1987-03-06

Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the
Government's refugee policy brings to mind the answer one often hears on the telephone answering service: "Thank you for calling the Government of Canada. Toutes nos lignes sont occupies. All our lines are busy. Veuillez rester en ligne. Stay on the line."
Since February 20 the Government's answer to refugees seeking Canada's protection has been: "Don't bother us, stay home until you hear from us. Don't call us, we'll call you."
The contempt and ignorance of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) are overwhelming. He claims that certain refugees are dishonest because they buy tickets for London but ask for political asylum in Canada. He does not seem to know that a refugee would be putting his life on the line if, before departure, he were to publicize his intention of definitively leaving his country.
Mr. Speaker, February 20, 1987 will for ever be remembered as the infamous day when the Government of Canada broke with our long-standing humanitarian tradition of welcoming refugees.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES PUBLIC MAPPING SERVICES-OPPOSITION TO PRIVATIZATION
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to go back to the basics of our language and our principles of government. In the light of recent reports that the Government may sell federal mapping facilities to a private consortium, we evidently have to emphasize that a public
service, the Public Service, is exactly that. It is a service provided to all of the Canadian public.
The mapping services provided by the Government have played an essential role in making Canada a rich, livable and secure country. The services provided by Canada s scientists and our technical mapping specialists are indeed useful to the private sector. They are being shared and must continue to be shared with the private sector.
Vaguely worded statements about joint ventures are not acceptable. A true joint venture, a partnership of independent entities coming together to share skills and opportunities, would not be simply appropriate but essential. But a sell-out of the skills, the technology, and the expertise developed over decades by Canadians working in the service of their country would be a betrayal of government's responsibility to provide a true service to all the people of the country.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Chileans are fleeing brutal repression, disappearance, torture, prison, death, and all the other actions of the dictatorship headed by Pinochet which have been going on for over a decade. There are even secret police in Buenos Aires who are harassing Chileans who are known to be refugee claimants there.
These refugee claimants ought to be allowed to state their claims in Canada under our fast-track procedures and with due process of law. In fact those who have arrived in Canada and have gone through the fast-track procedure have done remarkably differently from the average. The average seems to be about 10 per cent of acceptance of Chileans, it has now become 56 per cent. This shows that they have a strong claim. Even those who may not be precisely refugees by the narrow definition have a strong claim under humanitarian consideration.
There were two planes that left Santiago on the morning of February 20. One arrived in Canada the next day and all the claimants aboard have been accepted. The other one was stopped at Buenos Aires, and should be allowed to come in the same way as the other did with all those who have been accepted.

March 6, 1987


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES OPPOSITION TO POSSIBLE PRIVATIZATION OF CERTAIN BRANCHES
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, so the Government wants to privatize or joint venture parts of Energy, Mines and Resources. Good luck! Not only am I surprised but I am shocked at this potential plan. In fact I feel like Premier Peckford and the Hon. Members for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) and Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price) when they were not informed on the recent Canada-France cod issue. I am beginning to feel more and more like a member of the Opposition.
The Government has enough difficulties these days without looking for more trouble. The potential plan to privatize the Surveys and Mapping Branch of the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, and the Environment Canada hydrographic services in a joint venture with Lavalin, or any other company in Montreal or Canada, is not only bad business but bad politics. I will fight just as long and just as hard as the unions to prevent this from happening.
If the Treasury Board and the Ministry are flying a trial balloon to see how quickly it gets shot down, well, bang, bang-it's dead!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC'S SITUATION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: As
you would know, Mr. Speaker, discussions are now going on in Ottawa in an attempt to bring the Province of Quebec back within the Constitution, with honour and dignity. Sad to say, this is just another masquerade on the part of the Conservative Government because the Quebec Minister of Environment has just stated publicly that his province is being treated unfairly in connection with the St. Lawrence industrial pollution.
In the opinion of the Quebec Minister of Finance, Quebecers are victims of this Government's inequity with respect to equalization payments.
Another Minister, responsible for multiculturalism, is seeking financial assistance from Ottawa to cope with the influx of refugees, and again the federal Government says no.
The Quebec Minister of Transport, Mr. Cote, is opposed to Bill C-18 because it will lead to the abandonment of railway lines in Quebec.
And we just learned recently that once again Quebecers were hoodwinked about the space station: only one out of ten companies was awarded contracts, so the Chambre de commerce de Montreal was forced to join-
Mr. Speaker, considering that the Conservative Government got a strong mandate from Quebecers, I dare hope that Quebec Members will wake up and do justice to their province.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES CONSIDERATION OF PRIVATIZATION OF CERTAIN BRANCHES CONDEMNED
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked, and so were the surveying and natural resource industries across Canada and the employees at Energy, Mines and Resources, when we learned that the Surveys and Mapping Branch at the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, and the Canadian hydrographic service are being considered for privatization.
I know the Canadian surveying industry and these government agencies. They are world-class. Industry and government currently interface in a magnificent way. I condemn these privatization initiatives both from a national and local perspective. Many of my constituents work in these agencies, and their careers would be destroyed and their lives disrupted. Nationally, these agencies are regarded as being world class, and that status can only be maintained if they are under the mandate of the federal Government.
[DOT] (mo)
I seek assurance from all Members of the House that the Government will not privatize the aforementioned agencies. I ask every Member of the House to support this request. They must remain under the aegis of the federal Government.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTATION OF DEREGULATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, a little noticed line in the Government's spending Estimates for this year is the extra $1 million to be given to the CRTC for purposes of implementing deregulation. Thus, not only are Canadians to see the Government following the American Government on deregulation in communications, a policy for which the Government has no mandate, but they will also have to fork over an extra $1 million to the CRTC for the privilege.
Perhaps since it is only $1 million one should not complain. So many of the Government's spending priority mistakes will cost the taxpayer a great deal more. But it is government policy in microcosm. Having promised to keep up cultural
March 6, 1987

spending at least to increases in the cost of living, the Government has made budget cuts. Some cultural agencies have obtained increases this year, but over-all cultural spending will be kept down to 95 per cent of what it was during the last year of the previous Government.
Although there are tough choices to be made in spending, the Government has found an increase of $1 million for increased work-load to implement deregulation measures.
Come on guys and women in the Government, let's get serious.
of Saskatchewan, it is incompetent and insensitive, and it does not deserve to govern.
When the CCF-NDP were in power in Saskatchewan with Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd, and Allan Blakeney, there was a balanced Budget, and five years ago there was a surplus. Now there is an accumulated deficit in that province of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say one thing in an election campaign, and once they are in government they do exactly the opposite.
* *
*
* *
*


PRICE OF GASOLINE-CALL FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, recently an article appeared in the Calgary Herald concerning Turbo Resources Ltd. Turbo is primarily an independent retailer of gasoline. The President of Turbo stated that the big oil companies "can't control the price of crude oil, so their ability to make it 'upstream' is beyond their control. Therefore, there is very strong incentive to expand the margins downstream". That means big profits at the gas pumps. In the interview, the president stated that he was grateful for the niche his giant rivals leave open.
Turbo Resources, with little exploration or production interests, was able to pay their bank $47.3 million in loan principal, $10.5 million in interest, and still realize a $13.4 million profit in the first nine months of 1986. There appears to be no competition as both independent and large gas companies are making huge profits at the gas pumps.
Deregulation is supposed to benefit everyone, not just the oil and gas companies. I call on the Government to investigate gas prices immediately in order that all Canadian consumers can benefit from deregulation.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party often talks to Canadians about the need to control deficit spending in the country, and across the provinces. The Conservative action is different.
According to The Globe and Mail this morning the deficit in Saskatchewan has tripled since last fall's estimates. Before the election campaign in Saskatchewan, the Government said that the deficit would be $389 million. Now that the election is over the deficit is $1.2 billion in Saskatchewan. This is a tripling of the deficit. The Government has misled the people


INFLATION
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gerald Bouey, former Governor of the Bank of Canada, did not mince words when he criticized the previous Government for its inflationary policies.
Mr. Speaker, between 1970 and 1984, the Liberals put a hidden tax burden on the neediest in our society, a tax of more than 300 per cent over fourteen years. In other words, Canadians who retired in 1970 with $10,000 in the bank can buy now what they were then able to buy with $3,333. It was the Liberal Party that put this hidden and insidious tax burden on Canadians.
Today's senior citizens who had saved money for their retirement have seen their savings dwindle to only one third of their original value, thanks to the Liberals. And when I see Members of the Liberal Party criticizing our policies, after they robbed Canadians of $7,000 out of every $10,000 over a period of fourteen years-
Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Liberal Party was Minister of Finance, from 1972 to 1975, he took part in this organized pillaging of Canadians. It was while he was Minister of Finance that we got the 50-cent dollar.
That is what the Leader of the Liberal Party has done for the poor in this country, Mr. Speaker.


OHS)   INDUSTRY PLASTIC INDUSTRY'S CONSULTATIONS WITH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, leaders of the Canadian plastics industry were in Ottawa this week.

March 6, 1987
Oral Questions
The industry association, the Society of the Plastics Industry, or SPI, estimates total product sales at $10 billion per year! with 80,000 employees in 2,000 plants in at least 150 federal' ridings across Canada. The Chairman of the SPI is Sheldon Berney, President of Reliance Products of Winnipeg.
The industry is focusing its goals on consultation with various federal government Departments, including DRIE, External Affairs, and Science and Technology, to equip the industry better to compete in the international market-place and enhance its ability to contribute to the Canadian economy.
The plastics industry is Canada's fastest growing industry and has been for 15 years. The industry predicts that it can be Canada's number one industry by the 21st century if the right policies are adopted. Our Government is working in cooperation with the industry toward the development of those policies.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last spring, the Minister of the Environment announced that cleaning up the St. Lawrence River was his main priority. After a year of doing nothing, the Minister still has his action plan without a budget to implement it, so that he is now putting the onus on the Province of Quebec to shoulder the entire cost.
My question is as follows, and it is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister: When will the Minister of the Environment or this Government keep its promise to clean up the St. Lawrence by provinding appropriate funding?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the leadership which has been shown by the Prime Minister and indeed by the Minister of the Environment in all these matters has been simply outstanding. The Minister is currently in the process of negotiating acid rain emission agreements with the provinces. As well, he is undertaking to deal with the issue which the Hon. Member has raised. In the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I can only assure my hon. friend that we are taking this matter seriously. I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the Minister of the Environment when he returns.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR QUEBEC
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has already said that he has no money for the Province of Quebec. In fact the Quebec Minister of the Environment knows, as do Canadians and the federal Cabinet, that the announced action plan is another empty Tory promise. Quebec has pledged billions to clean up the St. Lawrence River and is now seeking financial support from the federal Government, according to the action plan. Why won't the Government pull its weight instead of passing the buck to the Province of Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government is pulling its weight, not only on this particular issue but on the whole issue of acid rain and environmental issues in particular. As I indicated, we are pressing the United States to do its part. However, first of all we must get our house in order. It is to that extent that the Minister of the Environment is cooperating very closely with the provinces. If the Hon. Member is a little patient he will see, as in most other cases, that sometimes it takes a little longer to do these things in a consultative and co-operative way, but in the final analysis it usually works out to be the best approach.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I don't understand the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister already said there was no money to help the province of Quebec clean up the St. Lawrence. Is that what the Government means by pulling its weight?
People seem to forget that municipalities are also involved. In fact, this Government refused to act on a recommendation by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities for a development and assistance plan for waste water treatment plants.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he can let the present Minister of the Environment criticize the United States in every way for its stand on acid rain, when he is not prepared to provide the promised financial assistance to the Province of Quebec to help clean up the St. Lawrence River?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Liberal Party, which ignored over the past 25 years many of its obligations with respect to issues that fall within federal jurisdiction, is now suggesting that we, as a Government, not only catch up to all its delays and failure to take action with the important issues within federal jurisdiction but that we should get involved in areas of provincial and municipal jurisdiction.
March 6, 1987


Raymond Garneau: You said you were going to do so. You promised.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If that is the official position of the Liberal Party, I will be interested to hear what the Member's Leader has to sa.y.


Raymond Garneau: Why have you given $200 million to Ontario? [Translation]


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR QUEBEC
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the St. Lawrence river pollution originates from the Great Lakes, that pollutants are being dumped all along the river, that the problem does not affect Quebecers only, since the issue has interprovincial and international ramifications. Why would the Minister of Environment, on behalf of the Government, ask Quebecers to bear the entire cost of depolluting the St. Lawrence? Indeed the Government proved to be generous towards Ontario and Nova Scotia when it gave them $85 million and $34 million respectively to depollute. Why not Quebec as well? Why should Quebec be ignored?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think we better get serious here. First, what the Hon. Member is implying is that this pollution has occurred over the last two years since our Government took office. What happened to the 20 years of neglect previously? We are going to deal with this issue, as we have dealt with other important national issues, and the Hon. Member should just be a little patient.


Mr. St. Germain:: We do not need lessons from you over there.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We certainly do not need lessons from that gentleman or that Party as to action on matters of the environment and important matters with respect to pollution.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Minister of the Environment is an artist of inflammatory statements. Yesterday he called U.S. Senator Byrd a Neanderthal. The problem is the Minister is long on rhetoric and short on action. Will the Deputy Prime Minister direct his Minister to climb down from his Mr. Clean pedestal and wet his feet in the St. Lawrence River, which he himself described as an open sewer, so that we can get action instead of just rhetoric?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this Government has a Minister of the Environment who is honest, sincere, and fully dedicated to discharging his responsibilities. I will certainly not take any criticism of the kind that has been levelled from that Hon. Member who really does not have very
Oral Questions
clean shoes when it comes to defending the interests of the environment as far as the administration of which he was a Member is concerned.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES REPORTED PROPOSAL RELATED TO PRIVATIZATION OF CERTAIN BRANCHES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Forestry who apparently has charge of the possible privatization of the Surveys and Mapping Branch in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the Minister explain what is going on with respect to this proposal for privatization which has led spokespeople for Lavalin in Montreal to talk about plans for employees. They have suggested that not all the employees will be taken over and only two years of job security will be provided. Can the Minister explain what is going on? Could he assure this House and those 1,300 employees in surveys, mapping, the remote sensing centre and the hydrographic service, that their jobs and their work will not be privatized under this Government?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that the media reports on this particular matter are incorrect. I want to state at the outset unequivocally that we will not be selling the Surveys and Mapping Branch. I want to tell the employees of that branch in Ottawa, the people of Ottawa and the people of Canada, that that branch is not for sale. Neither are there plans to privatize that particular branch. In fact we have never discussed privatization in the strict sense of the word.
I do want to mention that through recommendations of the Nielsen Task Force, Treasury Board officials are looking at ways in which the private and public sector could complement each other in domestic and international markets for that particular service. However, in this regard Treasury Board and EMR officials have had exploratory discussions with a number of companies, not just one company. I think it is important to note here that Ministers have not in any form considered the policy related to these discussions. Media and Lavalin statements go well beyond what is warranted by these exploratory and preliminary discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: I will return to the Hon. Member in a moment. I think I should indicate to Hon. Members that the Chair did let the Minister go on perhaps for quite a long time. However, I would point out that the matter was raised three times, I believe, in statements by Members, and it is obviously an important matter. This was the first opportunity for a Minister to respond so I hope Hon. Members will understand.

