement away from apartheid, but a blood-bath is being invited.
The full sanctions, for which we have been asking since we have not seen any tangible movement away from apartheid in the last nine months, were the least we expected when the Minister spoke on the report of the Eminent Persons Group the day before yesterday. We got so little instead, not even a pinprick. Is that the kind of leadership the Government has been talking of giving, which the Government in my view had been giving? Is that the kind of leadership for today? Will the Government of Great Britain be impressed a tiny bit by this? Of course not, nor will any other country or any other member of the Commonwealth, particularly. We also indicated the kinds of sanctions we expected even before the recent declaration of a state of emergency, because that came just as the
Eminent Persons Group report was published. Are we asking too much to expect them now?
I think Canada is as trusted as, if not trusted more than many members of the Commonwealth and indeed of the United Nations to be able to understand the hopes and aspirations of the black people of South Africa, of the new members of the Commonwealth, of the newer members of the Commonwealth, and of the problems faced by the Government of Great Britain, which has an enormous investment in South Africa. I think we do and can understand both sides. I think we could have impressed upon the Government of the United Kingdom, much more than we ever have, that it had to start taking steps years ago.
Back in 1961, when the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker challenged South Africa, Great Britain should have begun pulling back on some of its trade and investments. We knew then, and they should have known it too, that apartheid was doomed. I know it would have to be gradual. Perhaps it cannot be done overnight. However, why were they not doing it gradually over the past 25 years instead of reinforcing apartheid? Why were we, the Government of Canada, not impressing upon the Government of the United Kingdom the importance of beginning to take steps so that when the very worst came-and believe me, it has come-it would then be prepared to invoke full economic sanctions?
However, because we did not impress this upon the United Kingdom, and because the United Kingdom itself has not taken appropriate steps over the years, it is no reason that Canada should now say that we will continue taking a few little, small measured steps. It is no reason whatsoever. The Canadian Government has been alert to the evil of apartheid. Certain tiny steps were taken last fall. Why in the world did we say this week: "Well, perhaps another tiny step or two"? It is beyond the stage of tiny steps.
If this debate this afternoon can do anything at all, I hope it will persuade the Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and the Government of Canada that we must not wait until August, that we must now, and that means this weekend, take the unilateral action which the Secretary of State for External Affairs promised last September 13, and that is to impose mandatory trade and investment sanctions on South Africa.
I have quoted what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said twice, but let me again quote what he said on September 13 in this House:
-we will invoke full sanctions unless there is tangible movement away from apartheid.
We, Canadians, the Government of Canada will invoke full sanctions. I expect he meant at that time both economic and diplomatic, but he certainly meant economic.
I agree that it is desirable to bring the Commonwealth together and unite in this effort. I think efforts could be made
June 13, 1986

this weekend by the PM to persuade the Government of Great Britain, which has been so incredibly lax in facing the reality of apartheid, to face the situation now. I hope the Prime Minister has been talking to Mrs. Thatcher as we have begged and urged him to do. I think it would be valuable also if the Prime Minister had done the same with the Vice-President of the United States here in Ottawa today. None of us wants to see-goodness knows, we would abhor the thought-the break-up of the Commonwealth. We must do everything we can to make sure that that does not happen. Unless we get action now on sanctions against apartheid, it will happen.
All the talk and pressure that we can bring to this urgent problem however, does not absolve us from doing what we said we would do, and that is to impose full sanctions. I cannot yet understand, and I hope the Government when it is replying today will tell us, why the Government did not do what it said it would and impose such sanctions. It would give a real signal to the Government of South Africa-it would have given and will give only if we do it this weekend-a signal to all members of the Commonwealth-and perhaps above all a signal to the United Kingdom. It would show the strength and passion of our conviction because this is a moral issue. We say we know where we stand on this moral issue. If we really do believe in what we say, and I think we do, then we do not wait until August, we do not even wait until next week before we, ourselves, live up to what we believe in.
We can live up to what we believe in, Mr. Speaker, and continue to exercise the kind of influence that I know we have with the other members of the Commonwealth. In fact, I am confident that our influence would be even greater if we stood up now, said and then did what we said we would and so reinforce our beliefs. I think others would say that Canada is not just talking, that Canada understands the situation, because I think we do, and that Canada is taking action on the basis of that understanding.
We in this House are surely mindful of what the Eminent Persons Group told us in its moving introductory words of the report: "None of us was prepared for the full reality of apartheid. As a contrivance of social engineering it is awesome in its cruelty." The group concluded that sanctions may offer the last opportunity to avert what could be the worst bloodbath since the Second World War. The words used are strong, moving, persuasive. But have we listened? Did we look at our television screens just last night-the last we are going to see, I am afraid, because of the repressive crushing of free speech in South Africa under the new state of emergency-to see what is happening in South Africa? We have seen for ourselves what the group told us it discovered, that as a contrivance of social engineering, apartheid is awesome in its cruelty.
Is it possible at all in this debate to continue the leadership role that I believe not only the Canadian Government but Canadians everywhere have undertaken? Several of the provinces and the labour movement in Canada have taken very strong stands against apartheid. Can we as the Parliament of
Canada, and can our Government now continue that leadership, respond to the concerns of people all over this country and all over the world? Can we do that this weekend, not later, and send the strongest possible message to reinforce the hopes, desires and dreams of the black people of South Africa and of all the other members of the Commonwealth? We can do that, Mr. Speaker, and we must do that. We can and must.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: First, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) for, and I quote one of them: "the urgency and the passion" which they have brought to this debate.
This is obviously an issue that is important to all of us. Important is not a strong enough word. This is an issue that I think in our hearts and our souls we all know is one of the great issues and, at the moment, one of the great sorrows of our time.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is one of the most sensitive people to this issue, and I think the work that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has done with his counterparts in the Commonwealth nations has shown the commitment which this Government has in the full knowledge that it reflects the concern on behalf of this House and on behalf of the people of Canada.

Canada was the first major western country to take concrete measures when the situation started to deteriorate in South Africa. Later on, France and Australia followed suit. The Common Market only recently announced an embargo on oil shipments.
Canada was the first country to show its disapproval by cancelling its conventions for the avoidance of double taxation. Canada is the only Western country that has taken action on the processing of uranium from Namibia and put an embargo on commercial flights to South Africa.
The range of measures we have taken to help Blacks inside South Africa has not been equalled by any other country. Our per capita aid is probably more substantial than that provided by any other country.
As we watch the situation, we know that further measures cannot be ruled out. We have told this House and the people of Canada that we shall continue to apply mounting pressure. We have said that in concert and consultation with friendly Governments, including our Commonwealth partners. As was thoughtfully pointed out by the Eminent Persons Group, among others, the concerted effort of the Commonwealth is an

June 13, 1986
instrument of diplomacy, eloquence and peace. There are avenues which are more effective than acting alone.
The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry called upon the Government for boldness and heroics. He went on to say that Canada is known not to make false judgments. He is right that there is a time for boldness and heroics. However, we do not believe that this is the time. We look for opportunities to continue to put pressure on South Africa through our own actions and those of other nations.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam quoted the report of the Eminent Persons Group which said that we must prevent the worst blood-bath since World War II. That is why deliberated action is important. All actions that are taken both from without and within South Africa can have an impact on the balance, can cause blood to run, and can cause the destruction of the very people we want to save.
There is no question that the report of the Eminent Persons Group is an important event for South Africa and the Commonwealth. Never before has a group of such standing examined the problems of apartheid and the possibilities for change. None has spoken to so wide a group of South Africans or taken on so great a challenge, that being to promote real dialogue. None has delved so deeply into the aims and thoughts of political leaders of all communities. The group's experience was unique, its wisdom apparent, its sorrow profound, and its conclusions striking and argued with conviction and logic.
It is, therefore, tragic in every sense that the South African Government rebuffed a group which reached out its hands in a way that no other has done. Through its words and actions that Government missed an opportunity to find a new course with new partners ready to help. The possibility of dialogue, however, was not rejected by the Eminent Persons Group and the opportunity has not irrevocably passed. Our Government continues to work to convince South Africa to think again.
There is no doubt that the South African Government's ban on peaceful gatherings, marking the tenth anniversary of the tragedy of Soweto and its imposition of a country-wide state of emergency, has heightened the risk of widespread violence. The South African Government uses force every day in the townships. Its actions and policies provoke and exacerbate violence, hatred, fear, and tragedy.
This is not only a dangerous path but an immoral one which our Government has been eloquent about. We will proceed with dialogue with our Commonwealth colleagues and other nations in order to bring an end to violence, to reconcile people and to shape a new future. The report of the Eminent Persons Group urges us all to think again. It urges South Africa to do so, as have the words and actions of the Canadian Government, which stand out among the major industrialized nations.
We have acted quickly and on our own. Yesterday we announced five measures on Government procurement, tourism, additional aid to black education, the cancellation of non-resident accreditation and the Canadian Embassy's
observance of Soweto and South Africa. I think these measures stand Canada ahead of the crowd. We have taken 21 very deliberate actions over the last two years.
The process of discussion which the Prime Minister has initiated with our Commonwealth colleagues shows an unparalleled commitment in this country to the struggle against apartheid. They are to be added to the measures previously taken. To those who are excluded and disenfranchised in South Africa, these measures say that they are not alone, that we have tried to assist in the past and will not desist from our efforts in the future. These actions tell the South African Government that there must be a change in course in this time of crisis. That Government must realize that the majority of South Africans can no longer accept, not only their exclusion from the life and direction of their own country, but the danger and life-threatening activities which they daily face.
The Canadian Government has conveyed that message to the South African Government in very clear and unmistakable terms together with its deep concern and hope that the South African Government will withdraw its state of emergency and the other measures it has adopted which threaten to provoke and extend violence in the coming days.
Both of the speakers from the other side of the House have criticized these measures and called for more dramatic steps. I remain convinced that the Government's actions are designed, not only to be aggressive but to be effective. That means working with other countries to bring a synergism which we cannot bring alone. Those who care about the Commonwealth and South Africa will agree that the Government's actions are well designed to maintain the effectiveness of the instiution of the Commonwealth that we value, to keep Canada in the forefront of those who oppose apartheid and, most important, to meet the direct objective of helping those who suffer from apartheid and, therefore, need our help. That is where our Governnment will be in the future.
I listened to the words of the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam. She talked about actions taken today and in the past not being enough. I know the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was sitting in a seat similar to mine 10 years ago Monday when public action was called for. I know he is sympathetic to the dilemma the Canadian Government is in as it faces another occasion where it tries to bring pressure to bear on a problem not of its making but one in which we have an enormous human stake. Our Government has taken many actions in response to this situation. I know that the Hon. Member, as he spoke today, must have remembered what it was like to be in Government faced with this situation, knowing something must be done.
We in this country were very fortunate recently to have Bishop Tutu with us. He has been an advocate of peaceful change in South Africa. I had the honour of meeting with him while he was here, not at a rally or march but at a communion
June 13, 1986

service at St. Michael and All Angels Church in Toronto. It was a private service on a bright Sunday. My sister, my mother and I attended with Archbishop Ted Scott whose eloquent and sensitive role is one for which I know Canadians are grateful. Bishop Arthur Brown was there, along with Reverend John Erb, and lessons were read by members of the congregation to Celeste Games and Mary McClarity. During the course of the service, one felt the power of this small and delicately-boned man as he smiled at the congregation and as we touched hands at the end of the service and softly sang the songs of resistance and hymns to a God many of us share. To share in that service was, I think, probably the highlight of my time in public office and will be for many years to come.
I want to bring my remarks to a close by saying what we all share in what we all want done. We want our Government to continue to take effective steps which will reflect the outpouring of care and concern from the people of this country toward the people of South Africa who have suffered so much. I know that as we proceed down this road, and we are aware, too, that time is important, we will have the support of Members of this House.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, in view of the alarming situation that continues to develop in South Africa. News bulletins from that country continue to give us great cause for concern. One thousand political arrests during the last two days, media censorhip, the Government of South Africa prohibiting the use of television cameras or microphones to record sequences of the violence and the events that are taking place in this country. The news indicates that unless some kind of concrete and energetic measures are taken, the people of South Africa will in the days to come be facing the worst situation they have ever experienced. People are talking about a blood bath that might affect some three million people, in other words, a situation that almost parallels the losses suffered during World War II.
Last night, I watched Malcom Fraser, a member of the Eminent Persons Group and former Prime Minister of Australia, when he said that unless Western countries react very energetically, something we were already doing, they would be sending a message to black leaders in South Africa that the only option open to them was violence and revolution, because they will then have to cope with the problems of apartheid on their own. If the world does not help them, we can hardly blame them for thinking that the only way to stand up for their rights and be treated fairly is to take up arms.
Mr. Speaker, last night on the CTV network, the experts claimed that the situation in South Africa could change radically within the next ten days. This is why many of us in this country, particularly here in Parliament, on this side of the House of Commons, are indeed very concerned that certain people, especially on the Government benches, seem to think it will be enough to wait until the month of August, to look around, to try to guess what other countries will be doing before going ahead ourselves and announce strong measures. Unless my Figures are badly off, Mr. Speaker, the end of a tens'. 0. 29
day period will fall before the month of August and that is what has me concerned. I am concerned that Canada might finally stand up, but only to close the barn door after the horse has fled, and that is what is worrying me. I am worried that this kind of approach might tarnish Canada's reputation as a country which acts responsibly at the international level so as to prevent conflicts.
Allow me to repeat what former Australian Prime Minister Malcom Fraser said yesterday-it is an opinion, but a worthwhile opinion coming from an individual who is quite familiar with the situation in South Africa: If nothing is done in the next 10 or 15 years, South Africa will fall into the Communist clan.
Anyone who can appreciate the geographical location of South Africa, at the southern tip of the African continent, anyone who realizes the strategic position of that country should bring pressure to bear on the Canadian Government so that we will do more than what we are doing now.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unprecedented opportunity to bolster the cause of colored people at the world level. It is right there before us. Will this turn out to be a missed rendez-vousl Are we going to let those people fend for themselves in the heart of the African continent? When we talk about South Africa, we are talking about the fortress of discrimination against Black people, about the world symbol of intolerance. This is what we are talking about. That is why all western countries must act now, and I maintain that if we wait until the month of August we will be running the risk of having hundreds of thousands of people give their life to pay for the time we want to buy to reflect further upon the concrete measures we should take as a country which can be heard on the world scene.
Our neighboors to the South, who have had so many problems and whose black people had to fight so long to have their rights recognized, understand perfectly that apartheid has to stop, and as soon as possible.
Why is it that, today, when the American Vice-President, Mr. Bush, is here in Canada and was sitting just before noon in the gallery during the Question Period, we could not succeed in having the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) admit that this was a good opportunity to ask the American VicePresident to urge his country to take concrete action and to increase substantially its economic sanctions against South Africa?
When I asked the question myself, I was surprised to get an evasive and hesitant answer. This is what we are going to do this afternoon. We have here the ideal person to listen to us and we are going to tell him what we think.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that tomorrow will be too late and that we have to act now. This is not the time for pretending to take action just to appease Canadian public opinion and to lead Canadians to believe that the Government is doing enough, because I do not think that it is doing all it should.