March 6, 1987
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE PRIVATIZATION OF CERTAIN BRANCHES OF INSTITUTE OF CARTOGRAPHY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister be more specific, because not only the spokespeople for Lavalin but his boss the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in Sherbrooke last January that the Department is considering the possibility of privatizing and relocating certain branches of the Institute of Cartography? Just what exactly is under review? And does the Government expect that fewer employees will be needed in cartographic services and other centres which are the subject of discussions?

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can be more positive than I was in this particular regard. I stated at the time that the Government has not made a decision in this regard at all. Any discussion on this is premature and unwarranted at this time. The Ministers have never even discussed it.


PRICE AND JOB SECURITY REPORTS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is telling the House that all discussions are premature, can he kindly tell the House how then it comes about that a senior spokesperson for Lavalin and its partners in Bell Canada has the understanding that the price might be $55 million and that there might be only two years of job security, and has thought through exactly how the company will proceed with the privatization? Is this privatization on the boards or not? Why can the Government not make up its mind whether or not the jobs of these employees will be secure?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned that any discussions with Lavalin and other companies are exploratory at the best, and anything they have read into it with regard to pricing I can say is definitely premature.


CANADIAN CENTRE FOR REMOTE SENSING
William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, in his reply the Minister addressed his answer primarily to the Surveys and Mapping Branch of his Department. Could he give the House the assurance that those comments apply to the Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing and the Canadian hydrographic survey?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and Mines):: Mr. Speaker, I can comment on the Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing because that is under my jurisdiction and I can say that my comments apply to that as well. The Government has not discussed this in terms of policy whatsoever.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER BE MORE PRECISE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the same question and to the same Minister, the Minister said in English:

-"in the strict sense of the word" when talking about privatization. What does the Minister mean when he says that the privatization we are hearing about for these three EMR Departments will not be in the strict sense of the word? Is he telling us that indeed there are other things in the works? Is the Government looking at other ways of privatizing these three essential services?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, to date any discussion and any action by this Government in terms of privatization has been with regard to a Crown corporation. We have never at any time discussed the privatization of a Department or function of the Government to this date.


FUTURE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS AND FAMILIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister, in the name of the Government, give a guarantee to the 1,300 public servants and their families whose futures are at stake here that they will be fully protected, and make it clear that there are no privatization plans in the works for these three Departments? Will he also give us the assurance that if indeed he has something else in mind regarding the strict or unstrict interpretation of the word "privatization", it will be done openly through the regular tendering process and not in secret meetings with private sector interests?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, I can say that if a decision were made, and no decision has been made in this regard, it would be on a public basis with a public call for proposals for such a service. There has been no decision made and no discussion by Ministers in this regard.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the future immigration policy of the Government to be based on the fundamentally racist premise enunciated by the Hon. Member for Willowdale that Canadians seek as immigrants people who can adjust to this climate-
March 6, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that all Hon. Members would be extremely careful, whether intentionally or otherwise, in imputing racist motives to any Hon. Member of this place. It is going to evoke a very strong response and that gives the Chair a lot of difficulty in keeping order. We are Hon. Members and, unless one had the most profound evidence on which to base a statement like that, it just does not seem to be appropriate. I know the Hon. Member, an excellent Member of this place and one who speaks with force and determination on matters of concern to all Hon. Members, would want to be careful in how he describes the motivation of another Hon. Member. I would hope he would rephrase his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what other interpretation is to be placed upon the phrase-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Keeper:: Listen!


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to the Chair that if there is a suggestion in a preamble that any Hon. Member is racist, in this country that is a most disagreeable and offensive suggestion.


Cyril Keeper: Listen to the statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite sure that the Hon. Member can ask a question without impugning the motive or character of a particular Member. There has certainly been no basis laid for that kind of comment about any Hon. Member. I would hope in the interest of the very thing which the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville feels so strongly about that we would have these discussions in such a way that we do not impugn the honour of Hon. Members. I must say that the Chair views a suggestion of racism as a most disagreeable and serious suggestion indeed.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Government to base its future immigration policy on the premise that there exists a class of people who can adjust to this climate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member, who has been in this House for two years plus, is fully aware of the fact that any policy announcements made by the Government come either from the Prime Minister or the Minister involved. Those are the policies to which this Government adheres.
I can tell the Hon. Member that our policy is certainly much more humane than the policy expressed by his Leader when he was interviewed by Mr. Webster on The Jack Webster Show in Vancouver not too long ago where he stated: "If you find out that these are not bona fide refugees you kick them out of the country".
Oral Questions


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR WILLOWDALE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, again-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville has co-operated with the Chair and I would ask Hon. Members to listen to his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Hon. Member for Willowdale has implications with respect to the self-perception of visible minorities in this country. It reflects poorly on the Party in power, on this House, and on the Canadian people. I ask the Government whether it will insist upon an apology from the Hon. Member for Willowdale for his statement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the statement, whatever it is, that the Hon. Member refers to does not reflect government policy. I suggest to the Hon. Member, if he is concerned about public policy on a very important issue, he should concern himself with the position of his own Party Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services but in her absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister's departmental document dealing with the Government's new plans to meddle with the awarding of federal contracts states clearly that if there are inquiries and a request is made to delay an award, the responsible procurement officer shall inform management immediately of the situation. How can the Minister stand up in this House and state that this system does not open the door for political interference by the Government? It is spelled out right here in her own departmental document.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister I would simply like to advise the Hon. Member that this question was answered earlier. The rationale for the new system is to improve the quality of information given to Canadians on the $7 billion spent by DSS each year. The system covers all of Canada. It is not partisan, contrary to what was done by the Liberals when they were in power.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is partisan in that it covers contracts as low as $25,000 for the Tory Members in those six ridings, including the Prime Minister. Don't give us that line.

March 6, 1987
Oral Questions


PROCESS OF AWARDING CONTRACTS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, this political meddling program the Minister set up has nothing to do with regional economic disparity, as she said last week, but it does have a lot to do with the regional political disparity of the Tory Party. That is the problem. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that the Minister of Supply and Services and her political staff can now interfere with the awarding of government contracts? That is spelled out in the document and the Deputy Prime Minister cannot deny it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this Party has to take any lessons on purity from the Liberals given the way in which patronage and contracts were handled by the them. They certainly wrote the book on it.
I am advised that it was the Department which requested the $25,000 threshold be used in a two-month pilot project in order to determine its feasibility. It is in this spirit that the Hon. Minister followed the advice of the Department.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a very easy question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he know that this week in Montreal the Minister of the Environment said that the federal Government will not spend a cent to clean up the St. Lawrence River? Is that the policy of the Government, not a cent? Yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I dealt with that particular question earlier. The Hon. Member knows that the Minister of the Environment is not in the House at this time. He was here this week to participate-


Jacques Guilbault: He is hiding away.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He was here this week participating in a debate. I will certainly draw this to his attention and I am sure he will get back to the Hon. Member.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians who especially live along the St. Lawrence would like to know what is the policy of the Government. How much money can they expect from the federal Government? This is a national problem and we simply
want to know if it is the Government's policy not to contribute any money whatsoever? Does the Minister of the Environment know that? Is there one policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member is very exercised about this issue. I will try to convey the sincerity of her representations to him when he returns.


CHALLENGE '87 DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPLICATION DEADLINE
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Youth and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, according to sources at the Ministry for Youth and the Department of Employment and Immigration, the way funds are being allocated to the various components of Challenge '87 varies widely.
I therefore want to ask the Minister to establish clearly before the House how the $180 million for Challenge '87 is to be shared, and to extend for all of Canada the March 20, 1987 deadline for submission of projects, to compensate for the usual late arrival of registration forms.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the question is very specific. I have taken note of the question and will ask the Minister of State for Youth to respond when he returns to the House.


ESTABLISHMENT OF QUEBEC SOCIAL AFFAIRS NETWORK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
At the same time, could the Minister give us the assurance that he will do everything he can to revise the agreement to meet the demands of a number of social agencies in Quebec that cannot apply under the Challege program, and that as soon as the agreement is revised, the Government will set aside additional funding for these agencies?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, interest rates are continuing to go down, and if the inflation rate is still low, if the climate of confidence we have created in this country persists and if we continue to create as many jobs as we have, that is what Canadians want.
March 6, 1987


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In April, 1985, the Department of National Defence conducted an environmental land use study on the OH Ranch in the Kananaskis. The study was then given to the Treasury Board advisory committee who recommended public consultation. Why was the study hidden from Albertans for two years? Contrary to what the Associate Minister of National Defence told the House yesterday, for the last two years the Canadian Army has been sneaking around the Kananaskis trying to buy ranches.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that comes under the authority of my colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence. I will take the question as notice.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT DEPARTMENT WILL NOT ACQUIRE RANCH LAND
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of considerable concern in the Province of Alberta. My supplementary question is specifically related to the duties of the Minister of National Defence, because General Milner from CFB Calgary told ranchers in the area: "If you don't want us we won't come". Since the Alberta Government refused DND requests to buy the Nelson ranch in exactly the same area two years ago based on the high value of ranching in the area and the high value of tourism, will the Minister of National Defence stand up for General Milner and let Albertans know that the ranches in the Kananaskis will not be taken over by DND?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, again this is by nature of a representation on the part of the Hon. Member. I will refer his representation to my colleague, the Associate Minister.


CARTOGRAPHY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines, whose responsibilities include the Mapping Branch, and I would appreciate a straight answer.
Yesterday, Mr. Camu and Mr. Rochon from Lavalin confirmed on a Sherbrooke radio station that they had been approached by the federal Government to take over the Government's mapping services.
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Minister who has been saying there is no truth at all in this how he explains the fact that the Government approached Lavalin? On the radio they said they expected an agreement to be reached this fall. What I would like to know is whether the Minister is not informed and is trying to use scare tactics here in the House or whether his senior Minister, who has said that privatization was an option, is negotiating with Lavalin and several other parties without keeping him informed?

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, I cannot be responsible for the comments by Lavalin. If they drew some conclusions from some preliminary or exploratory discussions with staff members from Treasury Board, so be it. I am the Minister responsible for that particular branch and it has not been discussed at the ministerial level. It has not been discussed by Cabinet. I have already made that very clear two, three or four times.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, if Government politicians are not involved, how come Mr. Rochon told reporters in Sherbrooke that not only were negotiations being held but the Government insisted on having these private facilities in Sherbrooke?

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, I cannot be responsible for what Mr. Rochon said. I do not know what he said. The important thing to realize is that there has been no policy decision on this whatsoever. There has been no memorandum, which I would sign, sent to Cabinet. There has been no discussion of it in Cabinet.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. In light of the importance of rural post offices to the survival of rural communities, will the Minister tell us how many post offices in rural communities where the postmasters are retiring will close?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an answer to that because there are no plans to close rural post offices. There is no list and there are no circumstances under which I can provide the kind of information the Hon. Member is seeking. There is an indication that when a postmaster retires, quits or otherwise,

March 6, 1987
Oral Questions
first there will be discussions with the Member of Parliament and with the people in the community to see if there cannot be an improvement in service in a somewhat different fashion than had been in place. I see nothing wrong with that. I wish opposition Members and others would stop making mischief with this issue and causing concern for so many people.


CONSULTATIONS WITH RURAL RESIDENTS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to indicate to the House that, rather than Canada Post asking citizens of rural villages whether they would like to go to another town to get their mail now that their post office is being closed, it will ask them whether they want to accept what the Minister calls an improvement of service or keep the post office as it is now? Will the Minister make these consultations genuine?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Post Office is a Crown corporation that was supported by the New Democratic Party and indeed every Party in the House. It is Canada Post's responsibility to manage its operations. Again, the Hon. Member is using words to try to put fear and concern in the minds of people who feel they might be affected. He is doing it for political purposes, which is irresponsible for a Member of Parliament. The fact is that the world is changing. That reactionary Party is saying there should be no change under any circumstances or conditions. The world is changing, and the NDP will have to get used to that fact.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation and relates to the corporate linguistic policy. Canada Post linguistic policy provides that communications with the public will be in both official languages if 10 per cent or more of the population speak either official language. Why are nine out of thirteen Quebec City Canada Post employees considered as being surplus because they do not speak English when anglophones make up only 2.8 per cent of the population of Quebec City?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Post Office indeed has the responsibility of following the Official Languages Act and ensuring that services are available in both official languages where required. The Hon. Member is asking me about a specific situation and a specific group of jobs. It is up to the Crown corporation to deal with its employees. Surely he would not
expect that as a Minister I would be involved in that kind of minute detail of the corporation's operations.


MANNER IN WHICH POLICY IS APPLIED
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation, if indeed he is the Minister responsible, must ensure that the Crown corporation respects the policy of the Official Languages Act. So here is my supplementary: Do Canada Post officials apply the linguistic policy in Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver and Winnipeg as it is applied in Quebec City, or must francophones always pay the price of bilingualism in Canada?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Post Office had better be applying the law of Canada in all its operations everywhere in this country. If the Hon. Member has firm evidence that in fact the law is not being followed, then he should fulfil his responsibilities, take that information to the Post Office and ensure the law is being followed, rather than trying to exploit this delicate issue politically and making accusations which may or may not be based on fact.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the depopulated state of the ministerial benches today, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask him if the reported remarks of the President of the Treasury Board as to the "huge" amount of money involved in settling native claims in Canada are, first, part of the Government's campaign to reduce expectations leading up to the FMC? Second, is the Government prepared to share those calculations with native leaders and with the people of Canada? Third, has it ever calculated the cost of not settling those claims?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members of the House that the Prime Minister and the Government place a great importance on the meetings of the First Ministers and the native leaders at the end of this month. What the President of the Treasury Board has said is that there will have to be financial requirements as part of the settlement which we all hope will take place at the end of this month at the FMC. What he has stated is simply another component of what I know many of us know is a very complex
March 6, 1987

issue. Elowever, we believe that historical breakthroughs can be made by the end of that meeting.


BENEFITS RESULTING FROM JAMES BAY AGREEMENT
John Edmund Parry: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and it should be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he prepared to give his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, a patient and detailed explanation concerning the huge benefits and revenues which have accrued to the people of Canada and the people of Quebec as a result of the James Bay Agreement?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think any of us who have been involved in Indian affairs know that if we can get settlements, we can get economic development and education. Progress has been shown in James Bay and in other agreements such as in the Beaufort, for example. The goals of economic development and social progress are all goals I would hope everyone in the House and most Canadians would share. What the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Senator Lowell Murray have been obligated to do is to sit down again as early as next Friday to put further face on those negotiations with the hope that we are going to have success at the end of March. I hope that the Hon. Member will also applaud that kind of action because I believe it could be an historical breakthrough. I hope it happens.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now that negotiations on the Constitution are under way and the Conservative Government would have us believe it is willing to recognize the special character of Quebec-we already know it has refused to help the province in the matter of industrial clean-ups, equalization payments and refugee assistance-I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs why he has ignored recommendations by consumer associations in Quebec, whose responsibilities are more specific than in other provinces, and why the Government has a new policy to fund
Oral Questions
national associations only. Why is the Minister refusing to fund regional and local consumer associations in Quebec?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it really is regrettable that the Hon. Member should term a question like that in semi-linguistic terms as if it is a regional thing, pitting one part of the country against the other. He knows that is not the case. There is a limited amount of money in the grants and contributions program which we are endeavouring to distribute in the most equitable and fair manner as possible. Surely the Hon. Member would expect us to bear in mind that the national nature of the activities of the organization is clearly very, very important in looking at establishing a priority list. There are many, many more requests than we can possibly honour, given the fiscal constraints. We have to make decisions. We make them fairly, honestly and openly, and the Hon. Member does a disservice to the Department and to the Government to suggest this somehow has to do with linguistic or regional considerations, since that is not the case.


FINANCING OF PROVINCIAL ORGANIZATIONS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we have here a clear demonstration it is against the Minister's principles to recognize Quebec's specific character. The previous Government, including the two Ministers of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Hon. Member for Papineau and other Ministers who were responsible for that portfolio, had always recognized that in the province of Quebec, the responsibility for defending the interests of consumers lay with the organizations in that province, and the funding was there, because the Canadian Consumers Association was not active at all in the province of Quebec. Why did the Minister abandon the principle of funding Quebec s province-wide organizations?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal Party were consistent in their views towards Quebec, they would be supporting Bill C-22 which the Province of Quebec is unanimously in support of.
Apparently this standard put forward by the Hon. Member is applied selectively. I am willing to defend the criteria used by the Department in allocating the grants on the basis of fairness, equity, and value to the taxpayers who pay for the program. For the Hon. Member to suggest it somehow has to do with regional considerations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

March 6, 1987
Oral Questions BANKS AND BANKING


BRAZIL'S SUSPENSION OF INTEREST PAYMENTS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Since Brazil has suspended its debt interest payments and Canadian banks are owed almost $7 billion by Brazil, including up to 65 per cent of its capital equity in the case of the Bank of Montreal, has the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Finance had urgent talks with the Canadian banks about this dangerous situation?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated at the G-7 meeting a week ago in Paris, Canada and the other countries in the G-7 regret the action taken by Brazil, as the Hon. Member knows, and we expect a resolution of this can be worked out shortly.
I am happy to tell the Hon. Member that Brazilian officials are scheduled to meet shortly with the advisory committee of the banks to discuss Brazil's rescheduling request. After that we will be having further consultations with the Canadian banks.


INDEBTEDNESS OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given that Canadian banks have loaned $25 billion to 34 high-risk countries, will the Government now accept the recommendations of the Joint Committee on International Relations and try to launch a top level meeting of key governments from developed and underdeveloped countries, banks and others, to relieve Third World countries of some of their over-powering debts?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question and an issue which was considered at some length and carefully by the Joint Committee on International Relations. It has made a recommendation that we are considering. I think, if there is a difference, it is a difference as to means. It is a difference as to whether or not it would be effective to convene a large conference. There are some evident disadvantages to that which I will not detain the House by citing. However, there is no question that a country like Canada is well positioned by our reputation and standing to take some kind of initiative in this field. We are looking at the range of opportunities which might be open to us, and when I have something more concrete to report to the Hon. Member and to the House, I shall do so.
[DOT] (UOO)


PENITENTIARIES
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Many people are concerned about the low literacy rate among prisoners. This creates a barrier with respect to their finding meaningful employment when released and making worth-while contributions to their communities. Will the Minister indicate in the House how he intends to deal with this serious problem?


Hon. Janies Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. This is indeed a serious problem. Upon assuming office I discovered that 50 per cent of the inmates in our federal prisons, or some 6,000 prisoners, are functionally illiterate. We have acted in this regard. I was at Queen's University in Kingston on Tuesday where I announced a new program of adult basic education which will dramatically improve the literacy of the prisoners by 400 per cent in the first year. I believe that this will better equip them to get jobs on the outside.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the status of women. In her absence perhaps whoever is Acting Minister could answer the question.
Since the Government ended the policy of reserving 30 per cent of training seats for women in non-traditional work we have a situation in which 76 per cent of the women being trained under federal government training programs are being trained in low-paying, traditional female ghetto jobs. If the Government's statements supporting women this week are anything more than political rhetoric, when will the Minister recommend the return of specific training seats for women?
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in the week, the Canadian Jobs Strategy is working very well. We are creating real jobs and providing women, as well as others, with the type of experience and training that will give them a lifetime career and a job on which they can really count.


PART-TIME WORK-WALLACE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I will try another approach. Since over 70 per cent of part-time workers are women and since part-time work is increasing, when will the Government implement the
March 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Wallace Commission on Part-time Work which recommends prorated benefits for part-time workers?
Elon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)): Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the Hon. Member of the fact that one-half of the new jobs that have been created have gone to women.

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also with respect to the plight of part-time workers who are mainly women. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Government keep its promise to institute some legislation to provide benefits to part-time workers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is usually the type of issue that is discussed within the framework of the House Leaders' meetings. If the Hon. Member wishes to make representations to his House Leader, then I am sure that he will raise it at the next meeting of House Leaders.


GOVERNMENT POLICY INQUIRY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, that answer is not good enough. Is the Government willing to introduce legislation providing prorated benefits to part-time workers, most of whom are women? That is a matter of government policy. I hope that the Government House Leader will announce what is the policy.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that we do not normally make policy on the fly, as do the NDP or the Liberals. But I will certainly take his representation into consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The following will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who will know that a number of producers consider 2,4-D to be one of the most important inputs to successful farming in western Canada. He will also know that these producers are concerned about possible restrictions on its future use. Will the Minister assure these producers that 2,4-D will be available for the 1987 spraying season?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member's question. Indeed, it is a good news day for Canadian farmers,
Point of Order-Mr. Forrestall
with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, announcing this morning a final determination on the corn countervail exempting the B.C. livestock industry.
I can also respond positively to the important question raised by the Hon. Member. Canadian farmers will indeed be able to use the chemical 2,4-D for the 1987 planting season. I believe there are some seven million hectares of land on which 2,4-D is used. The two Departments, the Department of National Health and Welfare and Agriculture Canada, will continue to study the issue in the interests of health and safety, also taking into account some of the economic benefits of 2,4-D.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order stemming from the "Late Show" last evening and occasioned by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).
Apparently the Hon. Member had some difficulty throughout the day yesterday. First, he intended to ask the Chair to call his pending question regarding the Patent Act. Midway through the day he changed his mind and requested that the Table bring forward the question he had asked the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) on March 3 regarding his meeting with representatives of the UMW at Devco and the proposed funding outlined in the Estimates for 1987-88. By the time the Hon. Member rose in the House last night he had changed his mind again as to the issue that he so down-gradingly debated last night and which was not the question that he had put forward to the Table.
While it might not be intentional, this is increasingly becoming a habit. It causes a disruption of order in the House where some Members come to ask legitimate questions and where the Government wishes to give accurate, informative answers. I suggest it goes against the spirit of parliamentary reform. This abuse of the system should not be permitted to continue even accidentally. Time and again the Hon. Member asks questions to which he already knows the answers only to achieve an end by one means that he could not by another.
I invite my colleagues through you, Mr. Speaker, to be at least honest in their attempts to obtain information from the Government and to ensure that Officers of the Table ask Members to be clear and precise in their submission for pending "Late Shows". Perhaps we should return to the practice of insisting that supplementary questions be strictly relevant to the initial question. In any event, I hope that with this brief intervention and your words of wisdom, Mr. Speaker, the abuse of this system along these lines might come to an end.

March 6, 1987
Tabling of Documents


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there was a complete misunderstanding. I know the Table will take full responsibility for what happened yesterday. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, first, the Hon. Member who just spoke is attributing a motive to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). Clearly, this is contrary to the rules. I do not think the Hon. Member can suggest that certain questions are legitimate and certain questions are not, or that certain Members are honest in their questions and that certain are not. Clearly, that is unparliamentary. Members are entitled to use their judgment with respect to their questions. Hon. Members expect to receive serious answers from the Government to their questions.
Second, the Hon. Member who is the target of this point of order is not present in the House. I respectfully ask that any determination of this point of order, if there is one, be delayed until he has a chance to respond.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So be it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) I am pleased to table in both official languages copies of the Government's comprehensive response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to four petitions, namely Nos. 332-479, 332-487, 332-495 and 332986.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 65 will be answered today.


Mr. Malepart: 1.	In (a) 1985 (b) 1986, was funding allocated to the Employment Development Program and, if so, for each year, what was the total for (i) Canada (ii) each province (iii) Montreal?
2.	In (a) 1985 (b) 1986, were projects accepted under this program and, if so, for each year, what was their average duration?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. Yes.			
(a)	(i)	$326,504,000	(ii)	Newfoundland	$32,334,000Prince Edward Island	4,189,000Nova Scotia	17,492,000New Brunswick	17,727,000Quebec	98,151,000Ontario	68,733,000Manitoba	12,914,000Saskatchewan	7,518,000Alberta/N.W.T.	20,088,000British Columbia/Y.T.	47,358,000(hi)	$43,500,000	(b)	(i)	$877,896,000	(ii)	Newfoundland	$50,103,000Prince Edward Island	8,538,000Nova Scotia	37,753,000New Brunswick	35,169,000Quebec	297,193,000Ontario	201,730,000Manitoba	46,428,000Saskatchewan	35,162,000Alberta/N.W.T.	56,795,000British Columbia/Y.T.	109,025,000(iii)	$51,264,000	
2. Yes. (a) 26 weeks, (b) 26 weeks.


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?
March 6, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam) moved:: That this House, alarmed by the role of air-launched Cruise Missile deployment in violation of SALT limits and alarmed by threats to the integrity of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, aware also of the possibility of a negotiated elimination of all medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, calls for strong initiatives by the government to strengthen arms control and disarmament measures including the termination of Cruise Missile testing in Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to support this motion. I feel it is particularly timely that we should do so, as the motion itself suggests. I wish to refer to it in a little more detail than was possible when writing the motion.
I think that all Members of the House in all three Parties are alarmed by the role of the air-launched Cruise missile and its deployment in violation of SALT II limits. Indeed, last June the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) protested the breaching of SALT II limits which would come about if the United States put the one hundred and thirty-first Cruise missile-equipped strategic bomber into place. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs protested to the American Secretary of State, and I believe he protested to the President.
Members of our Party, the Liberal Party, and other parties also said that one of the most important bulwarks of our security, and the common security, was the maintenance of arms control regimes. Nevertheless, at the end of last year, the United States administration, through the deployment of the one hundred and thirty-first strategic bomber, did breach the limits of SALT II.
This is particularly important for Canada, and for Canadians, because it is we who test the air-launched Cruise missile. The breach of the limits on those bombers carrying air-launched Cruise missiles made us directly complicit in the breach. That is why we called then for giving notice of termination of our testing program.
I do not exaggerate when I say that all Members of the House believe, as the Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations believed, that defence, security, and arms control are all links in a single chain.
Referring to the second clause in the motion, about this time all of us became alarmed. I may say that above all the Government became alarmed about the threats to the integrity
Supply
of the ABM Treaty. These threats came about because of breaches in that Treaty by both sides, but particularly by the potential testing, development, and even possible deployment of the Strategic Defence Initiative, star wars.
All along the Government had said that it would accept research into star wars, that research was prudent. But I understood that at no time did the Government support the testing and development of strategic defences, let alone deployment or partial deployment of those defences. Although I cannot say for sure, presumably the Government made it as clear to the United States as it did on the breach of SALT II limits that it did not wish to see the testing, development, or deployment of strategic defences.
I assume it stressed that such testing, development, and partial deployment that is now taking place, at least as far as the testing and development is concerned in the United States, is a matter of grave concern because it will totally undermine the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Again, this is a matter of particular concern to Canadians.
If, as Secretary of Defense Weinberger particularly suggests, the research, testing, and development have proceeded so rapidly that there could be partial deployment of SDI by the early 1990s, one of the grave effects of this will be to encourage the Soviet Union to strengthen its strategic offensive weapons, including a much larger increase in the development of strategic bombers carrying air-launched Cruise missiles.
This puts Canada in an incredibly quixotic position of continuing to test air-launched Cruise missiles under an SDI program being pursued by the United States, leading directly to the Soviet Union, which has not hitherto had strategic bombers and missiles as a strong element in its offensive forces, developing that element. We literally invite them to do so.
All Members of the House have been conscious of this since the threats to the ABM Treaty became visible, and the abandoning of the strict interpretation of the Treaty became clear. All of us have realized that the consequent and additional consequent results of this would be to encourage the Soviet Union to develop not only its bombers, but all of its strategic offensive forces.
This brings me to the third element in the motion, which is our awareness of the possibility of a negotiated elimination of all medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. We are, as is the Government, and the Liberal Party, very heartened by what is taking place right now in the approach toward what is basically a zero option in Europe. It looks very clear that this will be achieved. We do welcome it strongly and heartily. But it will be for nought if, through the violation of SALT II limits, and through the destroying of the ABM Treaty by the development and deployment of star wars, all we are doing is enhancing the threat that comes to both sides by the development of strategic offensive weapons.

March 6, 1987
Supply
The elimination of medium-ranged nuclear missiles in Europe will only enhance, if these other developments continue, the build-up or the escalation of strategic weapons. This is one reason we have always called for and hoped that intermediate range and strategic weapons could be dealt with in one basket and, indeed, that space weapons could be included in that basket.
That has not come to pass. The Soviets have decided that they would go along with separating out the baskets. However, as I say, eliminate intermediate range weapons, nuclear missiles, and enhance strategic offensive weapons, submarine-launched strategic bombers and land-based missiles, and the agreement on intermediate-range weapons becomes enormously weakened.
As I understand it, both the Liberal and Conservative Parties have always argued that the two-track decision taken in 1979, which allowed for the deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe at the same time as arms reduction negotiations were taking place, linked Canada into that decision by making one of our contributions the testing of the air-launched air missile. By the way, that was not the position of this Party. We fought and argued that the testing of the air-launched Cruise missile was strictly an arrangement between Canada and the United States.
It seems to me that the Conservative Party has said all the right things on SALT II and on the ABM Treaty, but it has not made enough criticism of testing development and possible deployment of star wars. It has said many of the right things. It has said that it has urged the United States not to breach treaties. It has urged it to go ahead with the Soviet Union on arms reductions. However, it has not given a clear message to the United States. It has not made it clear to the United States and to the Soviet Union that Canada's security is involved in all these matters, as well as the common security, or that it is in our security interest that SALT II limits be maintained and that the ABM Treaty not be breached.
It is in our interest, as much as the interests of the rest of the world, that we say clearly to the United States that we will not be a part of these breaches, that we will not be a party to seeing an enormous escalation in offensive strategic nuclear arms, and that we will not be a party to developing even a further potential battle of strategic bombers armed with Cruise missiles and now, apparently, Cruise missiles which are called "Stealth" missiles with stealth technology. We have not said this clearly enough. However, more important, we have not taken the one action open to us which would enable us to stop treating our security as a spectator sport and to do something about it, namely, to say that we will not continue participating in this escalation, in this breach of treaties.
However, let us take the argument used by the other two Parties. I referred the other day to a statement by the then Secretary of State for External Affairs on July 15, 1983, when the decision to test the air-launched Cruise missile was made, that this testing was an obligation and a commitment which would be carefully re-examined if progress were made in the other branch of the famous two-track decision, namely, the reduction of nuclear missiles on both sides. That is exactly what is taking place today.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that whether we would now terminate Cruise missile testing was hypothetical until we see what happens in Geneva. However, what I was asking was, since it is becoming clearer every day that the elimination of intermediate-range nuclear missiles is definitely coming, and both sides welcome it, surely we can say today what was strongly implied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in 1983.