June 13, 1986
Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, what the Government of Canada has proposed and the latest measures announced yesterday simply say that the Canadian Government wishes to do something, but also that it has decided to wait before taking any concrete action.
Suggesting to put an end to Canadian Government purchases in South Africa is essentially academic. It does not mean much because the Canadian Government spends an insignificant amount on purchases from South Africa. This is just another way of saying: We want to do something, but not much. If we had wanted to do a lot, we would have said: As of midnight today, Canadian private businesses will no longer be able to buy from South Africa. We would have imposed a complete embargo instead of restricting the sanctions to the insignificant amounts spent on Canadian Government purchases from South Africa. We would have told the private sector: All the restrictions which we have asked you to apply voluntarily in the last few months-and I am not going to repeat them, but there are six of them and they are well-known-all these restrictions will become mandatory as of today.
Instead of telling the private sector: "Look at us, this is what we are saying as a Government, and we expect you to understand and join in". Well, the private sector will not really join in, because to this date the Canadian Government has made symbolic gestures rather than take concrete action.
Mr. Speaker, it was proposed yesterday to stop promotion and advertising aimed at attracting tourists to South Africa.
Mr. Speaker and my friends, allow me a few laughs on a matter that is too serious for laughs. Where are the thousands of Canadians who intended to spend their holidays in South Africa, a country that is on the verge of revolution, next summer? Who will have us believe there were millions of Canadians who intended to go basking in the sun in South Africa comes next summer?
What a big laugh!
Very few Canadians had planned to go there for their holidays. Therefore, putting a stop to promotion ... If at least they had suggested preventing people outright from going there. But even then, this would have been without effect because certainly the Canadians who want to go to South Africa these days are to be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Rearrange, reissue the visas for 4 diplomats. Those are all moves which tend to show they are doing something, while in fact they actually decided to just wait and see.
Besides, that was confirmed a few moments ago when the Minister of State (Finance) suggested: "We do not believe that this is the time for heroics". I do not find that hard to believe, having seen the most recent moves made by their Government. She keeps repeating that the Report from the Wise Men is important. How pleonastic! Everybody appreciates that. Indeed, the Report of the Wise Men has only confirmed what
any enlightened observer of the world scene had already understood several months ago.
Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the House and of the whole country to two questions I directed around 11:30 this morning to the Government, and which have remained unanswered.
The first question I asked the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is this: Is it the position of the Government of Canada that we can wait until mid-August-does the situation in South Africa justify waiting until mid-August? The Deputy Prime Minister offered no clear answer. But I will tell you what I and the Liberal Party of Canada think. The simple answer is no. The situation does not afford us the luxury of waiting until mid-August. A general revolution might break out any day in that country. They are on the brink of civil war. By waiting until the meeting of Commonwealth heads we simply decide to let the situation deteriorate.
The second question I asked, and I referred to it a moment ago, is this: Will the Government take the opportunity of the American Vice-President's visit here to urge him to have his country increase the economic pressure? We all know that the trade relations between South Africa and the United States are much more important than our economic ties with South Africa.
In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, the Government is not taking enough of the kind of concrete measures which would normally flow from its rhetorical statements. And I am not the only one who thinks like that.

concrete measures before August. I will be damned if our country does not implement before August measures that are more forceful than those which have been announced now.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing left for the Government to do is to take action. I cannot blame the Canadian Government for what has been said so far. I think that the Government, through the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), through the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and even through the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), has shown us how we can talk about the situation in South Africa. What is missing, however, is a more direct approach, more concrete action to give credibility to the bombastic rhetoric which, if is now followed by concrete measures, might amount to little more than speeches whose sole purpose is to enhance the image of the speakers.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to say, hopefully without causing a problem, that one of my regrets is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), through no fault of his own, is not here. It is unfortunate and I recognize that he left before he could have known that this debate was going to take place. However, I think it might have been very helpful for him and us to have given him the opportunity today to also take part in this debate.
This debate concerns the kind of global society in which we will live. It is not a debate about something that is happening thousands of miles away, it is a debate about the concerns of the majority of Canadians for the way society is developing within South Africa.
I want to begin by quoting Bishop Desmond Tutu. He has been quoted often by many, because I doubt there is a world figure who not only is so closely identified but has such a deep and personal knowledge of the situation. He said:
We must recognize that apartheid is the primary violence in South Africa. It's the violence of the migratory labour system, the violence of detention without trial, the violence that forces children to starve, the violence that stunts intellectual and spiritual growth-apartheid is an evil and immoral system which must be destroyed.
I suggest to the House and everyone in the country that those who hear the words of Desmond Tutu must take it upon themselves to move with whatever force they have to ensure that this earnest and heartfelt plea is not ignored. For that, I want to commend the Hon. Member who sought the emergency debate today. When that debate was asked for today, I felt such pride in the fact that the House of Commons was at last going to have an opportunity to speak about this issue. I thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for having filed for this debate today.
It is good that the Government of Canada has taken a lead in seeking solutions to the problem of apartheid. Having said that, however, I do not want to leave the impression that I or anyone in my Party believes that the steps which have been
taken are in any way sufficient to meet the problem. In our judgment, the steps which have been taken are of a temporary and almost inconsequential nature. They do not reflect the commitment that I understand has been made by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), or adequately reflect what I understand to be the strongly held views of our Secretary of State for External Affairs. I feel confident in saying that they do not reflect the desires of the overwhelming majority of Members of the House of Commons and certainly do not reflect in any way what the Opposition believes ought to be done now.
I believe that nothing short of our very best effort will be satisfactory. When Desmond Tutu speaks of South Africa, he speaks of it with an unparalleled passion and knowledge.
I read an interview with Bishop Tutu. The headline was: "Bishop's vision: A nation free of hate". Bishop Tutu said that South Africa can become the launching pad for the African Continent. I want to read some of that article into the record so that people who are listening to the debate or will read it later will understand what he is talking about, bearing in mind how he defined apartheid. He said:
Can you imagine what South Africa will be like when we don't have to invest so much time, money and energy either defending or opposing it (apartheid), when we will be investing all of those energies for the good of this country? We will not have treason trials. We won't be having these many political prisoners. We will not have to spend so much money on defence.
And just imagine the general sense of relief, when you know, for instance, that you can send your child to any school, if you can afford it. You can live anywhere, if you can afford it. You will have access to the decision-making process because you are a citizen.
I ask Canadians to stop and consider whether they would live in a country where those kinds of freedoms were denied. Would they accept an attempt by the Government of Canada, as it did in 1948, to segregate this country along racial lines? If the Government of this country decided to deny its people the very things that Bishop Tutu dreams of, we would have a revolution on our hands.
We must show an understanding of the nature of the problem and the frustrations being felt by the people of the black community in South Africa. Apartheid is wrong, it is evil, and it must stop. If that means a small sacrifice on the part of Canadians, then that sacrifice must be undertaken. If it means that somehow we will have to cut back a little bit, then cut-backs must be made now.
We cannot afford to wait until further riots in the streets, civil disobedience and eventual full-scale revolution in South Africa brings us to realize that we have an obligation to those people, to stand up for them and use whatever measures are available to us. That is what we are talking about today. That is what the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) are talking about, and, I suspect, with a somewhat different emphasis, what the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) is talking about.

June 13, 1986
I must say, I feel a deep disappointment when I and my colleagues ask, as we have, that we move forward now, to hear the Government respond that it is as concerned as we are, and I do not deny it, but that it wants to do this together with others. Of course, we want to do this together with others, but if the others are unwilling or unable to move, we certainly cannot justify standing still. Damn it, if one is in the streets and needs help, we do not say: "Well, if no one else will give a hand, I am not going to do it". If we see someone in distress, someone drowning, we do not stand on the shore and look around hoping that others will join with us in rescuing that person before we take action. That in a nutshell is the attitude the Government is displaying, unwittingly I suspect, during the course of Question Periods. I find it upsetting and frustrating when we know that Canadian enterprise continues to subsidize that regime and the Government takes the easy way out at every turn.
One does not need a first-hand knowledge of the system to appreciate the evilness which lurks within it. What would lead anyone to believe they should have laws which limit certain people to certain parts of their own country? What would lead anyone to believe that one needs to have controls on the movement of people from one part of a country to another simply because of their colour? What would lead anyone to believe there should be black migrant labour laws which inflict upon those people the worst possible circumstance without any recourse of any kind? Why should there be group area acts or, the most recent of all, the Government declaring what is tantamount to martial law?
Martial law means one can be imprisoned for six months without charge. Someone can be picked up off the street, thrown into jail and no one has to tell them where they are or what they have done. There is no court for them. They can be taken away and forgotten. We would not tolerate that here and we ought not to tolerate it anywhere else. I have heard colleagues on the Conservative side speak about regimes in the eastern part of Europe and decry certain aspects of a particular political system. I would ask them to join in decrying these aspects of this political system.
What have we seen as Canada's response? To begin with, I must say in fairness, a strongly worded statement. There were good statements from both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They indicated a heartfelt desire to see an end to apartheid. I do not for one moment depreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister in Nassau. I think he worked hard and no doubt played an important part in getting the kind of preliminary work done to set the stage. But what followed? Canada, when faced with choices, has taken the mildest possible choice. We continue to make strong statements but every time we are faced with making a choice, we opt out.
In the case of the Nassau statement, which of the options did we choose when it came time to impose sanctions? We chose to put a ban on flights to and from South Africa, but
there were no flights to ban. We banned the flights however, and that was our first step. We took away the credentials of four diplomats, two of whom live in New York, one who lives in Los Angeles and another who lives in Washington, D.C. That was strength. It was movement. It was living up to the commitment of Nassau and to the strong statements made about the evils of apartheid.
We continue, however, to export $151 million worth of goods to South Africa for the benefit of that regime. We continue to import into Canada $228 million worth of goods from South Africa which helps to support that evil regime. We continue to have $1.1 billion of capital investment in South Africa which assists the maintenance of that evil regime. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had really meant it, if we had intended to take the lead, if we had intended to live up to these statements, we could have begun by cutting all the imports of agricultural products into Canada. That would account for about half of everything we import from South Africa, including canned and fresh fruit and sugar. I put it to you, Sir, that we could easily find an alternative source. There are lots of other places which would be willing to sell us those products.
We could look at immediately reducing exports such as sulphur, which was raised earlier by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Our exports amounted to $71.4 million last year and $18.1 million this year to this point in time. Some people might say it has been shown that if we did this it might cost us jobs. I am going to admit quite bluntly that it would cost us jobs and for that I would be sorry. However, when we remember the television pictures of the people on the streets and what we heard from Bishop Tutu about the hardship these people face, the 380 jobs it would cost Canada to take economic sanctions which could be taken are a very little sacrifice indeed measured against the potential good which could result from such a measure.
The sanctions we proposed through my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), and supported, I think, by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, are also supported by countless people around the world. One need only turn to the news media to find that 77 per cent of the black people in South Africa who would be most affected support sanctions now, now while there is still something to say, now while lives are still intact. There are 4.8 million white people and 24 million black people, more or less, in South Africa and 77 per cent of the 24 million support sanctions now. If they, who are faced with the day-to-day atrocities, are willing to make a further sacrifice and are asking us through their leader to take the economic measures available to us now, who are we to say no? What right have we to say to them: "No, our profits are more important. Our 380 jobs matter more". I say to the Government that although I support its statements, I find its actions fall short of its rhetoric.
June 13, 1986