Charles Joseph Clark: But not said.


Pauline Jewett: If one reads the words of Senator MacEachen, knowing how to read him-and I have had long practice in he very clearly implied that the reduction of intermediate range weapons would cause us to reassess the situation in respect of air-launched Cruise missiles. At the very moment there is a further strong argument for Canada to take the lead and to say that this is the time-if ever the time were to come it is today to say that we will not continue with testing the air-launched Cruise missile.
It is not enough just to say that we adhere to arms control regimes. We must show that we adhere to them. We must show that we want other nations to adhere to them. We must show that when threats to them or when the dismantling of such arms regimes involves us directly or indirectly, as it does in continuing to test the air-launched Cruise missile, we will take action. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) goes to meet the President at the next summit, or when the President comes here, or when the Prime Minister goes to the Soviet Union in a few months time, he would then be able to say that Canada not only gives lip service to arms control and disarmament measures but Canada practises them.
I should think that the Liberal Party as well is moving in this direction very strongly. I was very heartened to see the Liberal Party at its meeting in the fall pass a resolution asking for the termination of Cruise missile testing. I know it did that in the context of the breach of SALT II, in the context of the threats to the ABM Treaty, and in the context of possible negotiations being reached for the reduction of arms in Europe. Then the defence critic for the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), who at our last motion on Cruise missile testing on June 14, 1983 was one who abstained on our motion as an indication that he was not happy to vote against it, said a few days ago that the time had indeed come to terminate the testing of Cruise missiles. I was heartened when the critic for external affairs, a few days after that, in a statement he made on February 27 also agreed that the time had come, for many of the same reasons that I have been outlining today, if not for all of them, to terminate the testing.
March 6, 1987

I know their Leader has not yet said that, but his Party and his two chief critics have spoken.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: The Leader will speak.


Pauline Jewett: The Leader of the Liberal Party will speak. I urge upon them, and upon the Conservatives too, that Canada___all of us in all three Parties-should send a real strong
message, not just say that we are concerned about the arms control regimes, not just say that we fear the development of strategic offensive weapons which may become even greater than they are today, or not just say that we want to see both sides strictly adhere to the ABM Treaty. As I mentioned, we must take the one element of all these matters which touches upon Canadians most directly, most intimately, and most forcefully-the testing of the air-launched Cruise missile-and say that we will not any longer be complicit or involved in the dangers of the dismantling or potential dismantling of treaties.
All of us in the House believe in arms control. We have all said it many times. The public believes very strongly in it and continues to register in favour of terminating the testing of the air-launched Cruise missile. Editorial opinion-and I refer to the Vancouver Sun, for example-is moving in this direction as well. In fact, a clear statement was made that now was the time.
With all the strength I can muster, I want to urge everyone to look at what has been happening, to look at the hope which is building up in Europe, and to look at the two sides of the equation-arms and arms control. I want us to look at what is in our own security interests as well as in the common security, of the interests of all. I want to look at all those things with as much seriousness and urgency today in this debate that I can possibly muster. We want to see Canada act as well as talk. The Canadian public wants to see us act. The message we would give to Washington and Moscow it seems to me could be the strongest possible message there is, namely, that Canada will no longer test the air-launched Cruise missile.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments we will resume debate. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think we all admired the eloquence and commitment with which the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) has addressed this vital issue in this House, an issue that concerns us not only as Members of Parliament but as Canadians, indeed as citizens of the human race. I want to congratulate her on the force and engagement that she gave to her argument.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I want to say at the outset that no Party in this House has made a greater contribution
Supply
over time to the cause of peace and disarmament than the Party that I have the honour of leading. I need not recite the accomplishments on behalf of peace and disarmament of the late Lester B. Pearson, particularly in his support of the founding of the peacekeeping role for Canada in the United Nations, or the efforts of Mr. St. Laurent in a similar vein and, in recent years, of my predecessor as Leader of our Party, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, particularly his peace mission and doctrine of suffocation in disarmament. I am proud that I have the honour of continuing his declaration of our opposition as a Liberal Party to the doctrine of star wars and participation by this country in any extension of the Strategic Defence Initiative of the United States. We will continue to monitor the Government of Canada as that whole issue develops.
We have, therefore, from this corner of the House a great tradition in the pursuit of peace. We shall live up to it and we shall continue it.

We do not want peace based on fear and escalation of the arms race.

We want, however, a secure peace with balanced and verifiable reductions in the arsenals of devastation, a peace based on a common understanding and respect of our legitimate requirements for security. This is why we have traditionally and historically looked to security as a road to secure peace. This is why the Liberal Party has been insistent on the maintenance of Canadian security.
In this House Mr. St. Laurent when he was Minister of External Affairs proposed in 1948, when we were all plunging into a cold war, the creation of a "collective security league"- those were the words he used in this House to give the western democracies what he called a preponderance of moral, economic and military force".

This proposal was the beginning of the Atlantic Alliance. This collective security system, which turned out to be a vital factor in maintaining peace, and has been for forty years, has served us well thanks to its fundamental objectives which are the pursuit of peace and our collective security. We have always met our commitments to our allies in these two respects.

Security means that we can exercise our sovereignty in peace over our own land and waters. Without it we would be like tenants without a lease, perhaps in peace for a time, but vulnerable to abusive visitations by friends and foes alike. We have learned our lesson from history. We will not sacrifice our sovereignty and security for elusive goals. We shall make them concrete instruments in the pursuit of peace.
The motion tabled by the New Democratic Party this morning may be well meaning in its broad objectives inasmuch

March 6, 1987
Supply
as it urges the Government to grasp with a vision, that it has so far singularly lacked, opportunities for disarmament and improvements in East-West relations. At long last there are hopeful signs of progress, Mr. Speaker. I shall in a timely way state the views of my Party for these exciting prospects in the opening of the relationship signalled by Mr. Gorbachev's initiative and by the response to that by the United States.

However, the motion before the House today, whose purpose is to sell the policy of the New Democratic Party which is opposed to NATO, is a disappointment to Canadians. It shows once again that the New Democrats have failed to recognize the importance of this country's security and the importance of our vital relationship with our allies.

The motion for that reason is not acceptable to us because it does strike at the heart of NATO's collective defence. It would commit us, we believe explicitly but certainly implicitly, to unilateral disarmament and neutralism for Canada, the course to which my Party cannot subscribe. I intend, therefore, to table an amendment to the motion which would remove these flaws. The words "the role of' at the very beginning of the motion are indicative of the thrust of the motion.
Indeed, when the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam was talking about the air-launched Cruise missiles, it was clear that she was not only talking about the violation of SALT, she was also talking about the very existence of those air-launched Cruise missiles as a deterrent to themselves. In her vocabulary this morning there is a linkage in her mind, and the significance to us is that with these words the motion rejects the fundamental element on which NATO deterrence is based. Mutual deterrence, however much we regret it, is the instrument by which both East and West are now currently maintaining peace. If we reject the role of the air-launched Cruise missile in deterrence, we work for the destabilization of what is already a pretty unstable system of security between East and West. The motion, therefore, has a fundamental anti-NATO thrust which the New Democratic Party is promoting with a complete disregard for Canadian security to our allies who subscribe, as we do, to the need for deterrence until we have put into place a better way of managing the preservation of peace.
With our amendment, the House would express its alarm at the violation of SALT limits by Cruise deployment. We fully share this concern. We are equally concerned with the maintenance of the ABM Treaty which reference is appropriately made in the motion, but we would cast the motion within the mould of our treaty obligations. Our amendment consists, when I present it, of adding at the end of the motion the following wording "in a manner compatible with Canada's NATO and other bilateral obligations".
The agreement under which the Cruise is being tested was entered into by a Liberal Government. We permitted testing in an act of solidarity with our NATO allies in order to carry out
collectively the reaction of the alliance to an escalation of nuclear confrontation in Europe by the U.S.S.R. with the deployment of its SS-20s.
This NATO decision was known as the two-track decision, and the Hon. Member has made reference to it, because in addition to deployment by NATO of a counterforce, it promoted negotiations with the U.S.S.R. for the elimination of all intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Europe by NATO and the U.S.S.R.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam is against the two-track system. She should recognize that in effect, with the reopening of negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States, we have now again in the current context a re-establishment of the two-track style, and anything Canada does ought to be consistent with that philosophy. Recent U.S.S.R. proposals and U.S.A. responses create new hopes that such negotiations can successfully be concluded.
We intend to ensure that any termination of Cruise testing in Canada is made with full respect to our obligations. Our agreement with the United States provides for such determination in circumstances over which we remain the sole judge, but surely after consultation with our allies. We should not lose sight of the fact that the obligations to which our amendment refers concern the pursuit of peace as well as the maintenance of security. We shall want to terminate Cruise missile testing as a contribution to disarmament negotiations. Therefore, we clearly look forward to concrete results in the negotiations between the two superpowers. The timing of any such termination should further and enhance the pursuit of those negotiations.
I might say that in the pursuit of peace, the Liberal Party does not need any instruction from the New Democratic Party. At our November convention, my Party voted for a cessation of Cruise missile testing. It also voted strongly in favour of Canada pursuing peace through the NATO alliance, and together these are the thrusts of the amendment we will put to the House. Without this amendment, the motion as it stands is not acceptable to the Liberal Party.
There is a distinct difference in our approach. On the basis of its responses and resolutions that are binding upon it, the NDP is a neutralist, isolationist Party. The Liberal Party is not. We are committed to our alliances, we are committed to Canada's international obligations and we intend to continue to move toward ensuring peace by strengthening arms control and disarmament within the scope of those alliances, within the scope of those obligations and within the scope of what those obligations mean to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


John Napier Turner: Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston):
March 6, 1987

That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end of the motion to a comma and adding the following:
"in a manner consistent with Canada's NATO and bilateral obligations .


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will accept the motion. Questions or comments?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the right hon. gentleman with a great deal of interest and I think all Canadians have followed with interest the development of the Liberal Party's policy since the November convention. I think the time has come for a clear statement of policy on behalf of the right hon. gentleman.
It appears that we have a traditional Liberal policy which could be summarized as ending Cruise testing if necessary, but not necessarily ending Cruise testing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Surely we could have expected greater clarity than that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I wonder if Hon. Members opposite would allow me to put the question because I think it is a significant one. There was indeed clarity given by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), the external affairs critic for the Liberal Party, and also by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), the defence critic for the Liberal Party. Is the right hon. gentleman aware of the press release issued by the critic on official stationery and on behalf of his Party entitled "Cruise Missile Testing Should Stop" dated February 27, 1987? This communique quotes the spokesman for the Liberal Party as saying the following:
"In the interests of international security, I call upon the Government of Canada to exercise its option and cancel cruise missile tests without further delay. Circumstances have clearly changed sufficiently to meet the criteria for cancellation-'unforeseen imperative circumstances'-and it is time for action."
If the right hon. gentleman is aware of that statement, how does he reconcile the position he has taken today with that taken by the official spokesman of the Opposition?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course changes in circumstances have occurred continually since that particular statement. There has been the Soviet offer and a very positive American response. Obviously the timing of any decision by Canada to cease Cruise missile testing ought to be in concert, co-ordination and as a team, as a bargaining chip, if you will, so as not to impede the solidarity of the alliance as it moves toward those negotiations. Therefore, I think it is within the judgment of the Government of Canada to decide when that card ought to be played and it certainly ought not to be played prematurely so as to jeopardize the current negotiations.
The brief answer to the Hon. Minister's question is that circumstances are now taking a more positive thrust and we
Supply
think the decision of Canada ought to be considered in that respect.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there was the November position of the Liberal Party, the February position of the Liberal Party and now the March position of the Liberal Party. What will we find in April? The position taken by the right hon. gentleman's critic was that we cancel Cruise missile tests "without further delay". That means now, not later.
There is one other element that came out of the Liberal convention in November which was left unexplained by the right hon. gentleman. He will recall the fact that at his convention a resolution was passed which called upon Canada to declare itself a nuclear weapons free zone. The right hon. gentleman did not address that question in his remarks. Could he clarify the position of the Liberal Party of Canada on that?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not clarify those remarks because they were not germane to the discussion this morning. I said immediately after our convention, and by the way, we are the only political Party that is freely discussing the issues before the country-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We certainly do not hear any free discussion in the political Party the hon. gentleman has the honour of representing. I said at the conclusion of the convention that the resolutions of the Liberal Party on defence, peace and security had to be interpreted within the over-all commitment of the Party, virtually unanimously, to the making of our allegiance to the NATO alliance and our other alliances. That includes, I said then, the Cruise missile testing resolution. That also includes reconciling a nuclear-free zone, whatever definition might eventually be given to that, within our commitment to NATO as our Government and this Party understand it.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, is the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) aware that various member countries of NATO take independent initiatives all the time? They are not accused of being isolationist and neutralist. Some refuse to have foreign troops on their soil. Some refuse deployment of nuclear weapons on their soil. Right now Belgium is looking at the possible discontinuation of such deployment if the arms negotiations continue so successfully. Some refuse to test Cruise missiles. Does he realize that other independent nations within the alliance have not raised questions such as he raises today? If he does realize that, why is he adding this rather confusing addition to what I thought was a fairly clear motion? Why does he say that Canada, like Norway, Belgium or other west European powers, if in its best judgment such a decision should be made, cannot make such a decision?


John Napier Turner: If the Hon. Member believes that Canada has that flexibility within NATO, then

March 6, 1987
Supply
she and her colleagues should have no difficulty in accepting the amendment. We would welcome their specific and positive adhesion to the commitments and obligations involved.


Pauline Jewett: Does the hon. gentleman know that the other countries I referred to have been able to take these initiatives without this kind of verbiage surrounding them? I find it really quite meaningless. You either take an initiative or you do not. Why should he suggest this House has to surround something, on which frankly I hope we might get agreement, with all kinds of qualifiers? Other nations do not do that.


John Napier Turner: What the Hon. Member is suggesting quite explicitly, and substantiating the argument I made before the House, is that her Party is not comfortable with the NATO obligation. If it were, she would have no difficulty accepting our amendment and moving towards perhaps a unanimous resolution of the House on the issue.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. lady-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: When are you going to get your act together?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member like to direct his question to his Leader?


George Albert Proud: Yes, to the Leader. The Hon. Member got us confused.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You were confused before it ever started.


George Albert Proud: I think I can have a good one for you if you speak in the debate. I see you are not going to speak in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member would ask his question?


George Albert Proud: I was saying, before I was rudely interrupted by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), that it seemed he is not going to participate in the debate. We would have questions for him on the comment he made earlier.
My question to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) is whether he would ask the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) if she intends, yes or no, to accept the amendment? She said maybe and maybe not. We cannot question her so I am asking the Leader of the Official Opposition if he would ask her, yes or no.


John Napier Turner: I would suppose the only way within the rules I could reply to the Hon. Member is to pose another question to the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam, where in her preamble she would state where she stands on the amendment.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). If I heard his
speech correctly he stated that his concern with cutting off Cruise missile testing was that this might somehow run against our commitments and our involvement in NATO. If it is determined that the commitment to NATO and NORAD would prevent us from ceasing Cruise missile testing in this country, is he saying that he would therefore not cease Cruise missile testing in Canada and would have done exactly what the Government has done?


John Napier Turner: I think if the hon. gentleman in his reflective moments would be good enough to, read what I had to say it would substantiate that we believe any termination or cessation of Cruise missile testing should be taken in a manner and at a time that would enhance the negotiations towards disarmament and arms control. That should be done following our obligations under our treaties in consultation at the most effective time and in the most effective way. He would have a common course with us if he could persuade his colleagues when they ruminate over the weekend to recognize our obligations under NATO and make our contribution to peace even more effective.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I believe there is agreement to call it one o'clock.
Therefore, it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the amendment to our motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I believe the amendment to our motion is clearly out of order. Our motion states very clearly that we want a termination of Cruise missile testing in this country. The Liberal amendment to our motion states that they want this to be done: "in a manner that is consistent with Canada's NATO and bilateral obligations". I believe that this is a contradiction and the amendment should be out of order.
Canada has bilateral obligations with the United States to test their Cruise missile. There was an agreement, and I believe that since the Liberal motion states we must do this in a manner that is consistent with these obligations, it is clearly out of order.
Let me quote two citations to give you some precedents, Mr. Speaker. The first is from Beauchesne, Fifth Edition, page 154, citation 436(1). It states:
An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.
It goes on to state examples that appear in Journals.
March 6, 1987

The second precedent to which I draw your attention is a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on October 16, 1970, when he said, in regard to a motion that dealt with an amendment dealing with the War Measures Act:
"An amendment proposing a direct negative, is out of order."
Hon. Members realize that the way to express their disapproval of a motion before the House is to vote against it rather than to propose an amendment which is in fact a direct negative.
Those are two examples of precedents that we should consider in terms of determining whether or not this amendment is out of order, as we believe it is.
Finally, we believe that the intention of our motion is clear and that the intention of the amendment is also clear. It negates the motion. There is a fundamental contradiction. If the mover of the amendment is against our motion, then he should vote against it rather than move an amendment to negate it in another way. I ask you to take that under advisement and determine whether you agree that this amendment by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra is out of order because it contradicts, contravenes, and negates the very purpose of the motion itself.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is so far off base that it hardly justifies a reply. It is clear, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) pointed out this morning, that the Hon. Member is torn with respect to voting for this amendment. Let me point out that the obligations to which the Member makes reference are set forth. The specific obligation with respect to testing of the Cruise missile falls under the umbrella agreement of February 10, 1983. There is specific provision in that agreement, under clause 23 in a series of paragraphs, for termination in accordance with the agreement. Obviously, those are obligations under the agreement. That is one example to show that he is far off base.
There is a provision which specifically provides that either Party may terminate. In fact, this provision has been cited in the House by a number of Hon. Members from the New Democratic Party.
This amendment is meant to add clarity and precision to a badly drafted motion, to ensure that what they intend by this is, within the obligations which Canada has assumed under its multilateral and bilateral obligations. There is no negative there at all.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, our motion is very clear indeed. It concludes: "-including the termination of Cruise testing in Canada". The Liberal amendment directly negates that by saying that this must be done in a manner consistent with our bilateral obligations. We are saying to end Cruise missile testing. There would be no testing next January, February, or March-


Donald James Johnston: It does not say that.


Pauline Jewett: That is the immediate impact of the termination of Cruise missile testing. The amendment indicates that
Supply
there will be no termination as long as we have an agreement with the United States, an agreement which lasts until July, 1988. It is not possible to terminate or indeed even give notice while continuing with obligations to test the Cruise missile.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am in some sympathy with the Hon. Member because obviously she recognizes that this is a badly drafted and, I believe, deliberately ambiguous motion.
I do not see the words "June, January, or February" in this motion. I do not see the word "immediate" or any reference about how Cruise missile testing is to be terminated. In fact, there are provisions under contractual obligations to which we are parties which provide for termination. We have added clarity and precision to the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. gentleman will know that this is a continuation of the debate. I looked at the amendment carefully when it was first proposed. It is an attempt to make the termination of Cruise testing more clear. It is not a direct negative. I read the amendment, accepted it, and proposed it to the House. I do not believe there should be any further debate on that. I will recognize the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, may I say that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) indicated to me before we rose that he had to be out of the House for an engagement in Toronto. I simply want to record my appreciation of his parliamentary courtesy in indicating to me the reason for his absence. I know his respect for the House and that had he been able to stay he would have stayed for the debate.
I am afraid I cannot speak quite so fulsomely of his amendment. You have made a ruling as to whether or not it is in order, Mr. Speaker. That is not the question, in my judgment, Sir. The amendment which has been added by the Official Opposition is deliberately superfluous. I was interested in the Chair's observation that it is not a direct negative. That is also the language which could be used to describe the position of the Liberal Party on the motion. It is not a direct negative, it is not a direct positive, it is not a direct anything. What it is is an attempt to camouflage, to hide a Party which is incapable of coming to a decision on a fundamental issue of importance to this country and, indeed, an issue which affects our standing and reputation in the world. The Chair has declared the amendment in order. I simply want to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Party intends to remove the camouflage, to vote against the amendment, so that the Liberal Party of Canada will have the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons and indicate directly where it stands on this issue. I expect it will vote 40 different ways.
I am pleased these issues are before us. I appreciate the initiative of the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) in bringing the matter before the

March 6, 1987
Supply
House. These questions are of fundamental importance to the country. Some of her comments I could agree with. In that respect I would hope the debate would be regarded by our allies and by others in the country, if for no other reason than to indicate the extent of the concern in this House and in this country about the limited and restricted interpretation of the ABM Treaty.
I must say to the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party that I think this debate also reveals a fundamental difference, not just of substance but of approach to some of these issues between her Party and the Government. There is no doubt of her sincerity. However, I believe she has fallen into what is perhaps an inevitable trap for Parties which are never in office. She thinks it is enough to express opinion. She is not interested in trying to influence events. This Government has the obligation, not simply to express our opinion but to try to influence the events in the world of which we are a part. We are convinced that one does not influence events by opting out. What this motion proposes is that Canada opt out of some of its obligations and opt out of the capacity to have influence on fundamental questions.
This resolution suggests that to support unarmed Cruise missile testing in Canada is to oppose to SALT II. That is false. This motion suggests that Canada could strengthen the West's negotiating position by breaking the western solidarity which helped bring the Soviet Union to the table. That, Sir, would be foolish. It would have the opposite effect. If the New Democratic Party intends to be taken seriously, it should treat seriously these fundamental issues raised in this question.
Let me go through the motion piece by piece. First, this Government fought at every opportunity the U.S. decision to break out of the SALT II limits. We lost the fight. We think the break-out is bad for arms control. However, the fact that the United States does not consider itself bound to an unratified treaty should not lead us to break a signed agreement. We lost an argument on SALT II. The NDP now proposes that we should also lose our influence in NATO, in other words, lose our ability to win any other arguments on issues vital to Canada and to world peace. That, Sir, is not strategy, it is spite. It is not logic, it is visceral anti-Americanism.
Regarding the integrity of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Canada is very worried about the consideration being given by the United States to adopting a broad interpretation of the ABM Treaty. As the House will know, the U.S. position to date has been that while a broad interpretation is allowable legally, it has agreed to abide by a restrictive interpretation. Canada supports a restrictive view and we urge the United States to adhere to it.
Yesterday, Ambassador Paul Nitze spoke with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) and myself and heard that view reiterated strongly by Canada. Mr. Nitze made it clear that the United States has taken no decision to move to the broad interpretation. Certain Americans are urging a broad interpretation. They have not yet won the day. The consultations with the
allies, of which Mr. Nitze's visit yesterday was part, is designed deliberately to give an opportunity for those of us who favour a restrictive interpretation to make our case. Those consultations will continue. Canada will continue to make the case for a restrictive interpretation. We will do that in contacts at every level with the United States and in the alliance.
Our view is that, particularly in a period when there is renewed hope for progress at Geneva, it would be wrong for one of the superpowers to unilaterally change one of the existing elements of arms control. We understand that it is a question of legal definition. We understand that the United States has long argued that the broader interpretation is legally correct. We hope we can make enough Americans understand that a change now from the restrictive to the broad interpretation would be a real change in the atmosphere of arms control and, in our judgment, a change for the worse.
Again I ask the House, how do we best influence the Americans? Does our influence increase if we break our agreements with them regarding the testing of the unarmed Cruise? Of course, it does not. There is a chance, even a good chance, that the combined weight of the allies, speaking with unity, can persuade the President to continue to adhere to the restricted definition of the ABM Treaty. The New Democratic Party wants us to break that allied unity. That would mean losing the best chance we have to work effectively for a restrictive interpretation of the ABM Treaty.
Third, the INF talks mark a very important, indeed, a very exciting breakthrough. Mr. Gorbachev has taken an important initiative in dropping his insistence that SDI and intermediate nuclear forces be dealt with together. We welcome his stepping back from that condition in the same way we welcome the tabling in Geneva by the United States delegation of a draft treaty proposing the complete elimination of U.S. and Soviet INF missiles in Europe. This treaty reflects longstanding alliance positions as well as drawing on important understandings which were reached at the Reykjavik Summit. It is the embodiment of an ambitious plan for the elimination of a whole category of missiles in Europe, a plan, Sir, which was developed in concert with the alliance over a period of several years. Taken together, these two actions by the superpowers represent a positive and encouraging step.
Very important questions remain. There will be serious problems of verification. There is the question of what to do with the short-range missiles in Europe not included in the discussions now engaged in again at Geneva. There is the question of the placement outside Europe of the remaining intermediate nuclear forces and, undoubtedly, as the negotiators in other countries scrutinize the language of Mr. Gorbachev's proposal, and scrutinize the language of the U.S. draft treaty, other serious questions will also arise.
The point to underline, however, is that arms control negotiations have begun again in earnest. It is important for us both to reflect upon how that happened, how it came to be and also to consider what it might mean. Obviously, it came to be as a result of several factors, including imaginative and
March 6, 1987

courageous decisions by leaders of both the superpowers, but in the longer perspective it is undeniably the case that a major factor leading to these arms control negotiations has been the consistent unity displayed by the allies of the United States. There has, of course, also been unity on the part of the allies of the Soviet Union. They have no choice. Allies in a democratic alliance have a choice. Every time that choice is exercised there is the opportunity to break alliance unity or to respect alliance unity.
There are widely different views within the North Atlantic Alliance. Part of the Soviet strategy consistently has been to try to bring those differences into the open, to try to break the unity of the western alliance, because the Soviets knew that divisions in the West would weaken the hand of the United States at the negotiating table.
One of the major reasons, Sir, we have the prospect of an arms control agreement today is that the West has stood together. Yet, in this House of Commons, on the eve of the resumption of serious discussions of an INF agreement in Europe, we are being invited to break that western unity which helped bring both sides to the negotiating table. The motion of the New Democratic Party is an invitation to set back the arms control negotiations process. We have seen the skill, particularly in recent months, of the Soviet Union in dealing with western opinion. Imagine what it would do with a decision by Canada on the eve of INF discussions to break an agreement respecting the testing of the unarmed Cruise missile. That would be broadcast everywhere as evidence of division in the West, as evidence of weakness in Washington. Instead of leading to serious discussions it could unravel the serious intent that has been demonstrated so far.
One of the reasons we are so active in this alliance is that we believe that alliance unity makes progress on arms control possible. Progress on arms control is very important to the Government and to the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I for one do not propose to throw away the prospect of arms control progress because of erratic resolutions that might have been taken at a political party convention of the Liberal Party or of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, suppose we consider another aspect. An agreement on intermediate nuclear forces would affect the land-based cruise missiles that contribute to Europe's nuclear deterrent capacity. The cruise missiles being tested in Canada under an agreement with the United States are air-launched and are part of the strategic deterrent forces of the United States. The role played by U.S.-based strategic deterrent forces in maintaining the global balance of nuclear deterrence would expand if an INF agreement were to lead to the elimination of U.S. missiles in Europe. In this perspective, tests
Supply
to verify the reliability and effectiveness of air-launched cruise missiles would be needed even more if an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces were concluded, both from the point of view of arms control and defence.

One of the Government's priorities in our arms control and disarmament policy is the enhancement of strategic stability. The air-launched Cruise missile with its long flight time and its relatively slow recallable carrier is currently among the most stabilizing elements of nuclear deterrent forces. However, we believe that it too should be subject to arms control restraints. We have supported the inclusion of air-launched Cruise missiles in the limits on strategic nuclear arms being negotiated at the Geneva talks. But those decisions should be made by negotiations at Geneva; they should not be made unilaterally, disruptively or individually for reasons of spite, ideology or the dictates of a Liberal or NDP convention.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam spoke earlier about Canada's security being involved. Of course, Canada's security is involved. We are not here involved in an empty debating forum; we are here involved in a common alliance trying to come to terms with some of the most difficult and stubborn questions ever to face mankind. They are critical questions. They are vital questions. If we do not resolve them, they could literally mean the end of us all. We have an obligation to do the best we can to exercise every ounce of influence that we have. Influence is not exercised by taking actions of spite that cut off ones obligations. One does not help people get to the negotiating table and then, just when the hard negotiation is about to begin, weaken the side which one supports. That is not the way for people to work in an alliance. More important, that is not the way for us to achieve progress on arms control.
The Government and the country have a distinguished record in this regard. I was interested in the observations of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who paid deserved tribute to the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson for the roles they played in trying to bring about understanding in control of arms to the world. We are continuing to play that role. We are trying to return Canada to that tradition of constructive participation, influencing our allies, working with our allies toward constructive progress. That is the position of the Government.
We have spoken and acted on a number of fronts. Sometimes our arguments carry; sometimes they lose. But if we are serious about this we cannot run away in spite every time we lose an argument. What we have to do is stay and fight so that our arguments have a chance to prevail.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on debate.