I am asking them earnestly, those who would listen, to move now to satisfy what has been requested by the people who face the problem head-on. Amnesty International is in the field battling to ensure that people do not disappear off the face of the earth without the opportunity for representation. And, as I said earlier, we continue to chatter.
In closing I wish to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I was not sure that I wanted to do this or not, that I want to put on the record who it is I am asking to stop. I am asking the Government to tell them to stop now. Alcan did take some steps to disinvest, and I recognize that. But Falconbridge must do it, as must QIT-Fer, Bata, Massey-Ferguson, Bayer Foreign Investments and Cominco. Dominion Textiles and CIL must do it. The Ford Motor Company, the Moore Corporation, Delcanda International, AMCA International, International Thomson, Sternson Fimited, Champion Road Machinery, Joseph E. Seagram, Cobra Emerald Mines, Eldorado and Jarvis Clark must do it. I am saying to the Government: Call them in and tell them now "Get out of South Africa". Let us stop it now. Let us make it clear that we are willing to sacrifice together. If we have to work out some way to assist them, then let us work it out. However, we can no longer afford to allow our complacency or reluctance to be the reason why one more black person should die at the hands of this evil and totally unacceptable political regime.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by putting on the record the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who has a strong commitment to be in Vancouver to deal with the issue of trade, would otherwise have been here today, as Hon. Members have acknowledged. I think Hon. Members who have spoken will understand that. They will agree that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had a long-standing concern for many years in this area. He would have participated in this debate with vigour had he been able to be here.
I have appreciated the non-partisan nature of the debate this afternoon. It has had an elevated tone. Members have spoken from their hearts. It has really not been a political debate.
1 wish to begin my remarks by picking up from a comment made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I think it was a fair comment, a fair observation, which I have long regarded as one of the failures of this institutiuon; that is, we tend to have blind spots as to what the areas of our attention are and ought to be. One group focuses its attention on Nicaragua, Chile, the Middle East or the East Bloc, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain pointed out. It is true. We tend to have these fixations on where the aggression is, or where the oppression is, and leave out whole areas of the world where there is incredible oppression going on. In effect, we pretend it is not going on. I hope that we will use other occasions such as this to debate issues such as the
oppression in Angola where there has yet to be free elections, even though they were called for when the dictatorship of Portugual left that area. We need to discuss other areas of oppression.
I say again that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is right. We do have these blind spots. We do focus in a singular way on certain areas of the world while overlooking others. We must take the opportunity while debating the issue of oppression in South Africa and the humiliation of millions of people there to recognize the degradation that the black people face in South Africa as listed by Bishop Tutu. I recall that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain listed the levels of degradation. It sounded to me as if those levels of degradation and oppression were exactly parallel to other areas of degradation and oppression in the world. It really does not matter whether the jackboot is a South African Boer, or if it is a jackboot in Eastern Europe, Chile or Nicaragua. Wherever it is it hurts God's creation just as much. What I find offensive about the institution of apartheid is not simply that racism has been institutionalized in the constitution but the fact that it has been justified in the wildest distortion of the scriptures. The justification for the so-called paternalism in certain areas of that society staggers the imagination.
I recall hearing my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), saying that the people in South Africa do not need a keeper, they need a brother. That is the message we need to send to South Africa. All of us who watched Prime Minister Botha speak on television last fall, and I believe it was in September from Durban, heard him say with jabbing finger: "Don't push us too far". None of us who have any interest or concern for those people in South Africa will forget that.
The obstinance of that Government has succeeded in making reasonable and conciliatory people, such as Chief Buthelezi, look weak. As Andrew Young of the United States pointed out last fall, that Government has succeeded in making the violent in South Africa look like the real leaders. The tragedy of South Africa is that when reconciliation and transition could take place in a peaceful and orderly way to give the entire population of that republic their just desserts, it has come through by way of bloodshed and violence.
I recall meeting a delegation from South Africa here several years ago. I told them that the first thing that their Government has to do is to give citizenship to the black people of South Africa. I said that their Government can practise racism and apartheid all along, but until they have citizenship, those people have no weapons except violence with which to fight that racism. How can it be that children and grandchildren born in the townships of that country cannot be considered citizens? Where else in the world would one find that type of incongruity, distortion and cruelty?
I wish to pay attention to the call, particularly asked for by members of the New Democratic Party today, that there be complete economic sanctions. It seems to me that the debate today has not centred on what we ought to do but how quickly

June 13, 1986
and how to do it. The goal is the same for all Members of the House. The goal is to provide dignity for all of the people of South Africa. However, we are being called upon to act quickly and several Hon. Members have said that we have 10 days to decide, August is too late. I would like to deal briefly with the reality that every country faces when it wants to talk about economic sanctions on South Africa.
I am indebted to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for the information that helped me to understand this particular issue. Setting aside the fact that that coastline is 1,500 miles long and is a sieve when it comes to providing aid and trade to that country, I recall that about a year ago the External Affairs Committee met in camera with a representative of the Soviet Government. I believe it was the Foreign Minister. The Hon. Member for Spadina was with us at that meeting, which lasted about an hour because that was one of the terms under which the Soviets agreed to meet. The Hon. Member for Spadina was not able to ask a question of the Soviet official, so I asked him after the meeting what it was that he wanted to ask that Soviet official. He said that he had just returned from New York where he had met with the antiapartheid people. While he was there, he found out that the Soviet Union is selling oil to South Africa. That is the nature of the problem.
An old professor of mine used to say that King Commerce rules the world. It so happens that South Africa is the most economically independent country in the world outside of the United States, with the exception of its need for oil. A concrete wall could be put around that republic and it could survive economically quite well. With the technology of converting coal to gas, it can be quite independent economically. Yet the country is shrewd enough to bargain wherever it can.
The Soviet Union, in its hypocritical philosophy, will criticize the heinous regime of apartheid around the world at the same time as it sells oil to South Africa and supplies arms to the National African Congress so that its members may kill each other and fight the racist regime in South Africa which is receiving the oil so that it can fight the National African Congress.
I wonder if Hon. Members have any appreciation of how difficult it is to make sanctions work. Hon. Members say that we have to do something. I would simply underscore to them that thankfully, Canada has had a long, proud and honourable record in dealing with what we fairly glibly call moral issues. Where the dignity of humanity is at stake, Canada has a good record. The reason Canada has as much influence as it does is because it does not sell that credibility easily or cheaply. Therefore, we have to use that credibility that we have stored up over the years to work with others who share that credibility in order to bring together concerted action to bring an end to that regime.
I ask Hon. Members to consider the nature of the problem and not to ask the Government to move so quickly that the
very speed of its action would destroy and subvert our goal and not to ask for the kind of action that would fly in the face of reasonable success. I think we have had a good debate on this subject. I would hope that we have other debates that deal with the subject of oppression wherever it occurs in the world and that we encourage each other not to have selective vision when looking for that oppression.
I visited South Africa, not under the auspices of any Government but to work on reconciliation. I asked an Asian girl in Durban what course she was taking and she said with tears in her eyes that she was going to be a pharmacist but that when she graduated, she would get half the salary she would get if she were white. How can we accept that?
While I was in South Africa, I spoke to a black man who was the president of a bank. His brother was a medical doctor. He told us that his brother witnessed a car accident in which a white woman was hurt. The black physician went to help the white woman but a white man drove up and said: "Don't you touch her". After hearing that, I began to realize something of the evil of apartheid.
Two weeks ago, I was in East Berlin working on a human rights case. I read a document published several years ago which documents the frustrations of the Helsinki watch group behind the Iron Curtain. I read of the penalties those people face when all they want is to be free just as the black South Africans want to be free. I read of the frustrations that they face from the oppressive regime in the Soviet Union. As I said before, it does not matter whether the jackboot is in South Africa or the Soviet Union. It hurts just as much wherever it is. I would hope that Hon. Members would begin to develop a broader horizon of appreciation for the need to deal with oppression wherever it is and lay aside our partisan differences.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, let my first words be words of appreciation to all Hon. Members who have spoken during the course of this debate this afternoon as well as words of appreciation for the caution that has been issued to us by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). I think that Hon. Member has earned and established in the House a reputation for fair-mindedness and careful analysis on these kinds of matters. He is one who sees beyond today's headline and who has truly paid his dues before rising to speak in the House.
I agree with the Hon. Member that we cannot be too selective in our vision. We cannot be selective in identifying and opposing oppression no matter where it exists in the world.
I agree with him that we cannot put aside nor fail to see the hypocrisy of a Soviet system which would condemn an evil regime and then provide it with the fuel to drive the engine which sustains that evil regime.
As much as I agree with all of that, I say to myself that acknowledging the Soviet Union or other countries may on the
June 13, 1986

one hand condemn an evil regime and on the other hand provide the fuel to drive its economy, I cannot accept that we are no better or no worse than the Soviet Union. We cannot simply say to ourselves that because the Soviets and others of whatever political philosophy have been hypocritical on this question, we are no better. Whenever that kind of thinking- and I do not suggest the Hon. Member opposite suggested it- is allowed to move us into inaction, whenever it is allowed to bog us down in a comprehensive debate about oppression all over the world or about all the jackboots in all countries, it leads to paralysis.
I should like to refer to what is going on in South Africa today and what has gone on there for years. More important, what has happened in the last year or two has become a symbol for oppressed people everywhere in the world. It is not only a symbol of the evil of apartheid or a symbol of the inhuman nature of that kind of regime. What is going on in South Africa has also become a symbol of the inaction or paralysis of societies which profess differently tangible and meaningful ways to act against that kind of regime.
I am one of those persons who becomes concerned in the face of what is going on in South Africa. On the one hand I become concerned when I hear in this Parliament, or in any Parliament of the Commonwealth, an expression of the revulsion all of us should feel about what occurs in South Africa and, on the other hand and almost in the next breath, an expression of concern about saving the Commonwealth. I would not want history to say, in the name of the Commonwealth, of waiting to act until we could all act together, and of ensuring the stresses and strains that might be placed upon the Commonwealth are avoided at all cost, that we as one member of the Commonwealth were struck into a paralytic position of inaction. When I hear the cry "let Canada not be rushed until we move with our Commonwealth partners" or "let Canada not be hasty until we have consulted a month from now, as the blood spills on the streets of South Africa", I say a Commonwealth which cannot respond to what is happening today in South Africa is a Commonwealth not worth saving. I mean that; I believe that.
We have seen laid before us in the living-rooms of the nation the blood which has been spilt and the Government sanctions and manipulated genocide which is going on in the Crossroads settlement. If we cannot respond now in a meaningful and effective way, in the name of Commonwealth solidarity, then that Commonwealth is not worth saving.
It is not the Commonwealth we should be preoccupied with saving. It is not only the people on the streets today that we should be ultimately preoccupied with saving. If we cannot respond to this world regressing to another day decades ago when crystal could be shattered in the night and a whole group of people because of religion or race could be gathered up, put on trains, and carried away never to be seen again, then we should ask ourselves whether we have the ability to save ourselves. If all of us in this Parliament or any other Parliament continue to stand, as well intentioned as we might be, to
abhor and give expression to the revulsion we feel, it is not good enough.
In the case of South Africa, it is a nation which has become the symbol of not only the evil of apartheid, but a symbol of the impotence of the West and of those who profess in a different way to put meaning behind their words. If we stand and do not act in a meaningful way, we will have lost more than a generation of men, women, and children in South Africa. We will have also lost ourselves and have been caught up in returning to a period of history which we promised would never happen again.
That is what happened 45 years or 50 years ago. That is what happened when a political system evolved which said that some human beings were less than human. That is what happened 45 years or 50 years ago when a political system evolved which said that some people were disposable or expendable. That is what happened five decades ago when a system systematically removed what was perceived to be a problem contained within the definition of one race of people by destroying that race of people.
That is what is happening today in South Africa. We see on our television sets black against black, killing each other in the streets, in the townships, and in settlements like Crossroads. We see the metal, brute force of a police vehicle, with weapons being distributed, assisting and provoking a slaughter. When we see those things, we see a replay of the crystal night in the streets of Germany 45 years ago.
Canada has a $1.1 billion investment in South Africa. Canada is the recipient of substantial exports of South African agricultural products. In demanding today that Canada play a leadership role in imposing total sanctions, Bishop Tutu, the groups of white citizens of South Africa who stand in the streets with their black brothers and sisters, and I, do not profess the eternal destruction of the economy of South Africa. However, what we do profess is that the means of production be removed, to the extent that we can contribute, from those in power in that country until that means of production is allowed to benefit all those who live in South Africa, black and white.
There must be an entire generation of young people on the continent of Africa, not only in South Africa, who are looking, awaiting to see how the West will respond. They must be tempted to see what is going on in South Africa as a black versus white issue. They must be tempted to believe that the reason for their regime and the reason for our frail response to what happens, the reason for our inaction, is white solidarity with white solidarity and an inability to act because the oppressed people are black. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker.
What is happening in South Africa has absolutely nothing to do with black versus white. It has absolutely nothing to do with the colour of one's skin. It has to do with a philosophy, an evil system, that has been allowed to escape the evolution of a