March 6, 1987
Supply


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have to say with some reluctance that it sounds as if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on issues of arms control is saying: "My country, the United States, right or wrong". I would have to say that is a position with which I would profoundly have to take some issue.
I must also reflect my concern at the Secretary of State's insistence that he thought that the New Democratic Party was somehow acting for reasons, as he put it, of spite. The New Democratic Party has been opposed consistently and for a long time to Cruise missile testing in the country, as the Minister well knows. That concern flows from our concern about the future of our country, of our continent and of our world, of our children and of our children's children. I hoped and thought that each member of each Party in the House could take it that that concern about our children and our children's children is something which moves every Member of Parliament and every Canadian. Therefore, I think that the comments made by the Secretary of State were inappropriate and should not have been offered here in the House of Commons.
I was disappointed, upset and rather dismayed to hear the suggestion made by the Secretary of State that the air-launched Cruise missile, which he admits is a strategic weapon, is among the most stabilizing of weapons because it is slow and recallable. The fact is that the air-launched Cruise missile is a new addition to strategic weaponry between the two superpowers of which there is already too much. In addition, it may be recallable but it is not detectable. As we saw from the route that was taken by the missile that was tested recently in Alberta and across the Rocky Mountains, the missile can dip and dive. It can turn left and turn right. It can go up and down-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Like the Liberal Party.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Like the Liberal Party, that is right. It can be directed along routes so that it is not liable to visual detection either. Therefore, because of the possibilities of stealth, it is a particular factor for destabilization as opposed to other types of strategic weapons which, for all the terror they carry, are at least detectable and predictable in their course, if they are ever launched, and which can also be more easily verified because of their size and emplacements than can the air-launched Cruise missile.
I was disappointed in the comments of the Secretary of State who suggested that it would be even more necessary that Cruise missiles be available in the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America if the intermediate nuclear force talks in Geneva come to a successful conclusion. In other words, even though we have more than 10,000 nuclear strategic missiles-and God knows how many warheads-in the West, and a similar amount in the East, somehow we need to add to that horrendous pile of nuclear weapons if several hundred intermediate nuclear missiles in the European theatre of operations are withdrawn. I hate to say it, but the Secretary of State appears to be suggesting that if one de-escalates in
terms of European missiles, then in fact we should have a new round of escalation in terms of strategic missiles because of air-launched Cruise missiles.
I have to take issue as well with the comments the Secretary of State made with respect to the solidarity of the western alliance. He suggests that in order to maintain a negotiating position at Geneva it is necessary that there be no hint of division or of difference of views between the powers in the western alliance. In other words, he is saying that any hint of division-


An Hon. Member:: Is this debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I wish to bring to the attention of the House that we are on debate. I asked for questions and comments after the speech of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). There were no questions or comments, therefore, we went into debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is on debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The point I was making is this. Somehow it is not divisive of the alliance, according to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for Canada to oppose the United States breach of the SALT agreement to which they had adhered for a number of years. I know that it was not a treaty. It is not divisive of the alliance for Canada to oppose the broad interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out, that is something that Canada has done with force and vigour on a number of different occasions, both publicly and privately. It is not divisive of the western alliance, and of our friendship with the United States and the other countries in NATO, for Canada to refuse to support the star wars or the Strategic Defence Initiative. That is all right, too. The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not criticize it, so presumably he accepts that it is all right for other NATO countries to have a differing view of their obligations, to refuse to have foreign troops on their soil, to have a different command structure relative to troops which they have loosely committed to NATO, or to refuse to have testing of nuclear weapons or placement of nuclear weapons on their soil. That is all right, too. But then the Secretary of State for External Affairs has turned around and said that it is not all right if Canada takes the step that we have proposed, which is that we should simply refuse to have testing of Cruise missiles in Canada.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is saying, as the Liberal Government said before him in 1983 and 1984, that there will always be reasons for the Government to defer action on Cruise testing. There will always be reasons to refuse to act, and to refuse to stop Cruise testing despite the opinion of the majority of Canadians who say that it is time to stop testing of Cruise missiles in Canada, and that that time is now. It is because of the way that we as Canadians feel about what
March 6, 1987

our role should be in the world, and about the type of contribution that we can make to world peace and disarmament.
The New Democratic Party has the view that the amendment proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is contradictory to the motion. However, you have accepted it as being in order. We are not prepared to vote for the amendment proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition because it is definitely contradictory to the motion which is being debated today. Our motion makes it quite clear that we call for the termination of Cruise missile testing in Canada, not in five years, 10 years, some indeterminate time, not depending on whether it is February, March, or November, but that we do so now.
We do have a bilateral agreement with the United States. Under that agreement we have a sub-agreement relative to Cruise testing. In other words, at the present time we are committed to Cruise testing. However, there is a loophole in that agreement which, in view of substantial changes in the international situation, permits us to say, let us stop Cruise missile testing in Canada now. We are saying that now is the time to invoke that particular clause. We do not have to wait until July, 1988, or until 1992 or 1993 when the umbrella agreement expires. We can do so now. We should do so now. That is the message that clearly should be taken by the House voting for the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).
In moving the amendment stating that the resolution would be supported only in a manner that is consistent with Canada's bilateral obligations, I believe we have what is known as an oxymoron; it is a contradiction which is in fact not sustainable. That is why we are not prepared to support the Liberal amendment. I am glad to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he, like us, is prepared to see this issue clearly debated and discussed in the House with a clear vote in terms of Canada's taking the initiatives in the area of disarmament and arms control, and on the specific question of whether we should stop Cruise missile testing, and stop it now.
The New Democratic Party has always been opposed to Cruise missile testing. I would point out that these tests are not being made in the context of Canada's obligations to NATO. In fact, they have not been requested by our friends in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They have been requested under the umbrella agreement which exists with the United States. These tests are to add to the American strategic forces and, as my colleague has already pointed out, these forces now exceed the SALT limitation in terms of bombers capable of carrying air-launched missiles.
The level of strategic forces is already too high and too dangerous on the side of both superpowers; 10,000 more missiles is ample for the western allies to obliterate the Soviet Union and its friends, I suppose some 400 or 500 times, and I believe for the Soviet Union to do the same thing to us here on the North American Continent. Frankly, once is too many times. Twenty, 50, or 200 times beyond that is far too many.
Supply
We are particularly concerned about the Cruise missile because it is destabilizing, and because it is of particular danger to us in Canada with the most sparsely populated terrain which lies in the field of potential conflict, should there ever be such a devastating conflict between the superpowers.
One of the concepts of deterrence which has lasted for 35 years, albeit imperfectly, is that each side has some knowledge of the level of weapons, and the threat which is directed against it by the other side. In fact, by various means the two sides do seek to inform each other of what they have, and to know what the other side has. In other words, there is not total secrecy in this area, and there is a certain common interest in knowing what they have pointed against each other. Therefore, it is crucial that weapons be detectable.
The Cruise weapon deters detection because it cannot be seen, traced, or tracked as easily as conventional strategic missiles. The Cruise missile deters arms controls and verification because it is so small. Something that will fit on the back of a tractor-trailer cannot be verified. There are probably hundreds of thousands of tractor-trailers in this country, and millions in the United States. Any one of those could purportedly be carrying beef, furniture, or some other product, or it could be carrying two or three Cruise missiles that potentially could be used against some potential adversary.
This matter should be of particular concern to Canada. Since taking office the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated in his statements that Canada is committed to arms control in the context of deterrence. If there is a weapon which, if widespread, undermines deterrence, we should be doing our best to discourage it rather than allow its proliferation.
It has been argued today by the Leader of the Official Opposition that to stop Cruise missile testing would violate the two-track concept of the European NATO policy which has been pursued for the last several years. Regardless of one s views on that particular policy, it is a fact that the air-launched Cruise missile is not an intermediate weapon. Therefore, it is not part of that two-track policy which was directed to the European theatre.
The air-launched Cruise missile is designed to go over the North Pole, down the rivers of Siberia, and to hit inland centres in the Soviet Union without being detected at an early point in any type of strategic or hideous exchange between the superpowers. It was not called for, and it has nothing to do with the two-track policy of NATO. There is no NATO obligation with respect to Cruise testing in Canada.
We have no agreement with NATO in respect of Cruise testing. We have an agreement with the United States. As the Hon. Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) and the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, at the time they were responsible Ministers in their respective Governments, admitted in the House that there is no NATO obligation.

March 6, 1987
Supply
We are suggesting in the debate that whatever the Progressive Conservative Party or the Liberal Party may have thought of the commitment of the NDP to ending Cruise missile testing in Canada from 1983 to the present, conditions have now changed to the point that they can now join us in calling for an end to Cruise missile testing.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam pointed out that the Americans have now exceeded the limit of 131 bombers capable of carrying air-launched Cruise missiles, and that this is in direct violation of the SALT II agreement. The American proposals to weaken the ABM Treaty by a so-called broad interpretation have not been abandoned, whatever Secretary Nitze had to say in his discussions with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was in Ottawa yesterday.
I welcome some of the encouraging comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but we have not had a clear repudiation. It may be that, in the context of the change in chiefs of staff in the White House and other unrelated matters which have undermined the force of the American administration, they have decided to bide their time. However, they are only biding their time. The President has not abandoned his commitment to his interpretation of the star wars initiative, which would require a broad rather than a narrow interpretation of the ABM Treaty, and which, therefore, threatens to undermine the only arms control treaty in force between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Also, as my colleague pointed out, there was a dramatic prospect for the removal of all intermediate range missiles in Europe. I do not believe that we as Canadians should be encouraging a new area of competition between the superpowers, just at a time of taking away a particular area. I profoundly believe that the removal, or an agreement to remove intermediate nuclear force missiles, coupled with the progress made on chemical weapons, the progress made on conventional troops in the Stockholm Talks, the progress being made at the United Nations in terms of unanimous support for Ambassador Roche's resolution or Canada's resolution on verification measures related to nuclear testing, and the lengthy moratorium to which the Soviet Union adhered, despite the failure of the United States to go along with it, are surely reasons to seek a pause in the escalation of the ludicrous nuclear competition which has taken place for many decades between the superpowers.
We have therefore presented a motion that attempts to enable Canada to take an initiative that reflects Canadian public concern and will be a valuable contribution to arms control and to nuclear disarmament. As a NATO member, I would point out that Canada is free to choose the manner of its contributions to NATO. Various NATO countries do not allow foreign troops. They do not allow nuclear missiles on their borders. They have different means of interpreting the treaty. Even if there were some loose form of NATO obligation, there is not a specific obligation. The suggestion about a
bilateral obligation is there, but let us spell out exactly what it means.
We have an umbrella agreement on testing with the United States. Regrettably the Government chose last week to do nothing about that agreement and, therefore, it is extended from 1988 to 1993. Cruise missile testing takes place in the context of that over-all agreement. It is in the context of the sub-agreement that we have the opportunity either to continue or to cease. We do not believe the bilateral obligation is sufficient to outweigh Canada's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the ABM treaty, to maintaining the SALT agreement, and to ensuring disarmament and mutual security.

Mr. Speaker, the long-standing position of the New Democratic Party has been to oppose cruise missile testing in Canada. On behalf of Parliament, we ask all parties here in the House of Commons to oppose cruise missile tests in Canada right now, and not to defer or muddle the decision but make it clear.
I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that the Government will vote against the amendment of the Official Opposition because indeed we must have a clear vote. We on this side welcome the fact that it will be a clear vote, and we appeal to all political parties to side with the majority of Canadians who want to see an end to the cruise missile tests and hope Canada will take a new initiative aimed at world-wide disarmament.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I must say I find it passing strange that the Hon. Member who has just spoken would inform the House that the New Democratic Party would not accept the Liberal amendment, because, as he said, it was an oxymoron, a contradictory statement, or a contradiction of terms which negates the effect of the resolution, when he spent the better part of 15 minutes telling Hon. Members that nothing in Canada's current obligations under NATO, or nothing in our bilateral obligations under NORAD, would prevent the Government of Canada from saying that Cruise missile testing must stop. He spent the better part of 15 minutes making the case that nothing prevents the Government, if it should so choose, from putting an end to Cruise missile testing.
Having done that, he went on to tell the House that they would not accept the Liberal amendment which would simply add the words: "Cruise missile testing in Canada in a manner consistent with our NATO and bilateral obligations". The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. His words are now recorded for all Canadians to examine. He just made the case that nothing in our NATO or bilateral obligations prevents us from taking unilateral action, if the Government of Canada so chooses, to end Cruise missile testing.
Why then is the New Democratic Party not prepared to accept a Liberal amendment which would have no more effect than to recognize-and it is the crux of the matter-that Canada is a full partner in NATO, that Canada has bilateral
March 6, 1987

obligations and treaties with other nations, and that any decision we take in respect of the Cruise should be made in light of those obligations and in the light of that partnership? It is not something we do in the closet with the doors closed and with our eyes closed, expressing in a simplistic fashion some kind of childlike wish for a better world. Is the NDP so opposed to NATO and NORAD that it can find in its heart the wisdom to use an oxymoron bit of logic to try to describe why it is opposing an amendment which would put the NDP in a position to acknowledge Canada's valuable role in NATO?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his contribution to the debate, although I regret his failure to clarify the position of his Party on this particular question. Of course I acknowledge that Canada is a member of NATO and that we have obligations to NATO right now. When we form the Government we will deal with those particular questions.
The question is what initiatives Canada should take in respect of arms controls and disarmament. We have suggested that those initiatives should be strong and that they should include a termination of Cruise missile testing. I have made the case that we are entitled to do that within the context of the bilateral agreement with the United States which now exists. As the Hon. Member stated, I made that case. I made it strongly and I think eloquently. The fact is that that case was rejected by the Hon. Member's Leader who made quite clear that "the motion of the NDP as it stands is not acceptable to the Liberal Party". Therefore, in proposing his amendment it would appear that he felt the motion as amended would be acceptable to the Liberal Party.
The crux of the motion is to terminate Cruise missile testing now. The Hon. Member's Leader said that terminating Cruise missile testing now is not acceptable and, therefore, since the motion became acceptable with his amendment, and if I may use a bit of logic here, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was stating that the motion as amended did not call for a termination of Cruise missile testing now. That is why we cannot support the effort of the Liberal Party to try to get on all sides of this particular resolution. That is why I welcome the fact that on Monday when we come to a vote on this question the Liberal Party will be forced to acknowledge whether or not it is in favour of ending Cruise missile testing in Canada now.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, even drawing from his quiver of wordy weapons such understandable phrases as oxymoron, can twist and turn all he wants. He cannot erase the fact that on the one hand he has made a case that nothing involved with Canada's current obligations in NATO or current obligations under bilateral treaties prevents Canada from acting, if that is Canada's decision as a sovereign nation, while on the other hand stand in the House, as the Member has-it is in Hansard-and say that the reason he cannot accept the Liberal amendment, which merely points out that Canada ought to act in a manner consistent with our NATO
Supply
and bilateral obligations, is that if we add this acknowledgement to the motion it negates the motion. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The leader does not tell the truth.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The simple fact is that the New Democratic Party has great difficulty with the notion that Canada is a member of NATO. The NDP is deathly opposed to Canada's involvement in the community of nations which is seeking to prevent nuclear war. That is the blunt reality. It is not a pleasant one for the New Democratic Party, but it is blunt. The New Democratic Party is on record that it is opposed to Canada's involvement in NORAD. The reason the NDP is opposed to this motion which asks us to act as a responsible nation in the community of nations is that it puts the New Democratic Members of Parliament in this House at variance with the position taken by its Party in convention. That is the only reason.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You guys are going to be doing it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: If the Hon. Member is serious in wanting to inject in the Government opposite, when the time is right, a bit of backbone, so that we act, if conditions are appropriate, to put an end to nuclear missile testing, and if he wants the support of the members of this Party to send that signal across the floor of the House, why are New Democrats not prepared to accept the Liberal amendment which, after all, acknowledges that Canada is a part of NATO and has other international obligations?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the reference of the Hon. Member to the New Democratic Party and the respect that we hold for the positions that our Party takes in convention, in view of the fact that the speech made by his leader earlier today in the debate is quite directly at variance with the position that his Party took in convention. I listened very carefully to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, who for 20 minutes gave us a lengthy argument as to why his Party is not in favour of ending Cruise missile testing now, despite the fact that the convention said directly the opposite, and despite the fact that both his defence critic and his external affairs critic indicated they favoured ending Cruise missile testing now.


Pauline Jewett: That is right.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If the Leader of the Liberal Party had said, we will propose an additional form of words along the lines that were proposed, but we understand that this still means Canada is committed to ending Cruise missile testing now-that is after all the major point of the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam-but that the intent of the resolution is still that the House gives a message to the Government that we end Cruise missile testing now, then I think we could have seriously considered accepting that particular amendment.

March 6, 1987
Supply


Brian Vincent Tobin: The resolution does not say that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is certainly clear that the reason the amendment was put forward by the Liberal Party was to cover up the divisions that occur within that Party, between the Leader who takes one side, and a convention and a caucus that take the other side on the question of Cruise missile testing. They are hopelessly divided. I suggest that the bombast coming from my friend, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), will not cover up the fact that the Liberal Party does not know where it stands on this issue. We know where we stand. The resolution calls for an end to Cruise missile testing now. I hope the Hon. Member will support it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Where do you stand on NATO?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston).


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I must say I enjoyed that exchange. I had a great deal of difficulty following it, although it had my undivided attention. I still do not know, as I stand here, what the position of the New Democratic Party is on NATO. Nor do I quite understand how the word "now" gets read into this motion presented by the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).
With that being said, I find that the motion itself does contain a number of serious ambiguities, some of which were addressed by my leader in his comments at noon. It certainly wants from lack of precision, as we have just heard from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who read the word "now" into the text, which it does not have. Should we give the NDP the benefit of the doubt, that this is simply bad drafting, or is there something more mischievous about this motion? For example, as the leader pointed out, the very first line of the motion attacks the role of air-launched Cruise missile deployment. This morning in her opening comments, the sponsoring member said, again changing the language of the motion, that the House is alarmed by the role of air-launched Cruise missiles and the violation of the SALT limits.
I heard her say it right here. It is the intention of this motion to attack the role of air-launched Cruise missiles, which was the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) this morning? He made the point that that is a direct assault on the deterrent factor of NATO itself. It appears to me that the New Democratic Party is trying to bootleg an attack against NATO and the deterrent effort of NATO through this resolution, in a very cute way.
As far as the violation of SALT II is concerned, we have expressed our concern. I will come back to SALT II in a moment. I know the New Democratic Party has expressed concern about those violations and representations that have been made to Washington, and made in the conference of NATO Ministers as recently as in Halifax, but their concerns
seem to have fallen on deaf ears. The breach of those SALT II limits has become a symbol in this arms race, and its deliberate breach suggests that there are now no limits. That is a matter of great concern to us on this side of the House. I will return to SALT in a moment.
Those words, "the role of', used in the context with which they were put forward this morning, add nothing at all to that motion, unless they are designed to attack NATO itself and the deterrent NATO feature. If one eliminates those words, I suggest to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, who is nodding his head, that, yes, indeed the point with respect to SALT II limits is still there.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I was shaking my head.


Donald James Johnston: The New Democratic Party we know rejects Canada's role in NATO and NORAD. It has not had the courage to say so directly in this resolution. I hope that the amendment proposed-I hope adopted-will make the New Democratic Party honest on this point, so it will say here in this House where it effectively stands.
Turning to the last sentence of the motion, that which calls for the termination of Cruise missile testing in Canada, it is interesting to note that once again, the resolution falls far short of precision. However, it is not unlike the resolution which was adopted last November at the Liberal convention. Following that convention, our Leader explained that the resolution was to be interpreted within the context of Canada's bilateral and multilateral commitments, notably to NATO. The amendment he has moved, which I have seconded, brings precision to this motion. I urge all Members of the House to accept it notwithstanding the rejection of it out of hand by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his intervention earlier this afternoon.
On February 27, in fact one week ago, I had called for an arrest or stop to Cruise missile testing, as I had on earlier occasions in the House. For example, on December 1, 1986, as reported on page 1643 of Hansard, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs the following question:
Could the Prime Minister advise President Reagan that Canada does not intend to proceed with the Cruise missile tests until the U.S. Government decides to meet its obligations under the SALT II Treaty and the ABM Treaty?
Like others on all sides of the House, across Canada, in the United States and in Europe, I have been concerned by the apparent obdurate attitude of the United States on at least three issues, and I will deal with them, which directly affect arms negotiations because they seem to be preventing the implementation of the most important track of the two-track policy adopted back in 1979. I do not intend to deal at great length with history, but we should bear in mind that, as we have already heard, the two-track decision was to deploy nuclear weapons on European soil on the one hand while seeking to pursue arms reduction negotiations at Geneva on the other.
March 6, 1987

As the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) pointed out, in 1983 our Government entered into a test and evaluation agreement with the United States, and subsequent thereto the United States asked Canada to test Cruise missiles. It was terribly important at that time, as it is today, that there be solidarity in the Atlantic alliance as these negotiations with the Soviets were approaching.
The Cruise missile decision was not an easy one to make, but within the collective solidarity of the alliance, European nations were agonizing over the requirement that they place nuclear-armed missiles on their soil. Canada agreed that to fulfil its role and to do its part, it would test unarmed Cruise missiles in this country. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a letter addressed to the Hon. George Shultz from the then Secretary of State, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, of July 15, 1983. He said:
You will recall that when I wrote to you on January 21, I underlined the serious concern of the Canadian people about the decision their Government might take on the anticipated U.S. request to test the cruise missile in Canada. At that time I stressed how important it was for the Government to be able to assure the Canadian public that the arms control aspect of the negotiations in Geneva is being pursued as vigorously and as earnestly as is the deployment of new missiles.
He went on to point out the following:
Canada joined in the NATO "two-track" decision in 1979, under which new Allied missiles will be deployed in Europe beginning this year unless a verifiable agreement can be reached with the Soviet Union to make this action unnecessary. When we met with our NATO colleagues in Paris in June we agreed that, if the negotiations are to succeed, it will be important for all the Allies to stand together behind their decision. As our contribution to this solidarity, Canada has agreed to help test vital components of the technology of the cruise missile.
The two tracks were clear: the deployment, of which the testing of the Cruise missile was a part, and the renewed effort to secure arms reductions. The arms-reduction track has not proceeded as the world might have hoped, but Mr. Gorbachev's arrival on the scene brought new hope for meaningful arms reductions. The security track, of course, has been followed very well. However, Mr. Gorbachev threw out the challenge to get back on that other track when he said: "On behalf of the Soviet people, I am appealing to the wisdom and the dignity of the Americans not to miss another historic chance on the way toward ending the weapons race".
I think many of us felt that the United States administration did not adequately accept that challenge. First and foremost, there was the star wars initiative. That, as we know, suggested that there would be a broadening of the interpretation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. This interpretation, if agreed upon by the United States, would presumably allow extensive testing and deployment. I must say I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us today that Paul Nitze, the senior arms adviser to the President, has told the Canadian Government that the United States has not yet moved to that broad interpretation. Nonetheless, that is a matter of great concern.
The second issue which prevented us from getting back on that second track was the failure to accept a moratorium on nuclear tests, something which had been offered by the Soviet
Supply
Union and which had in fact been followed by the Soviet Union for 18 months. The reason, of course, the moratorium was not accepted by the United States was that it apparently was intimately related to this ill-conceived star wars initiative. Apparently nuclear testing is necessary to develop one of the essential components of that system, the nuclear X-ray laser.
Third, we saw the breach of the SALT II limits against the wishes of all the NATO allies. The Secretary of State made the point that they argued with great vigour in Washington to convince the United States not to breach the SALT II limits. However, on all these issues, the moratorium, the reinterpretation of the ABM Treaty and the SALT II limits, the Americans did not appear to be listening to our concerns or to the concerns of the allies. All of our pleas seemed to fall on deaf ears.
The result of that was that arms-control negotiations, for which we had so much hope after the arrival of Mr. Gorbachev and the initial meeting in Geneva, were, all of a sudden, the subject of dismay and despair because of what I call this apparent obdurate attitude on the part of the United States. Negotiations came to a virtual standstill.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at Reykjavik, Mr. Gorbachev insisted that the removal of the intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe depended upon the abandonment of the star wars initiative by the United States. However, the seemingly stubborn refusal of the U.S. to make concessions on star wars prevented the pursuit of meaningful negotiations in that regard. We seemed to have lost that most important track of all, namely a concerted, solidified and consolidated effort on the part of the allies to sit down and negotiate an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union.
How do we get back on track? The U.S. did not seem much impressed with our rhetoric, our arguments or those of our allies. The star wars and SALT road-blocks remain. That is why I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs last December 1 whether he could advise the President that Canada wanted to discontinue Cruise testing until the Americans started to live up to their obligations, as we saw them, under the ABM Treaty and SALT II, notwithstanding the fact that SALT II had not been formally ratified. What has happened? Since I last suggested that course of action and a discontinuance of Cruise missile testing, Mr. Gorbachev has changed his position and attempted to place the arms reduction negotiations back on track with negotiations on the removal of intermediate-range nuclear weapons from Europe. I am gratified and pleased to see that the U.S. has in turn made a solid and positive response. This may indeed be the historic breakthrough. During this period, I suggest, the allies have to stand solidly together because the purpose of the interventions I made in the past was to get them back on track and it now looks as though we are getting back on track. I would like to refer to the comments of two respected journalistic sources in

March 6, 1987
Supply
Canada. In an editorial on March 3, The Globe and Mail, referring to Mr. Gorbachev and the zero option, said:
He has thereby opened the way to the first major arms control pact of the 1980s.
I would also like to refer to Mr. Richard Gwyn who writes a column for The Toronto Star from London. It is a sensitive, perceptive and informed column. He offers the following comments:
Gorbachev has done it. Because he has done it, almost anything now becomes possible: A major cut in long-range (intercontinental) missiles that would free both superpowers from their fear of a surprise attack; elimination of chemical weapons; phasing out of nuclear tests, and a pact to reduce conventional forces.
Much is left to be done, but Mr. Gwyn adds optimistically, and I would like to share some of that optimism:
The catalytic new agreement Gorbachev has added to East-West relations is that of trust.
The U.S. and the Soviet Union are moving back to the table. As you know, on March 4 the U.S. handed the Soviet Union a draft treaty agreement. Obviously I have not seen its terms, but we understand it would eliminate all medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe and limit the two superpowers to 100 nuclear warheads apiece of the same kind of missiles on their own soil. On the eve of these negotiations which could begin that historic breakthrough, and which will hopefully move into other areas of disarmament such as ICBMs, chemical warfare and tactical nuclear weapons, I would not fire off a message to the U.S. that we are going to terminate our relations under that agreement. That was the point that our Leader made this morning and that is the point I would make to the gentleman from Ottawa Centre. I do not see that as enhancing these negotiations when we must stand solid because we finally are back, it would appear, on both tracks. We finally can see real opportunity for major breakthroughs on arms control.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by the foreign affairs critic of the Liberal Party, but I am a bit confused because of statements he made earlier which seemed to be a clear position taken on behalf of his Party. He now seems to be fudging. The essence of the motion we put forward was that this House calls for strong initiatives by the Government to strengthen arms control and disarmament measures, including the termination of Cruise missile testing in Canada. On November 27, 1986, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) the following question:
Would the Government consider putting pressure on the United States to respect its obligations under the Salt II Treaty and stop the Cruise missile tests?
I would like to ask the Hon. Member two questions. First, was that question accurately reported in Hansard at page 1590? Second, did he favour stopping the Cruise missile tests at that time? Third, if it is so important now to make a reference to honouring Canada's commitment to NATO and
other bilateral agreements, why was that not contained in the question he put in this very House to the Minister?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had covered that ground quite thoroughly in my comments. My point is that the circumstances today, March 6, and I hope the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre will agree, are certainly substantially different from what they were one week ago or on November 27. The whole purpose of telling the U.S. to stop testing Cruise missiles or we will stop testing Cruise missiles is to bring them back to observe their obligations which would bring the Soviets back to the negotiating table. Now, thank goodness, that has happened. I say that the circumstances have dramatically changed during that intervening period. The whole purpose of those interventions, if you read the question I put on December 1 as well as the one on November 27, was in that vein. The Americans were not listening. At least that was my impression and I think it was probably the Hon. Member's impression. They were not listening to their allies. How do you attract their attention? How do you get them to listen to common sense and get back to the negotiating table? Well, it has happened. Things are back on track and we should all be optimistic and grateful for what has taken place during the past week.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for this opportunity to comment briefly on the proposal of our socialists colleagues to stop cruise missile testing in Canada. This proposition is exactly the same as the one advocated at the November 1986 Liberal Party convention. It is exactly the same as the position expressed in February 1987 by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), and he is the Opposition's external affairs critic. It is the same as the position of their expert in defence matters. Earlier this morning the Party leader said that his party would move an amendment, so all Liberal Members applauded strongly, except for the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount who perfunctorily went through the motion.
So then the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) rose to ask the Leader of the Opposition to reconcile the position of his rebellious colleagues. The Leader of the Opposition replied that the Soviet Union had changed, had-


Donald James Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) on a point of order.


Donald James Johnston: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I find it totally uncalled for and unacceptable on the part of the Hon. Member to comment on the way I applaud my leader. He should listen to what I say. Perhaps he is shortsighted, because I did applaud. His seat is far away and I can understand why.
March 6, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) is saying. I hope the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) would comment on the speech of the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount has indicated that he will not support the proposal of the socialists to abandon Cruise missile testing in Canada and he said that he will not do so because the United States and the Soviet Union have made new proposals to eliminate intermediate range weapons. However, these proposals were made on February 27 and the Hon. Member omitted to point out that he maintained the same position in this House on March 4, after the United States and the Soviet Union had taken position. I therefore ask the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) to be consistent with what he himself said in the House of Commons on March 4, 1987, and to explain to this House the position of his party on putting an end to Cruise missile testing in Canada. I would like him to be consistent with himself, his party and his Leader, if they in fact have one.


Donald James Johnston: I do not know where he got his reference, Mr. Speaker, 1 have no idea what he is talking about. I made a few speeches this week, but I do not recall raising that question. Could he give us the page number, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps I will be able to give him an explanation after that.