June 13, 1986
modern and civilized society. If we fail to act and to act immediately in ways that are substantial, tangible and measurable, not only to a generation of young blacks in South Africa but to a generation of young blacks throughout the continent of Africa, then we say to them, as untrue as it might be, that, indeed, the simple answer they perceive for the lack of our action, the obvious answer they perceive for our inability to take tangible measures, in their minds, is the right one.
Let us not in the case of South Africa, as we have so often in the world, stand and worry about whether the people who are in the streets fighting to be human beings, fighting for the basic integrity that any human being on this planet deserves, adhere to the Communist Manifesto or to the tenets of capitalism. If that is the basis on which we decide whether we are going to act, then as surely as I stand here we will drive them into the arms of a philosophy that we do not embrace. We will drive them into the streets with guns in their hands, because if any of us were in that situation and found ourselves abandoned by people who could make a difference, the western world, then I have no doubt in saying that I would embrace whatever manifesto would put a gun in my hand, I would embrace whatever philosophy would give me at least the dignity of standing on my own two feet, and I would embrace whatever individual would allow me at least the dignity of expressing myself, I am afraid, by whatever means.
It seems to me as I look at what has happened in Nicaragua, it seems to me as I look at what has happened even in Cuba, not in the last 10 years, not in the last 15 years but in the early days, not with Fidel Castro, but when the people of Cuba were crying out for change, they realized no assistance could be found in the West. I see a replay of that paralysis with respect to South Africa. Failure to act now for the right reasons, for reasons of human for reasons of respect of the basic rights of an individual, failure to act now for those reasons and no others, not geopolitical reasons, not financial reasons but for reasons of humanity, will surely send South Africa ultimately into the Soviet orbit. If the concern of some is that we hesitate now because we are not sure where they are going, then that hesitation will send South Africa in a direction and into a philosophy that we cannot support.
I say to the Government of Canada that I appreciate and support the efforts that have been made to date. I support the measures enacted to date, but I say that we have the ability to be a world leader. We have the ability to send a signal to the majority of the members of the Commonwealth that if the Commonwealth cannot respond, and respond effectively to what is happening to our fellow human beings in South Africa, then it is a Commonwealth that is not worth saving. Let the Prime Minister of Britain decide now whether on principles of humanity the Commonwealth is worth saving. Let us make our decision and announce total sanctions immediately.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I do not profess that I speak for my Party on this subject matter. I have never in any meaningful way participated in the process
of policy in that sphere. Mine has been more in the sphere of the primary industries of fisheries, forestry, and agriculture.
I do not think I have ever been one who was accused of not having compassion and understanding and a desire for a democratic system in this world. I do not think we can deny the fact that democracy is an evolutionary process and that its demise is in an equal sense an evolutionary process.
I suppose there was nothing intended to be more democratic than the forums in Greece, in the Senate of Rome, and public participation in debate. But yet as those forums took place, step by step Greece, followed by Rome in its democratic structure, declined because of the weakness of leadership and the will of the people, to the point that Greece and Rome were overrun in turn by hordes of outside forces.
I think we have to be very careful just what route we take as we are looking at a country in which there must be evolution. Let us pray to God that it does not have to be revolution. There must be change.
Let us recall that it was a long way from 1215 and the signing of the Magna Carta to the arrival at a constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdon which was at that point in time a very democratic Government. It takes strength, it takes understanding, and it takes desire to preserve or to create a democracy. Unfortunately, it is imperfect as a system of Government. Unfortunately we have weaknesses in our country.
We have to take a look at the evolutionary process that has taken place here. We were a nation for a long while before this country granted universal suffrage. Should we then be totally critical of another country which has not generated universal suffrage within its boundaries? That, of course, is the particular difficulty we have.
If we say, as the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has, that because we have a disagreement within the Commonwealth it might just as well be abandoned and destroyed, we are totally ignoring the disagreement which is fostered within democratic discussion that takes place within the leadership of the Commonwealth of Nations. We should not necessarily throw stones at individuals or the beliefs of other Parties within this House, because there is a variance of opinion as to what is the best thing to do.
In the face of reality, what can we do? We have abhorred a great many things which have happened in the world, such as the submission to force of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland. What could we do about it? I wish to point out to the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) that at no time has there been a move by any Party in Canada to cut off wheat to Russia as an embargo because it invaded Afghanistan. We are not being consistent in our presentation of this subject matter. At no time was the embargo which was imposed by a multitude of nations as effective as it was
June 13, 1986

perceived it would be on that country which was then Northern Rhodesia. There were ways around the embargo which allowed it to continue, albeit at some inconvenience. We did not, however, create a major economic climax for a good many years.
We must consider what the real effect would be of total embargoes by Canada upon South Arica. Their gold and diamonds would sell and their cash would flow. What would be the long-term result? I ask in all seriousness what would be the result of cutting off the economic tap. Let us suppose that the objective which has been so philosophically espoused in this House were to be achieved. How will we restore the economy to which we have contributed a very destructive force in the form of embargoes if we achieve what we assume we would achieve? Whom are we hurting the most in the long run? Are we hurting the Government of today, or would the long-run impact of a total embargo on South Africa be upon those who get their way and then become the Government?
The Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) asked for the removal of corporations from the markets of South Africa. They will be looking for those corporations because they are going to need jobs and they are going to need to generate money. How effective have we been in the case of Afghanistan and how effective can we be, other than in a persuasive way of trying to resolve and philosophize, as matters rebate to South Africa? This is being done to the best of the abilities of the groups which have been formed to make representations to the Botha Government. I do not approve of what is going on.
Let us draw a few comparisons with what has happened in circumstances comparable to the one we find in South Africa today. In 1959 I had the privilege of attending a Parliamentary Commonwealth Association. Nigeria, a free country, was represented at that conference. There was no freedom of vote in that country. There was no freedom of expression as early as 1959. There had been an election and they had elected a Government. There were government and opposition Members there, but the opposition Members never opened their mouths in discussion in the presence of anyone from the Government of that day. It was not clear whether any of the opposition, other than those present at the conference, were in or out of jail because they had expressed their democratic liberty of free speech in opposition to the Government of the day.
I do not want Canada to promote a catastrophe such as the racial structures which have fought one another when they were totally free to do so, and a Government which could not control. Are we trying to impose our own spirit upon all the people of the world? If we are so concerned, why have we not been able to stop the Iran-Iraq war? Why we have not been able to bring peace to Lebanon? Initially it looked as though we had a Christian-Muhammadan difficulty. Now we have them dying in the streets as Muhammadan fights Muhammadan from the different sects.
Man cannot be regulated or persuaded, in the short run, to do the things we wish he would do which seem to be humane, just, and proper for his fellow man. I only wish we had that
which it is purported we have in this debate as members of the opposition Parties speak. We can persuade and coax, but we cannot create in the mind of man, black, white, or coloured in South Africa, the mood which we would like to create.
Let us remember that democracy has never been successful in any country in the world where there is an illiteracy rate of 25 per cent as a benchmark. Basically the great difficulties which have been experienced in Central and South America have been mainly experienced in communities in which illiteracy was 50 per cent or higher. It is extremely difficult for the illiterate and uninformed to know which way to cast their votes.
Let us use Cuba as an example, as was suggested by the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. Contrary to what the Member said, Castro received a great deal of support from the rest of the democratic world outside Cuba. He was perceived at that time to be a democrat rather than a Communist. He was so capable of deception that even his family, who were the owners of a big, prosperous and well-managed farm, assumed that as they supported him they would certainly retain ownership and operation of their farm. When he became the Communist dictator of Cuba even his own family were displaced from their farm after having supported him loyally and totally in the revolutionary process which was supposed to bring democracy rather than Communist dictatorship to Cuba.
These are the things which we must assess very carefully. I do share the opinion that there is a possibility of Communist background in the forces in South Africa. If there is, we will have done them no favour to create a Communist country in which they will not have a voice. Ask the Jews who would like to leave Russia. Ask the people who for so many years wanted to leave Cuba. Ask the Angolans who are only kept in order by virtue of the presence of a force from Cuba supported, led and trained by a force which is not favourable to this world.
No one in this House, including myself, desires to see a blood bath. However, let us return to a commmon point and try to get the evolutionary process in place in South Africa. Let us try to persuade the creation of a long-term stable government in that country. That is what we must do. I do not want to see race fighting race as they are in Africa today. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, blacks are fighting blacks, blacks are fighting whites, and whites are fighting whites. It is a very serious and inhumane performance by mankind. Extremism will not work. We are certainly limited in what we can do.
As I listened to some of the speakers in this debate, and I am not throwing brickbats, it seemed that it matters more whose ox is going to be gored rather than the fostering of democracy around the world. I have never heard a western Member from any Party in this House threaten sanctions against Russia, whether it be with respect to human rights, the treatment of Jews, Afghanistan, or anything else. On that basis we had better stop and consider whose ox is being gored.

June 13, 1986
Having seen sanctions applied in a multitude of cases, against Italy when it invaded Ethiopia, and so on, they did not have the impact intended. If we obtained complete sanctions against South Africa by all the nations of the world, including Russia, there would be nothing but a poverty-stricken mess left. The basis for reconstruction would have been demolished. I plead with this House, with the world, to find common ground on which we can create the evolutionary process through which every democracy in the world today was created.
No country is more steeped in the basic desire for democracy than Canada. It was from undemocratic lands that our ancestors came to this country looking for freedom of opportunity, freedom of speech, and the freedom to vote. Let us then do what we can to guide the evolution and prevent the bloodbath of revolution. That I think is our role. We will have differences of opinion in Canada, in the Commonwealth, around the world.
I am not speaking out of a sense of greed for the economic benefits to Canada from its economic participation in South Africa. I am sincerely speaking in the long-term best interests of a country we would like to help and to whose internal disputes we would like to find a solution. No one in this House is more determined that that should be done than I. Therefore, we should not be involved in a political hassle over this. We should not be throwing brickbats at one another. We should not be divided among ourselves. That division was illustrated today. There seems to be no compromise on the position the Government should take. We should move step by step.
I am not supporting or opposing what the Conservative Party has done. I am speaking in what I believe to be a manner which relates to the evolutionary process of democratic government. Let us try to seek that evolution, because revolution leading to democratic government has failed in Angola, the Congo, Nigeria, or any other country I could name. A blood-bath took place behind a security curtain which we could not penetrate. We did not see the battlefields and the thousands that were slaughtered as one tribe fought another over control. It could be that we find ourselves in the position down the road, not too far, of having generated the same situation, given the disagreements among the various peoples who make up the African population.
Let us try persuasion, not sanctions. Let us not imply that we can exert force. If we sent the Canadian Army to the last man to that continent they would probably be gobbled up. We are helpless when it comes to exerting any effort by force.
This has been a good debate and I compliment those who participated. I wish we could get rid of the partisan aspects of this debate because our goals are the same. We should not be throwing brickbats at one another or the Commonwealth. We will find disagreement among leaders in the Commonwealth just as you find it among leaders here. That does not mean we should destroy Canada. Dissension and disagreement will always be with us because of differences of opinion. I particularly deplore the remark about the incompetence of the
Commonwealth and the slurs concerning different leaders of the Commonwealth. That does not contribute to the betterment of South Africa, the Commonwealth, or democracy.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to take part in a debate such as this in our elected Parliament, something which is not possible for many people in many countries of the world, not just South Africa. I want to start out with some memories, if you like, of Africa itself, to try to convey to the House why this particular cancer on the continent of Africa deserves so much attention from the rest of the world. I visited South Africa in 1969 as a representative of the Canadian Union of Students to meet with representatives of the National Union of South African Students. I want to talk briefly about the realities of South Africa at that time. It was possible to see those realities thanks to some courageous students who took me outside the normal white areas of Johannesburg and into the black township of Soweto to get a sense of the reality black people were living with at that time.
That reality included the most degrading poverty that anyone in this country could imagine. People lived in small tool-shed sized houses. Often there were eight or nine people in a dwelling the size of which we would use as a garden shed, all of this within sight of the most fabulously wealthy, most modern and up-to-date metropolis of Johannesburg. It has paved streets, magnificent buildings, and suburbs full of swimming pools. It is in a sense the ultimate in affluence. To fly into Johannesburg over the white suburbs is to be convinced that every single house has a large swimming pool and patio. There is a sense of tremendous wealth and affuence which contrasts so grimly with the life lived by the black people of Soweto. It is the difference between night and day.
I have to talk not just about the surface features, but about the chance that I had to visit a black school in Soweto and to hear from the principal of that school the incredible discrimination in economic matters which was being practised between his high school in Soweto and other schools of white children in other parts of the country. The inequality was so stark, as again to be night and day, as he put it to me.
Or I can tell you about the hospital which we visited in Soweto. It was so over crowded that even at that time, which was not a time of violence of a kind that we now see in South Africa, that people could simply not get into the hospital with serious ailments, with the most basic kinds of ailments which we take for granted that we can have treated in our hospitals here in this country.
I ask myself where are those young people now whom I met in 1969. I have to be sure that for many of them the frustrations, the night and day contrast between their life and the life of their white counterparts in their very same country, have put them behind the barricades that we see so dramatically illustrated on the news broadcast from South Africa these days.
June 13, 1986

They they have felt completely closed out of their society, completely excluded by a system that is so comprehensive, so systematic, so buttressed by every form of law, that it deserves the special attention that we give it, because no other place in the world has so vicious a division of people which has been systematically enforced on the basis of race, no place else in the world, and I have seen a lot of other parts of the world, places where viciousness does exist. No place else has such systematic viciousness enforced on the basis of race.
It deserves our attention because that racism ultimately could destroy our entire societies if it itself is permitted to continue, if we practise tolerance rather than the kind of urgent opposition of which those of us on this side of the House have talked today.
1 thought Soweto was bad, but then in 1983 I had a chance to go from Johannesburg to Maseru in Lesotho across country in South Africa. It was part of a trip which I was making for the IDRC, a Canadian supported organization to help eventually establish some projects in Lesotho itself. We drove across South Africa and we saw something of rural South Africa and how the black person is treated in rural South Africa. It makes Soweto, frankly, look like something posh.
The rural parts of South Africa, the huge white farms, farms that stagger even the imagination of people from our west where farms are large, included generally in some small remote corner a set of grass thatched huts where, in the most abject poverty that you can possibly imagine, the black people who work those farms were living out their lives. That kind of inequality, that kind of economic exploitation is something that I think is unimaginable to us in this country.
We in this Party often talk of economic exploitation in Canada. I have never in my life seen contrasts of this kind that existed, contrasts between the most superb, well appointed, affluent farms, and the viciousness, the meanness, the closeness, the degradation of life for black people who work those farms.
Then I think, because one might get the impression from these vignettes that there can be no hope for a society that has lived like this for some generations, I think of a symposium, which again was organized by IDRC in Botswana, yet another of the countries which South Africa has attacked in recent months.
There in Botswana we saw brought together at that symposium both black and white South Africans, young South Africans of 16, 17, 18, up to 22, to talk together about education and to find suddenly in microcosm something that they had never experienced before, a multi-racial experience in which everybody was equal.
Instead of apprehension they felt a sense of true human liberation which is the only way to describe it, a true human liberation which, frankly, I felt tremendously privileged to be able to see in action.
Or I think of times I spent myself in the Lusakas and the Harares and the Maserus, and the Maputos of Africa, the places that have tried to develop, despite their poverty, which persists despite African independence in these countries, because we are talking of countries that for years endured the most difficult forms of colonialism. Yet they have tried to build societies for themselves, and have had some success. Despite the poverty that persists, they have become the targets of direct brutal attack by South African airplanes, South African soldiers and South African high technology. These attacks have, in many ways, devastated those cities. It is a tragedy when one considers their slow and difficult efforts to build themselves up from a tough past.
I believe the situation in South Africa today is a human tragedy that is sad and dramatic because it is so systematic, so structured and so organized. That is the difference that makes the sadness and tragedy so particularly powerful to one's feelings as a human being when one visits that society to try to interact with non-whites who live there.
That is why I believe we must move so urgently. That is the call from the Eminent Persons Report. That is a report which, surprisingly and incredibly, is full of hope. Believe it or not, the foreward by the Commonwealth Secretary-General begins the report by saying:
-both change and peace are within the grasp of its people. For a brief moment, the world-and pre-eminently South Africans of all races-glimpsed a path of negotiation to a more worthy future.
Even more remarkably, the report goes on to say that:
-those so long oppressed in South Africa, the victims of apartheid, are ready even now to join in a peaceful process of building a new South Africa in which all its people, black and white, coloured and Indian, will share in fairness and with dignity.
That is incredible hope after generations of oppression.
Yet, at the same time this report expresses better than any of us can, that urgency is absolutely crucial to achieve change while that hope still exists. As the report says, the concerns in South Africa are about the black people. The concerns of the Commonwealth:
-are about the inhumanities of the apartheid system and the even more terrible human suffering that lies not far ahead if a way is not found urgently to compel the dismantling of apartheid and the establishment of a non-racial representative Government in South Africa.
That is the challenge that I fear Canada has not taken up in the past but which we must take up now, in 1986. That is why we are having to express not just a hope for the future for South Africa but an anger about the inadequacy and lack of urgency which our Government has expressed in the face of these incredible indignities. That is what forces us to ask these tough questions and what forces us to call for an emergency debate, so that we can somehow convey to the Government the sense of urgency that I felt in Soweto in 1969, even more so in 1983 in rural South Africa, and which I feel even more today as I listen to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall) say that it is not a time for boldness and heroics.

June 13, 1986
For the blacks of South Africa, it is indeed a time for heroics. I say to Canadians, in this country so far away and so protected, that it is time for boldness on our part. It is time to apply sanctions across the board that will somehow meet- belatedly but finally-the challenges which that black degradation has posed to us for so many years.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents of Nepean- Carleton and share with them and you some of my thoughts about the debate this afternoon. I want to congratulate my colleagues in the House of Commons for making this debate a priority. I want to commend my colleagues for the enormous thoughtfulness of the debate and the sincerity with which they have addressed the House and, through it, our constituents across the country.
Today we are debating the urgent situation in South Africa, on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Soweto massacre. We are doing this against the unprecedented backdrop of a total and Draconian state of emergency in South Africa, which I believe highlights the enormous responsibility facing western Governments today over the vital issues that centre in South Africa.
In the past hours I have had the privilege to read the report of the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons. I was struck by many things in their report, but nothing struck me more than the second to last recommendation in their conclusion. It states:
The question in front of heads of Governments in our view is clear. It is not whether such measures will compel change, it is already the case that their absence in Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral or will it take concerted action of an effective kind? Such action may offer the last opportunity to avert what could be the worst blood-bath since the Second World War.
Each of us will have different attitudes about South Africa. Some of those attitudes were cultivated against quite different backgrounds. Like some of my colleagues in the House, I had the privilege in the early part of this decade to spend several months in South Africa as a visiting professor. I was there in large part to investigate certain economic developments within the mining industry. Throughout most of my period there, if I had a headquarters, it was within the University of Witwaters-rand. Perhaps my experiences there were different from those of some of my colleagues, but I am confident the conclusions of that experience are the same for all of us.
I recall in my, I suppose, unwitting approach to life, my first morning in Johannesburg taking the bus to go downtown and unwittingly getting on a black person's bus. Perhaps that was to set the tone for my whole visit. Few white persons ever ride those buses.
I recall many conversations with a third year black student at the University of Witwatersrand, the first black student in the history of that institution to study geological engineering. I had many discussions with him as to why he would choose
perhaps the most terrible profession for a black student, knowing how the mining community operated in that country. I recall being out in the field with him and others, and arriving in a mining community on an evening after our work was over. All of us stayed together in what was referred to as the "club" and early in the evening we met with the manager of the club as we made plans for our evening meal and other activities. The manager pointed out to us that the regulations of the club forbade that black student, that black person, to eat with us or to stay with us.
I think it is worth noting, as we think about this stituation, that the manager said to the leader of our party: "Forget about the rules and allow the student to eat and live with you". When we arrived for the evening meal, the others in the party noted the absence of this black student and asked where he was. The leader of my party said: "He is not allowed to be with us". That white person, that great professor, that great engineer, lied to everyone who was present. When the rest of the party learned in the following few minutes exactly what the situation was, they left the club, sought out their black companion and had supper elsewhere.
In other days I had the privilege of visiting Soweto, seeing the poverty, visiting schools, hospitals, homes and hovels, and I travelled widely to other black townships. I also spent many hours underground in South African mines at depths greater than 10,000 feet. The rock temperatures were of the order of 110 degrees, 120 degrees and 130 degrees fahrenheit. The air temperatures were cooled perhaps to 100 degrees. For a person such as myself who had been in other mining situations earlier, the struggle was just to exist and to be able to move about. And it is in that environment, of course, that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of black miners are forced to work daily.
I want to share something with Hon. Members in the House.
I visited a mining complex one day at which 36,000 migrant workers worked-36,000-and that evening I visited the compounds in which they lived, compound after compound which had thousands after thousands after thousands of men living in them. I want you to try to imagine, Mr. Speaker, fitting into that sort of situation. These men were living and working for a wage which was probably only about one tenth of what the typical white miner received.
Like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), because of my interest in agriculture I had the opportunity of visiting several of what we would call farming and ranching operations. While my experiences there might have been slightly different from his, nevertheless the tremendous dichotomy between the white and black population in the rural community is there, and cannot be underestimated. We look at South Africa, at its industry, its universities and its churches, and we look at the Government and try to rationalize in our minds where these great institutions stand.
I came away from that experience with the feeling that if there was leadership in South Africa, a liberal style of leadership, it lay in the industrial world. The businessmen I
June 13, 1986

met there realized that in the long run, if South Africa was to prosper economically, they would all have to work together to develop the country's wealth and to find a means of sharing it. On the other side of the spectrum there was a Government which could not be more conservative in its views. It is racist to the core with regulations, legislation, a police force, and a military force which, even when one is there, it is hard to believe its might. Situated between these two extremes, between industry and business on the one hand, and the Government on the other, sit the universities and churches. Those two institutions I found to be highly divided in their approach to a solution in South Africa.
One could go to the University of Witwatersrand, as I did, and be part of a very liberal university, and one could go three, four or five miles to the north and be at one of the African universities and witness a group of young people with a much different philosophy and style of background who were very happy and content with their way of life, and envisage a future for South Africa which would leave us all, I think, restless and deeply concerned.
And if you look at the church community in South Africa, Mr. Speaker, it shakes you, it really does. We see some of the Christian churches reaching out in such a human and positive way to help find a solution to one of the great problems of the world. We see other arms of the Christian family which have philosophical approaches to life and to Government which see the whites as being supreme. They are willing to use other people to develop wealth and to encourage and sponsor their way of life.
1 have been in white homes in South Africa in which members of the family have been banned. In fact, I have had the opportunity to speak to some of these banned people. It shakes one when one tries to understand the small incidents in their lives and their contributions to the community that brought about their banning. In some of those white homes I have witnessed young men from 18 to 20 years of age who were faced with what we can simply call conscription. They are faced with spending two years in the armed forces knowing that within months they will be at the Angolan front, or somewhere just as difficult. I have talked to other whites who have worked in the South African police force and through them I have learned something about the enormously tragic environment of the prison system in South Africa and the harshness of the treatment to which many prisoners, both black and white, are subjected.
It is a country of tremendous dichotomy. I came away from that South African experience realizing that if South Africa was to work its way out of the dilemma of a few years ago it would probably be the trade union movement that would lead the country to its possible salvation. In those days South Africans were in their infancy in terms of liberating the trade union movement and in terms of allowing labour unions to be
created and to become active. I saw through that the possibility of them working with some of the progressive business leaders in the country to find a solution to the economic problems of South Africans and everything associated with them. I came to the conclusion that if that movement did not lead to what I might call a successful conclusion, then the alternative would be a bloodbath. I have been concerned about that ever since.
I think the developments of the recent weeks and months bring that possibility ever closer. We have witnessed night after night, in only a very peekaboo type of way through television newscasts out of South Africa, the violence, the hatred and the bloodshed, much of which up until now has been between blacks, but in a growing way is now between them all. It leaves one uncomfortable and depressed. It causes one to reach into one's inner self and to ask how this matter can be brought to a Christian conclusion.
I want to say to my colleagues that there is no simple answer. Collectively, whether as part of the Government or as part of the Opposition, we have to work together as human beings, recognizing that one of the great cancers and one of the great blemishes on earth at the moment is in southern Africa. We have to be able to find a solution in which the blacks, the coloureds, the Asians and the whites in South Africa can live together, go to school together, worship together, govern together and bring up their children together. In this way they can enjoy the wealth and the paradise that South Africa is in its natural form.
I wish to join with other Hon. Members in this debate to share my concern and to indicate to my colleagues that I would like to work with them in a human and positive way to find a solution for brothers and sisters who are so important and valuable to us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this emergency debate on South Africa. We have to look at the context of the debate of today in terms of the emergency measures which were imposed in South Africa on Wednesday of this week. They were imposed using the excuse of the tenth anniversary of the Soweto riots.
Flagrant violations of human rights took place and over 1,000 citizens have already been arrested and jailed. A second human rights violation has taken place, that is, an infringement on the freedom of the press. We are no longer able to obtain reports on the military or police activites of the Government there. The emergency measures which have been imposed are just one in a long list of assaults on human rights and human dignities.
I listened with a great deal of interest to many of my colleagues, particularly to the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper), who went to that country as a parliamentarian and as a witness. He came back here to testify to what he saw. What he has seen corroborates some of the
14412

June 13, 1986
facts we have been watching on the square little TV box. In a very vivid way he has brought home the hurt, the dilemma and anguish of mothers, fathers and children who are being battered, bruised and damaged in their person and in their inner egos because they are black. Their white brothers and sisters who support them are being damaged as well.
The Hon. Member talked about the fact that he looked to the day when children can go to school together, and I assume when husbands and wives can live together, when people can govern together and when they can earn and work together on a fair and equal footing. That is the direction in which we should work if we want to see an end to what is going on in this very ugly and unacceptable regime called apartheid.
I did not have the opportunity to witness this firsthand as many others in this House did, but I recall speaking the other day in response to allegations against the election of Kurt Waldheim as leader of the Austrian people. I called for an independent international investigation of the serious allegations against him. I hold the very fundamental point of view that we are and we act, based only on fact and on knowledge, and that we are innocent until we have been proven guilty. I do not believe that a nation has the right to act precipitously. I do not think that we have the right to criticize unless we know and have proven the facts. Irrespective of the fact that I personally was affronted, and I feel most of us were, the rule of law, morality, is the first rule for me.
We have heard the testimony of my colleagues who have been there and who have witnessed firsthand. We have also heard the testimony of an eminent member of the South African community, that moving force who was in our midst just a week ago, Bishop Tutu. He himself personifies peace, man's goodwill toward man and the right to live in harmony with one's neighbours. He called on level heads to act sensibly together to bring an end to this evil regime called apartheid. He counselled careful action, but the use of a loud voice against the regime South Africa has elected for itself. He advocated co-operation and partnership and called for a sense of fairness and equality. At one point he did not agree that sanctions should be imposed but he has come to the conclusion that the time is now and that sanctions seem to be the only and perhaps the last course of action before we are witness to incredible bloodshed brought on South Africa by the evil of apartheid.
As we listened to what Bishop Tutu was saying on t.v., we received as well the report of the Eminent Persons Group which came to corroborate all that which we had seen through the media. The Eminent Persons talked about their moving personal experiences and about the carnage they witnessed in Alexandra when they arrived. They talked about the day of their departure from Cape Town when Crossroads was on fire and a pall of smoke hung over the sky. They talked about a country that was in upheaval and they witnessed great human suffering. Even as they were writing, killings were continuing.
As we watched television, I wonder how many of us identified with those men, women and children who were being beaten. Did we see ourselves and our own families in that situation? Did we understand the hurt, misery and unhappiness that brought about the reaction of unarmed people trying every measure possible designed to bring common sense to the leadership of South Africa and to bring their concern for equality rights to that Government's attention?
The Eminent Persons Group said the following:
The question in front of Heads of Government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures will compel change; it is already the case that their absence and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral? Or will it take concerted action of an effective kind?
Such action may offer the last opportunity to avert what could be the worst bloodbath since the Second World War.
They went on to say:
This is the reason why countries whose economies are intertwined with that of South Africa, and who inevitably remain vulnerable, nonetheless regard the imposition of economic sanctions on South Africa as the sole remaining instrument for effective change in the absence of serious negotiations by the South African Government with genuine black leaders.
I have a long memory and I think many of us in this room can recall Crystalnacht in Berlin, Germany. We can recall that the world saw and that the world chose to close its eyes. The world could hear if it had cared the cries of millions of people. It could hear and feel the suffering of six million people during the Holocaust. Although race and religion were certainly involved, many people were caught in the horror of a world gone mad. Man's inhumanity toward man was evident at that time. If we care to learn any of the lessons of history, this should be the time to recall the Holocaust. For what the world saw, the world then said "Never Again".
I would suspect that of all the issues that engulf the Jewish condition, the one that perhaps hurts and pains the most, the one that resonates in the hearts and minds of each and every one of us, the one that represents an assault on the memory and dignity of every one of us, is the ugly spectre of the Holocaust denial. One compelling truth is clear and that is Auschwitz. I believe the Holocaust is beyond vocabulary, and language mocks reality. There are things in my Jewish history that are too terrible to be believed but not too terrible to have happened. However, there is a lesson to be learned from it. I think we must learn that lesson. We must stand tall and firm as Canadians in active remembrance, with fidelity to memory and fidelty to truth. The Holocaust must stand for more. It must be a lesson to all of mankind. If ever there was a lesson to be learned, it is that one. When racism rears its ugly head, it is time to stand up and be counted.
It is not because the members of the Commonwealth of Nations cannot find common ground that we as Canadians do not find our place or time to speak out. When we assault and live with assaults on human rights and allow ourselves to continue in deafening silence, we are the lesser for it. I think we must remember and act. A world which is not safe for democracy is not safe for Jews and is not safe for blacks. It is
June 13, 1986

not safe for anyone. A world that is not safe for Jews and blacks is not safe for democracy.
I would beg all Hon. Members to listen in a reasoned way and to watch, think and act. Those are children out there. They represent the future of the blacks and whites who want and should be able to live together. The incredible indignities are hard to conceive of, but they are happening again. Let us not let them stand alone. Let us all stand and be counted when human rights and dignities are being assaulted.
When the world vowed "Never Again", all the nations stood to be counted and the Nuremburg trials took place. We said that we would be counted. Unfortunately, human history is replete with examples of man's inhumanity to man and the brutality in human behaviour which results if bigotry, fear and hatred are allowed to guide Governments and individual actions. That may be how the Government in Pretoria sees things, but that is not the way Canada accepts things.
Our voice must be heard through a concrete measure. I would not have advocated the concrete measure of sanctions if it had not been brought to our attention by so many different sources. It seems that that is the way we might be able to bring our message home. A coin has two sides. If one looks at a coin and uses the correlation between human rights and economic measures, where human rights are being destroyed, ignored, or violated, one must turn to the obverse side of the coin and use economic measures, because one goes with the other. It is a message of power and property versus people's rights.
We must say that never again shall a society allow citizens to become separated, husbands and wives. We are not the property of another. Never again should a society allow human beings to be deposed in a calculated way in a form of genocide, because that is what is taking place. Never again, in the face of the 1,000 who were harassed the other day and the others who are being hurt, yes, killed on a daily basis, shall we be found wanting because we do not speak out. We must learn the lesson of history.
If any country is in a privileged position to have learned, it is this country. We are a country which is multicultural. We are a country which has all the beautiful shades of the earth that make up our human tapestry. We must speak out and we must speak out strongly with revulsion against apartheid, this organization of the South African state. There is no sense in saving the life of an institution if that institution does not serve the will of the people.
I end up by saying that we must act, stand up and be counted. We are our brother's keeper and we are our brother's conscience. As the sage Hillel said, "If I am not for myself, then who am I? But if I am but for myself, then what am I?".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, those of us who have had the opportunity to sit here this afternoon and
listen to the debate would like to see the same tone of debate continue for evermore in the House. Of course we know that is not to be, but how refreshingly different. At the outset I should like to concur with the calibre and quality of the contributions of Hon. Members as well as the thoughtfulness of their suggestions. I particularly appreciated the contribution of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). As was pointed out earlier today by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), Canada has taken 21 deliberate actions with reference specifically to South Africa over a period of two years.
Let us look at recent history, at the role which Canada has played, and at the will and leadership of Canadians to help to resolve-and we are not there yet-starvation in Ethiopia and starvation in other parts of Africa. Concerns have been expressed today. There is a unanimity of feeling that the problem is there and must be addressed on an urgent basis. Surely, if we can demonstrate it that well, as we did and will continue to demonstrate it for the starving millions, be they in Ethiopia or anywhere else on the globe, we can address ourselves toward assisting with a solution in terms of the serious and horrendous problems of South Africa.
When I reflect upon the actions we have seen, I am reminded of the student uprisings in the sixties both in the United States and in Canada. I think it was at Kent State University that a couple of students were shot and killed. There was police action. There was jail. There may even have been some billy-sticks. The point ultimately was proved. I compare that with what I witnessed the other night. There was a group of young people sitting on a street somewhere in South Africa. I do not know whether it was in Pretoria, Johannesburg, or Cape Town. The police moved in with whips. I sat there and I winced with those whites and blacks because it was a savage attack. If police action is necessary in this circumstance, if they are blocking some commercial traffic, surely one picks them up by their arms and moves them to the paddy wagon, if necessary. One has to think what mind induced the savagery behind the action of the police using those whips. It really bothered me, as of course have other things.
I recall asking someone from South Africa about a labour leader. Regretfully I cannot remember his name, but he died in prison. It was said that he had met with an accident. He way lying in his open coffin. His forehead was obviously bruised and swollen. It left no doubt, in my mind at least, how he had suffered and how he had met his death. We must ask ourselves: Is that the correct approach to resolving an horrendous problem?
There are those who can speak with much greater depth of experience than I can. I respect their knowledge and experiernce, but I cannot help think that if we left the solution to the children of the world we probably would not have a problem, because they do not identify according to colour. They do not identify according to language. They identify according to being children. I do not know what happens when people reach adulthood or that period in which they become

June 13, 1986
distorted at times in their thinking and develop prejudices and perhaps even hatreds. It is very difficult to understand why that process develops, unless of course there is a total environment in which it can foster.
What is the solution? I have to reflect upon our own beginnings. I have to reflect upon Newfoundland and a tribe of native people who were hunted like deer, moose, or bear by early settlers. They were totally wiped out, except for one.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Not many Canadians know that.


Robert Hylton Brisco: That is right. Very few Canadians know that we wiped out an entire tribe in Newfoundland. One person survived and died a natural death. The rest were hunted down like animals, like deer.
I also have to reflect upon the Inuit who starved to death by the hundreds. Certainly we had no means of transportation. Our land is different than the land in South Africa. They starve to death. The Indians of Canada, our native people, not only starved, but they suffered the diseases that we brought with us.
We talk about Soweto and the poverty of Soweto, but we choose to ignore the poverty that is still with us in Canada. We choose to ignore the tar-papered shacks on the reserves. We choose to ignore the plywood houses in the North that were built with a total absence of engineering. The only means of providing heat and obtaining hot water is with the kettle on the stove in which you put a block of ice so that it steams up the house-if you can call it a house, the shelter-and the doors will not open or close, the windows will not open or close and the floor rots and drops out. In the recent past that has been the kind of accommodation that we in our wisdom and generosity have provided.
The period of the Iroquois and the Cree and all the other tribes of Canada warring against one another is long since over. Our beginnings are very much in the same period, perhaps a little later, yet those same tribal wars and customs exist today not just in South Africa but throughout all of Africa south of the Sahara, with the Zulus, the Xhosas, the Shangaans, the Vendas, the Ndebele and Swazi and so on. It is the warrior and the slave syndrome.
What has happened since African countries to the north of South Africa have gained their independence? How many of them since the 1960s, when the colonial peoples left, have been able to survive in peace and how many of them have failed to survive the blood-shed of the Idi Amins of this world? Idi Amin is not the only one. History is ripe with the skulls that have been broken by black attacking black, tribe against tribe and nothing has changed that. What will change it, Mr. Speaker? I do not know. Will time change it? Will the economies change it? Uganda, Nigeria, Lesotha, the Central African Republic, what is going to change attitudes there?
Not too long ago I had the opportunity to talk with a gentleman who had spent quite a bit of time doing a lot of work for CIDA. He was in an African country. I will not identify the country simply because I want to protect the gentleman. I know he wants to continue his good work with CIDA. I will not let anyone know who he is. Having said that, he said to me recently: "Where is the press? Where are the television cameras in the country in which I am working where my students are gone tomorrow, or their parents went last week, because of the bloody violence of the ANC which would bring its communist philosophy, translated only by guns, knives and hand-grenades, into that country to force its will on the people?" He said "I saw a Democratic leader come to speak to a student rally and be shouted down by the ANC, and any student who opposed that group was disposed of. That is not South Africa."
What kind of a monster have we created? Is it just in South Africa? Those battles are centuries old. It is my view that those battles will continue as they do today in South America and in New Guinea, tribe against tribe. It is so easy to forget Katanga, Biafra and other places of racial holocaust. We learned today that millions upon millions of South Africans have been killed. I think the statement was made that it is the greatest act of genocide that ever existed, without any reference to the Jewish genocide.
If we look at the departure of the raj and the departure of the colonials from India and what occurred thereafter, yes, there was violence. Yes, there was killing, but there is a nation that for the large part stabilized. The tribal warfare that is with us today in India is on a religious basis, just as heinous, just as brutal, mindless and senseless, but it is there. I am hopeful a solution will be reached in that country.
The tribal warfare in Africa, however, has existed from the day the colonials left and it has not for the most part changed. How can we help? What can we as Canadians do? What can the Eminent Persons Group do? How are we going to solve the problem? How are we going to contribute to solving the problem? My colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper), offered some very useful suggestions. He said that the leaders are there for industry, the church, the labour movement, thoughtful Canadians, for people of other Commonwealth countries and other countries to provide thought and action.
I would like to quote from a statement by a British comenta-tor and author, Paul Johnson. He wrote the following:
In 1960, when the colonial powers began to pull out fast, the total population was 210 million. Today it is at least 385 million and it is growing at a rate of 3.2 per cent a year, by far the highest in the world, so in less than 20 years time the population will have doubled again.
At the same time, everyone wants to pour out of the countryside into the towns, so creating appalling problems of congestion and violence in unplanned cities while diminishing the locally grown food supplies.
A tiny handful of countries-Kenya, Ivory Coast, Malawi and South Africa- actually grow more food than a generation ago. The rest produce less, in some cases very much less.
June 13, 1986

Africa has had to increase its grain imports by 700 per cent since independence, but despite this, the World Bank estimates that about 60 per cent of the people have a daily calorie intake which is below the official malnutrition figure.
Twenty-four African countries face what the FAP term "catastrophic food shortages".
When we look at the map of Africa we do not see many more than 24 countries. He concluded:
If its economy collapses, the one engine of growth-even survival-in the continent will be put out of action, and its fall will drag down all the countries of Southern Africa, indeed perhaps, all sub-Saharan Africa. Then we will count the dead from starvation in tens of millions.
When Buthelezi was in Toronto recently, he said:
Blacks simply do not accept disinvestment as a strategy of their choice. The masses of black South Africans tell me so.
Yet, Buthelezi, Chief of the Zulus, is one of the most outspoken opponents to the apartheid process, and rightfully so. However, at the same time, he does not share the view that sanctions are the route to go and nor do I believe that economic sanctions are the route to go. Rather, the process for peace is by way of reason, relievers of the economy used in forms other than sanctions, direct approach to the business community and the labour movement, and by perhaps bypassing a very rigid, authoritarian Government.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to take part in this discussion on South Africa. Sanctions is the general subject of this discussion and there is fairly broad agreement, although not unanimous, on sanctions. The last speaker expressed his disagreement, but I think most other speakers have expressed agreement. At any rate, there is no specific motion on the matter so this is a discussion rather than a debate with two clearly defined sides. It has been a search for some clarity on the way we should go.
This has been a very good debate. I was particularly pleased with the comments of the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). Others have already referred to what he said. I found his account of his experience in South Africa very moving. It was particularly moving because of his restrained and gentle yet blunt and honest way of speaking.
Like many others, I am also very moved by what I have heard or read of the words of Bishop Tutu. He is quoted today in The Globe and Mail as saying:
Only intervention by the outside world can avoid Armageddon. What is the world waiting for?
We know what kind of intervention Bishop Tutu is asking for. He is asking for sanctions. While that is not the unanimous view of the black people of South Africa, there is every reason to believe and every evidence to support the proposition that it is the great and growing view of the majority of people of South Africa, that is to say the black people.
Bishop Tutu asks for interventions but we should not get hung up on the word "intervention" which more often means a military, violent or aggressive intervention. He is asking for intervention, which is much like the action of a labour union
when it withdraws its labour from an employer because negotiations have broken down.
Previous speakers spoke about the need for negotiations and reasoning with business and labour. I would go on from that to say that sanctions are in fact an ultimate form of negotiation. They are not a war-like form of intervention because they leave people still able to talk, think, change their minds and reach agreement. In effect, Bishop Tutu is not asking that we should intervene in the conventional sense, but almost that we should stop intervening. The western powers have been intervening in South Africa for years and years by profiting from apartheid.
We have been profiting from the cheap labour which produces such nice, cheap agricultural products and such nice, cheap and rare minerals. It is not the only place in the world where we can get them, but they are cheap. We have been intervening in South Africa and supporting the violence of the apartheid state by profiting from the minerals and other products which we can get from South Africa. Bishop Tutu is really asking us to stop intervening in support of violence in South Africa. We should, instead, intervene through sanctions.
There were a few comments earlier today which indicated a desire to change the subject by burying it in Soviet bashing or Communist bashing, by complaining about this, that or the other Communist-led country, or what some people imagine to be Communist-led countries. I will not bother answering those because they are merely a diversion from the subject. The fact is that Canada and its allies are engaged in South Africa. We have been engaged on the side of the oppressor. It is no use changing the subject by talking about someone else's violence. We are on the side of the oppressors by virtue of our trading relations with South Africa. Until we withdraw much more than we have already from those trade relations, we are still on the side of the oppressor.
I think it would be a good thing to cut out agricultural imports. There is already a move to reduce the sale of South African wines in Canada. That is something which practically every ordinary consumer can address himself to, whether it be wines, fruits, preserves, or any other agricultural product. Since most people cannot get into the more high-powered stuff, that is worth doing. However, it is also important, and in one sense more critical, for our country to stop the trade in minerals in South Africa. It is shameful that we are refining uranium which is stolen by South Africa from its neighbour, Namibia, at the cost of the murder of Namibian people. Some of it is shipped to Ontario for refining. Of course, some Canadians make a buck out of stolen goods which are the product of murder. That is one thing we should stop.
There has been a story spread by some extremists, such as President Reagan, that we are strategically dependent on the minerals of South Africa. I will take a few minutes to put that story on the record with the aid of some documentation provided by the South African Committee for Trade Union Solidarity. There are, of course, a good deal of minerals being

June 13, 1986
mined in South Africa. It is being mined efficiently by certain standards. There is a good transportation network.
There is a well-established set of mines and no controls over the rate of mineral extraction. There are no health and safety regulations to speak of. What is really important is there is a really cheap labour force. The Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton estimated that the black miners are probably paid one-tenth of what white miners are paid. The mining companies in Africa and other countries, including Canada, have found it in their joint interest to create a kind of artificial dependency on South Africa for certain minerals. These minerals are supposedly scarcely available except, of course, in the Soviet Union. The minerals platinum, vanadium, manganese and chrome are the big four. In fact, it is an artificial dependancy. There has been a very consistent effort, particularly by some quarters in the U.S., to distort that picture. I want to quote a few sentences from the book Trafficking in Apartheid'.
Out of the necessity to defend this systematic exploitation of black miners against the growing international pressure for economic sanctions against South Africa, one argument that has been established with 'smoke and mirrors' goes like this:
'However much we may dislike South African policies, we cannot afford to cut or reduce the economic ties that support the regime because we need those minerals.'.
Of course, we heard the same note when President Carter, referring to Iran, insisted that "We Americans are going to defend our oil". Any oil or minerals in the world appear to belong to the U.S. in the opinion of some American leaders. To continue the quotation:
The argument has been further refined by suggesting that if we did not have access to these minerals and ores from South Africa, we would be dependent upon the Soviet Union.
That has been put in much more hysterical terms:
"Roughly a decade ago we received a jolt. Shifting political patterns, coupled with rising Third World nationalism sharply tempered our expectations... Others well away from our borders can now place their hands on our economic throttles and on our economic throats... We could lose access to the minerals chromite, cobalt, tantalum and others ... It would mean massive shocks to our economic system and current lifestyles.
Without these minerals, we cannot make TV sets or computers or heart lung machines or produce high grade stainless steel for a thousand uses-no supersonic jets and no sophisticated submarines."
That was said by no less a personage than William Casey, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director. He was spreading that smokescreen. That is the sort of job the CIA does when they are not busy mining harbours in Managua. In fact the lie was given to that statement by the Congressional Research Service which in 1980 tabled a report on imports of minerals from South Africa by the U.S.A. and other OECD countries which had been requested by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I quote:
The key conclusion of this report, contrary to conventional wisdom, is that South African minerals are of significant but not critical importance to the west. It is fortunate that in the case of each of the critical minerals imported from South Africa, means are available for dealing with an interruption without
depending on the Soviet Union as an alternative supplier. These means may be costly-
I said before that the big attraction of South African minerals results from low cost slave labour. It continues:
-and they cannot in all cases be implemented without disruption. But, in general, the disruptions can be minimized if preparations for a possible cut-off in South African supplies are made in advance.
I think that is a fairly good statement of the truth about the minerals we get from South Africa. We would like them but we do not absolutely depend on them.
The hysterical talk strategy, the invoking of the fear of the Soviet bogey, is the sort of thing that gives the key to the policies of certain Governments in supporting the South African apartheid regime. The fact is that South Africa is becoming part of a network of fortress countries along with Chile, Honduras, South Korea, the Philippines and Indonesia. Of course, at the hub of that network, not in a geometric sense but in a fundamental sense, is the Pentagon. The Pentagon and American military corporations have extensive relationships with all these countries.
A characteristic of these countries, along with the Pentagon, is that they all get high on the export trade. They all despise their own population as consumers. They do not need them. They are going to sell to someone else who has more money. They do not even need to pay subsistence wages to their own population. These countries are all armed, arming, and all trading in arms. Most of them produce arms for trade. They all from time to time make war on their populations or their neighbours. They all, in conjunction with a number of big corporations, use anti-Communism as the smoke-screen for their aggression.
It is not just some mysterious feeling of black against white or white against black. It is not some mysterious ancient tribalism. It is an expression of highly-developed corporate greed focused not primarily in Africa, because Africa has been the victim of western corporate greed for hundreds of years as has South America and Central America; the centre of this corporate greed is in our NATO countries, in fact in North America and western Europe, including notably Great Britain. Of course, when they are challenged on this we are told our jobs depend on it. The jobs of the British depend on trade with South Africa. Jobs here, we are told, depend on trade with South Africa. On the question of jobs we should ask those who are very directly concerned with jobs, the leaders elected by the workers through the labour movement.
Yesterday, at a convention in Montreal of the International Association of Machinists, there were some South African union leaders present as guests. They decided not to return to South Africa for a few days because events there made it seem quite unsafe to go home after attending a union conference here. Instead they went to visit London and Geneva for a little while and then decide whether it is safe to go to their home country. The convention adopted a resolution saying in effect that the Canadian Government sanctions are not strong
June 13, 1986

enough and that Canadians in fact favour disinvestment in South Africa.
I return to one of the comments of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. He suggested, on the basis of his observations in South Africa, that it might be the unions, or the unions in conjunction with the more Liberal minded corporations, which would lead the way to a more peaceful South Africa. He said there are many people in the churches trying, but they are divided. Many people in the universities are trying, but they are divided. He feels that the unions seem to be establishing a better unity. I know that the leading activities of union federations such as COSATU is to establish non-racial unions, and so at the basic level of earning a living blacks and whites are not only willing to work together, they are willing to defend the right to work together and risk punishment for working together.
I believe it is probably a fact that the unions are, if not the leading group in the changes towards peaceful living together in South Africa, at least one of the leading groups. In Canada we have the actions of the Canadian Labour Congress and other labour groups who are supporting the call for sanctions against South Africa. We have the research work of SACTU, the South African Congress of Trade Unions, to which I referred, which documents in great details the ways in which Canada participates in apartheid through trade with Africa. As Bishop Tutu has pointed out, there is not time for the long, slow process which leaves us all our comforts. What we have to do now is to stand against apartheid, with the blacks and the whites who oppose apartheid in South Africa, and with the blacks and the whites who oppose apartheid in Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues and yourself for the opportunity I have today of addressing this Chamber on the very important issue of apartheid. I want to give a special word of congratulations to two Members, first the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for having brought this initiative to the floor of the House today in order that we have this very important debate. Second, if I had to underline a contribution today of a second Member it would have to be the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). I listened very attentively to his remarks and I noticed that others have as well because, of course, he has been widely quoted since he made his contribution approximately one hour ago.
Many times in this House we make speeches which are viewed as being partisan, and I suppose I do my share of those, but this issue goes far beyond any partisan feeling we may have. I think even today in the speeches it was obvious that the three political Parties have different views on the solution to the problem we are discussing, but we all felt the same way about the fact that not only is that problem there, but that aparatheid is reprehensible.
Others have stated today that they had the opportunity of visiting South Africa. No doubt it would be an opportunity to have the privilege of visiting that country and to see its vast riches and resources which have been described to us by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), I believe, and others.
Perhaps the Ambassador of South Africa to this country and others, who are maybe watching their television right now and may have a different view than you and I have, might be saying, "What is he doing talking about when he has never seen South Africa?" The Ambassador and others, the same group of people who send us mountains of propaganda that all Hon. Members of this House get from time to time, are aware of the fact that we have not had the opportunity of seeing that land, but many people long before us have spoken on the evil of apartheid. Many people have written about it.

Earlier today, I had time to visit our Parliamentary Library, Mr. Speaker, to get some research material on apartheid in South Africa, and I saw shelf after shelf of documents and books on the subject. I even leafed through a book where I saw that at the United Nations, over the years a number of resolutions had been passed. Mr. Speaker, there was a full page of titles and dates of resolutions against apartheid.

There is no doubt that South Africa does not have a monopoly on evil. I do not think anyone suggets that it does. We have a record in our own country's history of occasions that are not that nice either. Need we remind ourselves of the deportation of the Acadians; of the way this country decided to do what it did to Louis Riel; of the way we denied the population of the Province of Ontario even an education in their own language through a long period of our history; of what we did to our Japanese-Canadian citizens; and even more so, of course, the way we slaughtered the innocent people, the natives of Newfoundland and many others to such a point, as has been pointed out today, that a whole tribe of people were hunted down and disappeared?
If there was an excuse, which I am not ready to accept that there was, it is perhaps that we did not know any better. If that excuse has any value at all, I am just wondering how the South African regime, in any way, shape or form, could rationalize what it is doing to its people.
Bishop Desmond Tutu came to Toronto only a few days ago and spoke to our colleagues in the Ontario Legislature and told them of how 73 per cent of the people of South Africa have no democratic rights. Until recently they even had to use the equivalent of a passport in order to get from one town to the other in their own country.

And Mr. Speaker, when we in this country, with all our freedoms, when we as legislators can come to Ottawa and go to our ridings, without fear, always enjoying those freedoms,

June 13, 1986
when we can address our constituents and we know that we are here with their consent and their support, Mr. Speaker, it may be difficult for many of us to imagine what apartheid is like.
I have an article written by Frederick van Zyl Slabbert. Fie is a former Leader of the Progressive Federal Party of South Africa. It is my understanding that the Progessive Federal party of South Africa consisted only of Members of Parliament who were white, because only whites were allowed of course. It advocates and desires equal rights for black people. The former Leader of that party recently resigned because he felt totally frustrated at not being able to gain for the majority of people of that country what they deserve. In an article in The Gazette on May 13, 1986, referring to the pass laws, he said:
The South African government recently announced the abolition of the hated pass laws, the network of statutes and regulations that controlled the lives of millions of black South Africans.
Hundreds of thousands were arrested and jailed annually for pass-law offences. These laws broke up families (a man could not take his wife and children with him when he found work in the city) and made technical criminals of ordinary people looking for work.
It is difficult for us to imagine, as we sit in the House and our families join us in Ottawa and occasionally sit in and listen to what we say, that were we South Africans and coloured, not only could we not sit in Parliament, because non-whites are totally denied that franchise, but if we came to this city looking for work we would be denied the right to bring our families with us because we could not get them properly franchised according to that law which has existed for so many years in that country. It is difficult for us to imagine having to live in that kind of situation.
Of course, there are those who will say that there are many other countries in which people are oppressed. That is true, but the difference between rich and poor in South Africa is not a lack of wealth or lack of resources, it is a deliberate act to separate people and to cause the majority of them to be poor so that the minority can have all the wealth for themselves.
Many people have written books and essays on this situation in South Africa. The debate has been going on for a long time.

I may recall, Mr. Speaker, that in this House, on Friday, March 17, 1961, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, then Prime Minister of Canada, was just back from a Commonwealth Conference in which a clear indication had been made to South Africa ... a conference where sanctions had been taken against South Africa and it was informed that if it did not intend to change and abolish apartheid, the Commonwealth was not longer interested in having that country as a member.
Mr. Diefenbaker said, and I quote:
"The general attitude we took was criticize strongly and deplore the racial policy of the Union Government and the anxiety we felt it was arousing in the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout the world.
We expressed our deep concern about its impact on the relations among the member countries of the commonwealth and on the cohesion of the commonwealth itself as a multiracial association. I took the stand then, and I have taken it before, that the United Nations answers to these principles, and that the commonwealth cannot do less."
Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, today, 25 years later, there has been practically no change with respect to the rights of South African Blacks.
My point is that we must be prepared to take far more stringent measures than has been the case in years gone by, since although the kind of action we have taken in the past may have brought about a very slight improvement, it certainly did not produce the intended results-

We in this country have long taken our rights for granted- sometimes too much so, in my opinion. A great Canadian once spoke about those rights and freedoms. He said:
Thank Providence that we live in a country of absolute freedom and liberty. Let us always bear in mind our duties, for duty is always inherent in right. Our fathers had to labour to secure these rights. Now let us fulfil our part. Three years ago, when visiting England at the Queen's Jubilee, I had the privilege of visiting one of those marvels of Gothic architecture which the hand of genius, guided by an unerring faith, had made a harmonious whole, in which granite, marble, oak and other materials were blended. This cathedral is the image of the nation that I hope to see Canada become. As long as I live, as long as I have the power to labour in the service of my country; I shall repel the idea of changing the nature of its different elements.
I want the marble to remain the marble; I want the granite to remain the granite-
Those were the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on August 15, 1900. It is my hope that the day will come when black South Africans will be able to read what I have just read and do as we do, look at those rights that Sir Wilfrid Laurier described to us on August 15, 1900 and think of them as being their rights. Unfortunately, that is not the case now.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, this well-known South African, himself a white man, wanted, as do all of us, improvements in the privileges and rights of the approximately 20 million Blacks, to come about peacefully, and as much as possible with no adverse effect on the population.
We have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that we have already collectively built all the societies in this world. We have already taken peaceful action by expressing our concerns to the South African Government, but until now, we have met with near complete failure.
Doctor Christian Barnard, the well-known physician and medical innovator, who is himself white, when describing the
June 13, 1986

situation and what should be done to improve it, said that no option should be rejected out of hand because, eventually, everything would have to be done to resolve this intolerable situation. He also said, and I shall quote him to conclude my intervention: "To define and extract a tumour, whatever its nature, the surgeon needs to expose it to the light, and even though he is aware of the pain which will result for the patient, he must dissect mercilessly and completely."
Which brings us to say, Mr. Speaker, that the sanctions will certainly be painful, but that we must have the courage to impose them.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, last Monday, in Montreal, I had the privilege of meeting Bishop Tutu with a number of people who were very involved in the cause we are debating in the House today, and I would like to name a few of these people: Mr. Charbonneau, the President of the CEQ, Mr. Laberge, the President of the Federation du travail du Quebec, and Mr. Gerard Larose, the President of the CSN, as well as a number of wellknown Montrealers, and also, under the umbrella of the Association quebecoise des organismes de cooperation internationale, representatives of student associations, the Federation des femmes du Quebec, the Ligue des droits et libertes and a representative from the Assemblee des eveques du Quebec. And of course, since everyone wanted to talk to Bishop Tutu, I barely had time to let him know the gratifying news that on the Saturday before, May 31, youth members of my party, and I say this without partisanship, the young Liberals of Quebec who were attending their convention in Ottawa to select the resolutions that will be debated in Ottawa on November 26, 28 and 30 of this year, that they had adopted a number of resolutions. There was one that was particularly relevant to this debate and on which I would like to expand. They asked, and this is something new for our politically-oriented youth, for an end to economic and diplomatic relations with South Africa, if that country continued its apartheid policy, and also for recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the principal, not the sole, but the principal spokesperson for the Palestinians.
Mr. Speaker, you know how very interested I am in international affairs, and I have never been ashamed to say so, because it has always been my view that a federal Member should have an international perspective. A provincial member and a municipal councillor may have other concerns, but a federal Member, while defending the interests of his province and the people who elected him, ought to remember the international perspective as well. And in my case, I have been interested in international events for 20 years. It strikes me that if every single Head of State in this world would stop being afraid ... I am referring to the kind of fear that is so overpowering it prevents you from making important decisions. I maintain that all these Heads of State know what is going on. They know, because they are better informed than I am. They all have departments that work for them. They know perfectly well that if in certain cases action is not taken, this will necessarily to have certain consequences.
What I do not understand, what I refuse to understand- and on such questions I am a stubborn man-is that we are not taking action at the appropriate time. Mr. Speaker, why is it that we failed to understand what was happening, for instance, in 1959 and during the many years before which brought us to the Cuban revolution of 1960, how did we fail to appreciate that those people were seeking dignity and respect for their rights? How can we not understand what is going on in Nicaragua, what made people want to get rid of dictators? Because we were absent. Because we do not understand, or because we do not want to understand, we find ourselves in the kind of situation facing us today. How can we not understand what is happening in Chile? How do we fail to understand- and I try to take current examples, be it in Haiti or in the other countries I just mentioned? Why, for instance since my colleague from Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has reminded us of things which are very true, why is it that my colleague from Mount Royal, who opened the door for me, does not feel as much concern as I do about the plight of those people who lived through the holocaust, but also of those people who are called the Palestinians?
When I consider what is happening in South Africa, Mr. Speaker, and draw a parallel with the Palestinian issue, I say: My God, these are two extremely explosive situations which might compromise world peace. Of course there are other tragedies in the world, of course there are other tragedies in Africa, of course there are other tragedies, other absurdities in the Middle East. I have in mind the Iran-Iraq war, but when I look at these two cases in particular, I am forced to draw some conclusions. How is it that a country like mine, on November 29, 1947, I believe, few countries were represented at the United Nations ... we then voted for the creation of two Palestinian states, 33 countries voted, 13 to 10. The most extraordinary aspect is that one of the 33 countries, except Canada, the United States, the Soviet Union and several others-what a nice assembly-there was practically only one African country, and it was South Africa. They voted in favour of two states, so look where we are now because no-one will complete the work already begun. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if we did not see what is going on on television, if television did not show us what is happening in South Africa, perhaps we would not have this debate, and it would be very unfortunate. Perhaps it it necessary that worldwide television would show these images which strike us and vividly depict the injustices about which we hear so much in that country.
I listened on Monday, June 2, to Mgr. Tutu, and I thought to myself: What patience, Mr. Speaker! I would not have that patience, were I an African in black South Africa. He spoke to us about that last possible chance, trying to open our eyes to understanding. But what a message of kindness as against the impatience of people who have always been waiting for equality! Was that message hard to understand? Let us imagine for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that you are black, that you have a black wife and black children that you are going to be pushed around next Monday, on the 10th anniversary of the Soweto events, and that you and I are looking today at

June 13, 1986
television, but as the black people. How long would we have the patience to try and arouse the conscience of the world by crying out: Look at us, understand us, we are human beings just like anyone else, we have our pride; do you not understand that if you will not grant us that equality which is also our right, we will become impatient!
This is the whole phenomenon, not of terrorism but of violence. When I fall a victim to the kind of injustice that is so widespread, when I am asking in vain that my rights be recognized, nobody listens to me. So I shout louder, but still nobody listens to me. Then I join in with my neighbours and we shout in the streets, but still they will not listen. At that point we have no arms, we get organized, we knock things over, we overturn buses, we burn a few tires, and then the police which some people like so much to support, step in, crushes and arrests people. Who is arrested? Leaders like Mandela. What happens to them? They are put in jail. What happens to them, not only in South Africa but in so many other places like Chile and elsewhere? They are tortured.
But, Mr. Speaker, would you allow your son, your daughter or your wife or your friends to be tortured, deprived of fundamental things, like the right to education, the right to justice, the right to equality, the right to clothing, the right to shelter? But When you deal with people who deprive you of all that, your propensity for violence gets exacerbated.
Some people have but one word on their minds, "terrorism": terrosism here, terrosism there, to stop you from pointing out the injustice in all of that. But finally we realize that if we in the Western world do not take the leadership in helping them, those people will rise, they will have their revolution as others did before them. People are thrown into prison, like Kenyatta, and the Mau Mau had their revolution. I remember seeing the same pictures when I was young. They had their revolution in Kenya. Kenyatta was thrown into prison. They put Nehry back into prison. So they did with liberated themselves. Why?
Because these people suffered the same fate under colonialists who branded them terrorists and communists. It is always the same word-communists, communists, communists. Because you want justice you are accused of being communist. It is as if being a capitalist means you can do anything wrong. I refuse to believe that.

Mr. Speaker, I say-and I am not bragging-that the experience I have, Canadian taxpayers have paid for me to learn; my constituents have elected me over and over again. They make it possible for me to continue to look after the interests of Quebecers, obviously, and Canadians generally, but also to address major world issues, which has enabled me to travel and take part in the proceedings of the United Nations or the International Parliamentary Union where I was elected to chair the International Policy Commission dealing
with these issues. As a representative of a western country, I had much difficulty getting elected. As though I wore a mask saying: West. We are in a minority situation, but I was elected nevertheless by a majority of non-aligned countries.
I have often been to the United Nations. I was there when Arafat made a speech in 1974. It was the very same desperate message: Please, I beg you, listen! Give us justice! Give us passports! Give us back our land!
But what do the South African people want? The Black population says: Give us back our pride! Give us equal rights! Since you have them, why should I be without them!
Well, we continue dragging our feet. We keep saying: You know, economic sanctions might not be as good as you think. This may be true. But Canada is perceived so much as a leader in the whole world. Canada is perceived so much as a different, tolerant, multicultural country that we should show leadership. I beg the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to take the initiative. If they deem it necessary, they should call a special meeting of the Commonwealth countries and during these special meetings and proceedings, why not... We could have special rules!
Canada should continue to show leadership. The whole world-it seems to me at times that only Canadians-

Only Canadians do not know what Canada is all about. The world believes in Canada. The world loves Canada because we are no longer a colonial country. We have a colonial past. We were colonized, and doubly colonized-
Mir. Heap: Triply colonized.


Marcel Prud'homme: Triply colonized, economically, as the Hon. Member says. People recognize themselves in us. Some people expect more from us than the hesitant steps which we usually take. Let us inform Canadians. I believe that when Canadians are informed, they are well ahead of any Government. Let us tell them what the term "sanction" means in terms of dollars and cents. Let us call upon the trade unions. I know that they will answer, even if they have to suffer a little bit. Everyone in the country must suffer a little bit-equally, not some more than others-in order to help our brothers and sisters in South Africa to show them that we, white people, care for them even if they have black skin. That is the message that Canada could deliver. It is the message that most of the Commonwealth countries are waiting to hear from Canada, not the hesitating waltz, a little step this way and a little step that way. Leadership-that is what most of the African and non-aligned countries expect from Canada. We have leadership and understanding, let us show it by our actions.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), could very well ask me: Do you have some concrete proposals? I have some. They may not be the best, but they are at least steps in the right direction.
June 13, 1986

I can see that you are indicating that I have but three minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I might ask for permission to have another three minutes in order to put my proposals forward. When I talk about this type of situation I admit-and I am not apologizing-that I become very passionate. I will always be passionate when I defend the rights of people to equality and respect. I do not think we should apologize for that.
What can Canada do? We are told that South Africa will make it more difficult for the countries surrounding it. It will be very difficult for its neighbouring countries in terms of trade. Perhaps Canada should assist in developing alternative trade routes. In this regard Canada could help develop and maintain the port system in Mozambique and assist in the maintenance of the railway links between Zimbabwe and Mozambique on the Tanzanian Railway.
We could assist in ensuring the safety of trade routes. It is widely believed-and the events of recent days make me believe it-that South Africa has engaged in sabotage, as it already has in the case of the Zimbabwe-Mozambique railway link. Thus the possibility of establishing an international police force made up of Africans to supervise these trade routes should be considered.
We could assist in developing alternative markets for goods from frontline states. We should undertake to study the possibility of increasing the import of goods from the frontline states that are suffering and will suffer more. I know many of my colleagues would tremble to say this, but I do not.
We could assist the liberation movement with the supply of humanitarian aid, medical supplies, food and the like. Furthermore, Canada should ask for the absolute, unconditional release of Nelson Mandela. That is the message Bishop Tutu gave in Montreal. That should be our prime effort. It could dilute the aggressiveness of those who are against people who rightly intend to be equal and respected.
The Government should close all trade, immigration and consular offices, though perhaps we should keep just one accredited person in Pretoria for the time being. My information is current as I checked into this this afternoon, and it is disappointing for me to note that Swaziland and Lesotho are under the jurisdiction of the Pretoria mission for immigration purposes. If it is disappointing to note that, it is extremely embarrassing to note that the independent states of Zimbabwe and Botswana are served by the Canadian immigration office in Pretoria. If people from those independent states do not wish to go to Pretoria, they have to go all the way to Nairobi. When there is a Canadian diplomatic mission in Zimbabwe, why should a Zimbabwean have to go to Pretoria? I suppose my colleague, who is an ex-Minister of Immigration, would say
that it makes sense now but that later on, if the situation becomes perfect, we will revise it. At the moment, we should not force Zimbabweans to go through the Pretoria office to have immigration queries settled.
In the very limited time available to me under the rules, I have tried to speak passionately. I believe that one must not be sorry to look passionate and act passionate. When I talk about human beings, I am passionate.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), said rightly that if people would have condemned anti-Semitism in the thirties, our eyes would have been opened and we would have understood that we cannot kick someone because he is Jewish and we cannot hit someone because he is black. If we do, eventually someone will come up with a system for the disposal of those people.

Or to crush them. Two of the worst ills that I know which affect the hearts of men are certainly apartheid and antiSemitism, two fatal diseases which should be condemned every day. If we condemn these ills, we must apply the same justice to others. We must not-

When we talk about human rights, we must be consistent. We must not defend the human rights of only a few and forget about the human rights of others. I say that I believe that Canada's ambition to defend equally the human rights of our fellow citizens around the world exists but there must be consistency.
I hope and pray that our Government-tonight there is no partisanship so I refer to my Government of my country-will take the lead in the Commonwealth and, if necessary, at the United Nations and will not wait. South Africa will not wait any longer for the famous little bit described by the Prime Minister of England. You recall, Mr. Speaker, the famous meeting at which the Prime Minister of England said that she moves a tiny little bit. Africans are not in the mood any longer to wait for that little bit.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, myself and the Government, are we going to answer this question? I would hope we will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 29(13), I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded and I declare the motion carried.
The House therefore remains adjourned until Monday, June 16, 1986, at 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, June 16, 1986