Gabriel Fontaine: March 4, 1987, page 3799.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with Cruise missiles. I would not want that a wider interpretation be given to the ABM treaty. The position has never changed. Indeed it is the same position as the one just expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It seems to me it is an entirely different question, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with the question he has just asked.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are one and a half minutes left for questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who, last week, was opposed to Cruise missile testing and is now in favour is a very changeable spokesperson for his Party on external affairs. He said that it is because of the commencement of some opening in Geneva with regard to an intermediate nuclear force. Nothing is concluded. Does he believe that the United States has decided to adhere to the SALT limits? What evidence does he have for that? Has the United States abandoned its effort? to broaden the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? Both these matters are raised in this resolution.
Supply
Has that changed, or has the member become credulous in his belief that everything is changing?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, let me take the member slowly through the point. The reason for concern with respect to the ABM Treaty and SALT II interpretation is that the star wars initiative, especially, brought negotiations to a stop. Mr. Gorbachev said that he would not discuss intermediate range nuclear weapons as long as the star wars proposal was on the table. He said that at and after Reykjavik.
It is only on March 1 that Mr. Gorbachev said that he would go to the table. The United States has put forward a counter proposition as of March 4 and is going to the table.
When we talk about being in favour or being opposed to Cruise missile testing, it becomes somewhat of a red herring. The whole purpose of the discussion we have had in the House, and the points I made in November and last week, which were referred to by the Hon. Member, were to attempt to remove that obstacle so that they could go back to the table. They are now back at the table.


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), has very clearly laid out Canada's position on the very important area of arms control and disarmament. He has done this, as he said, at a time when some small rays of sunshine have appeared in what has been a gloomy arms control environment of late. The Department of National Defence has been pleased to lend support to recent efforts in this field.
Canada's position on arms control and the value of existing treaties is clear. Arms control is a very important aspect of national security, but so is defence.
In the short time available to me, I hope to demonstrate that the defence aspect, including such activity as testing the Cruise missile in Canada, is a necessary and valuable adjunct to the arms control effort.
For many years now, the western alliance strategy of deterrence through strength has helped us avoid a major East-West conflict, including the ultimate horror of nuclear war. The major component of deterrence from the western viewpoint has been provided by nuclear weapons, the vast majority of that nuclear deterrent being provided by the United States.
A strategy of deterrence requires that the weapon system components of that deterrent be viable. This viability can only be ensured by the testing of systems, continually upgrading them in keeping with developing technologies, and demonstrating that viability to friend and potential foe alike.
It is a fact that the Soviets, and their Warsaw Pact allies, continue to upgrade their air defence forces. Their interceptor aircraft, surface to air missiles, surveillance systems and the command and control facilities to co-ordinate all of this are of a very high calibre. The ALCM helps to balance the equation.

March 6, 1987
Supply
Ensuring the viability of a component of deterrence is not in opposition to a viewpoint that supports arms control. In fact, the opposite is true. Viable deterrent systems encourage arms control. It is in that context that Canada is following its version of a two-track system, that is, supporting testing and evaluation of a component of the nuclear deterrent while actively encouraging progress in arms control. There is no contradiction in our approach.
Canada's defence is inextricably linked to the policy of collective security arrangements with the United States and our European allies. In this way, Canada is able to make a unique and valued contribution to enhance alliance security. These arrangements are very much linked to the nuclear deterrent strategy I mentioned earlier. They go hand in hand.
Our contribution might be seen as modest compared to those of other NATO allies who have nuclear weapons deployed on their territory. Some of those weapons are the subject of current debate and, provided the right guarantees come to pass, may be removed in the future.
The point is that it was the resolve of the alliance to deploy these weapons which has allowed the West to negotiate from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness.
The European allies took bold and difficult decisions which may now begin to bear fruit. Should Canada do any less? Of course not.
The decision to test the ALCM in Canada recognized the need within NATO to share the burdens and obligations of collective defence. That need has not changed. In fact, as potential breakthroughs in arms control appear, alliance solidarity is more necessary now than ever before. In addition, close co-operation with our allies, particularly the United States, ensures that we do have a voice at the bargaining table. The strategic defence of North America is a joint responsibility, and we must ensure that our views are heard. Canadians do not want their Government to abdicate its responsibility in this regard. There is more to be lost than there is to be gained.
An argument frequently heard against the air-launched Cruise missile is that it is a first strike weapon and it is therefore destabilizing. Any serious strategist knows that this is simply not true. ALCMs must be carried to their launch points by bombers. Given the large number of bombers required to mount an effective first strike and the long flight time to reach those launch points, it is very likely that any enemy would have ample warning. This warning time would be extended by the long flight time of the Cruise missile itself. Total surprise could not be ensured by air-launched Cruise missiles, and no prudent military planner would risk launching an attack in that manner. I hope that will set the record straight.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the United States Air Force has just completed two very successful test flights of the Cruise missile in Canadian air space. Those flights not only proved
the effectiveness of the system but also allowed for some very useful collateral training and research by the Canadian Forces. The CF-18s of our air defence force were given the opportunity to practise intercepting and tracking the Cruise missiles. Other valuable research work was done in surveillance and defence against the Cruise missiles such as giving our CP-140 Auroras an opportunity of verifying their detection systems.
Hon. Members will be aware of the recent increases in the number of Soviet long-range bombers approaching the Canadian air defence identification zone. The bomber known as the "Bear-H" is a Cruise missile carrier. Just as the Cruise missile itself is part of the deterrent, so are the forces which defend against Cruise missiles. Thus, Cruise missile tests in Canada provide a very useful training vehicle for our forces.
In replying to this motion, I should remind the House that the project arrangements for Cruise missile testing is part of an over-all test and evaluation agreement with the United States. This agreement was signed by the previous Liberal Government in 1983. There have been misleading reports recently in the media in regard to a so-called extension of the agreement. Those reports have left an impression that the Government is committed to a further five years. This is, of course, not the case. Once again, let me set the record straight. The agreement was for an initial five-year period with an automatic five-year renewal. The agreement has always been, and still is, liable to termination at any time by either party giving 12 months' notice. Furthermore, it can be terminated at any time in an emergency. Either party can terminate a specific arrangement under the agreement-for example, Cruise missile testing-at any time on one day's notice should imperative circumstances so warrant. The Government is not held captive by this agreement. We have repeatedly stated our intention to carry on, and will do so, but this in no way precludes second thoughts should circumstances change.
In order to maintain the strength of deterrence, a program of test and evaluation is vital. Making our territory available under sound and safe conditions is a valuable contribution by Canada to the western alliance. Canada benefits from the protection provided by the nuclear deterrent. We also benefit from the opportunity to practise and improve our own air defences in conjunction with the Cruise Missile Test Program.
In closing I would like to say that there is no contradiction in supporting a reasonable and meaningful commitment to a stronger defence effort, and yet being equally supportive of peace initiatives. In my opinion, the twin concepts of peace and security are inseparable. I take great pride as a Canadian in associating myself with our Prime Minister's view that "we are not a nation that has any international aspirations except that of peace". May we always continue, as a nation, to pursue that aspiration.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) to give the justification with which he would feel happy in defending the
March 6, 1987

decision of the United States to exceed the SALT II limitations which it had previously accepted voluntarily. I recognize that it was a voluntary recognition. With that extension over and above the bounds of Cruise missile deployment which took place and exceeded SALT II, why did the Minister feel that this was not an occasion for Canada to abrogate arrangements with the United States? Recognizing our capacity to change the arrangements we have with the United States and given our strong commitment to SALT II, to treaty relations and to trying to cut back the escalation of superpower armaments, why did the Government not at that stage decide to abrogate the Cruise testing arrangement with the United States? Why was the Government not prepared to do that?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for that question. If he had been here earlier to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who put it very clearly, he would know that, yes, we were against the United States for abrogating the SALT II Convention. However, we did not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. We did not decide from spite, such as the New Democratic Party out of spite decided we should really get upset, close down everything and say we do not want to talk anymore. We decided to say we disagreed with the United States and argued against it very forcefully. We lost the argument, but we are still working towards disarmament and maintaining our strength, and at the same time contributing to the strength of the alliance and solidarity with our other allies. If we get to a point where the two superpowers can negotiate and reach an agreement, then when we arrive at that decision will be the time perhaps to change course.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if one is engaged in an argument with an ally as, for instance, we were in the trade negotiations with the United States, and we have in fact taken counter-measures against measures which the United States took which we felt were not justified, such as the shakes and shingles decision, why would the Minister expect the House to believe that our making a stronger response to the United States would help? After all, we are talking about the testing of Cruise missiles, which is undoubtedly useful to the United States but it is not of tremendous strategic necessity that the testing take place in Canada. Why would we not exercise a little more strength in our argument by cutting back on the commitment that we made 10 years ago?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a childish approach. It is like being upset because the Americans abrogated SALT II and went beyond. It is as if, because one lost that argument, one must throw a temper tantrum and say: "I am going to walk out". Because we might have had some quarrels with them over shakes and shingles in the trade negotiations, the Hon. Member's Party has steadfastly said: "Then quit the discussions and walk away from the table". We still say that we can win in the long run by keeping those
Supply
discussions going. I do not see any reason for having a temper tantrum and walking away.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) suggested that if we were to vote in favour of this motion we would be demonstrating a weakness in the NATO alliance. Both he and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) suggested that if we were to stop Cruise missile testing, in a sense we would be letting down the NATO alliance.
I wish to ask the Minister the following question. Does he believe that the United States was letting down the NATO alliance when, without consultation, it sold arms to Iran and used the profits to fund the Contras in Nicaragua; when it raided Libya and Grenada without consulting its NATO allies; when it unilaterally withdrew recognition of the World Court on certain key international questions; when it violated the SALT II limits; and when it continually, along with the Soviet Union, violated Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty of 1970 which states that nuclear weapons states are not to increase their nuclear arsenals but to reduce them? In 1970, the United States had 4,000 nuclear weapons. In 1985, it had 11,000. In taking all these actions without consulting its NATO allies, does the Minister think that the Americans were acting in a responsible way to their NATO allies? Does the Minister think we would be acting in a worse manner if we were to stop the testing of the Cruise missile in view of this disregard by the United States of its NATO allies?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) had been here this afternoon rather than this morning he would have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) speak.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) knows that it is against the rules to refer to a Member's presence or otherwise in the House. Since the debate started this morning with the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has been in the House. I think the Minister should either answer the question of the Hon. Member or abstain. He should not try to side-track in answer to the Hon. Member. He asks good questions, which I think the Minister should answer. He can also refuse to answer them since that is his right. He should address these issues and not say: "If the Hon. Member had been here-". I have been here in the Chamber or behind the curtain all day, as has the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) knows that Hon. Members should not reflect upon the presence or otherwise of other Hon. Members in the Chamber. He has exactly one minute to answer the question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that I have any time left. It seems as if the Liberal Party is trying to filibuster my

March 6, 1987
Supply
opportunity to reply to the substance of what the Hon. Member had to say.
The Hon. Member had a number of things to say. I forget all that he listed. However, in his list in regard to a number of areas he was, in part, wrong. It is true that perhaps the United States was wrong with respect to some of the things it did. In other areas it did consult. It did not consult Canada when it went to Grenada, perhaps because it did not trust the Government at the time. It was a Liberal Government which could not be trusted. It consulted the British and the other islands in the Caribbean. So the Hon. Member is wrong.
I heard at one time, and perhaps the Hon. Member does not believe me, that two wrongs do not make a right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on debate.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is sad to hear the word games which have taken place today in attempts to wriggle around particular clauses and to escape from the basic question which is before the House. That basic question is one which has to be put perhaps by a new generation of Members of Parliament.
In the past months and weeks I have received letters from Brownie packs in my constituency. These are heartfelt letters, letters written by little girls who want to say to us assembled here as Members of Parliament that they want peace in the world. They want to grow up. They want to have good and productive lives ahead of them. They want to see Canada become a leader in the fight for peace. We have received letters from seven or eight different Brownie packs in Windsor.
I can read some of the letters which represent typical ones which have been sent to us. I think it is crucial that Members of Parliament hear some of the words sent by our young citizens, people such as Lindsay, who is six, who writes:
Ask Prime Minister Mulroney to talk with President Reagan about peace and getting rid of nuclear weapons.
Others have written to us and stated: "I think Canada should help find a peaceful solution to the problems causing war". Those words are from Laura who is seven. "Canada should help other countries to find peaceful answers to their problems." Those are the words of Bonnie who is six. This is very much the voice of a generation that has a sense of fear, because there are those of us who, frankly, have let them down in the last 10 to 15 years.
It seems to me that there has been case after case of potential peaceful initiatives put forward in terms of steps which could take the world from a dangerous path of escalation in arms and in its capacity and willingness to use arms, to a path of de-escalation and disarmament. These are initiatives that will take us away from the possibility of what could be a nuclear termination of civilization as we know it. That is basically what this motion is about today. It is not a motion about scoring partisan points, or embarrassing one Party or
another; it is a motion that is setting front and centre before the Parliament of Canada at least two or three of the crucial issues which are wrapped up in the arms control debate.
I have been very disappointed by the recent actions of the Government with respect to this cry from our young people for a peaceful world. For instance, I heard today from the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) about how we must be inextricably linked to the alliance system, as if the alliance system were an end in itself. Surely the goal is to achieve a peaceful world and establish a momentum toward disarmament. If the existence of alliances stands in the way of that, they should be dismantled and not extolled, as was the case with the last speaker from the Government.
This crazy approach that has been suggested here, in the United States, and also in Margaret Thatcher's Britain, that somehow through strength we will get peace makes me think more of George Orwell and the reversal of meaning of the words where the ministry of war becomes the so-called ministry of peace. That is what we are talking about when we hear the Government and leaders from the western alliance talk about the goal of peace through strength.
In the last year and a half we have seen the destruction of SALT II. It was supposed to be a movement toward strength, yet it destroyed one of those basic elements of stability which remained within the world. In spite of that, the United States continued to deploy its Cruise missiles and overstep the bounds which existed within the SALT II agreement.
Let us look at the spectacle of a Government in the United States which has admitted that it lied to its own people. It is now sending its representatives throughout the world and is trying to persuade us, the allies of the United States, that we should reject the ABM Treaty as it was established in 1972. Again, that was one of the basic points of stability, one of those few threads that saved us from further escalation in the potential for nuclear war. Let us talk about Reykjavik and what appeared to be an agreement which was reached and very quickly repudiated by the United States.
Let us talk about the initiative taken by the Soviet Union to put a ban on nuclear testing. We may have thought that this was some type of trick on the part of the Soviet Union. But surely anybody who looked with care at what was taking place had to come to the conclusion that this was a sincere gesture that suggested to us that if the United States responded there could be a nuclear test ban treaty. Yet that too was rejected.
With the type of steps that have taken place in the past year and a half, it is time for us to recognize reality and to recognize that the thrust throughout this period has been toward escalation, and not toward disarmament. Running implicitly through that thrust is the tremendous amount of resources that have been allocated by the United States to the Strategic Defence Initiative within the United States, and the nibbling effects and attempts by the United States to circumvent the
March 6, 1987

ABM Treaty and to put in place some elements of that SDI system for testing purposes. That is what has taken place.
Yet Canada stood aside while this has gone on. Our words have been good. I previously mentioned to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that I was pleased that the decision was taken not to put Canada into SDI as a full partner. There were steps taken to say to the United States, not out of spite or out of anger or adolescent retribution but as part of a serious effort on the part of this country, that we wanted to put into effect the commitment of our young people, our Brownie packs and those girls who have written to me from Essex County, and the commitment that we heard right across this country from the joint special committee which looked at our international relations. In city after city we heard from peace groups that had come together in the middle of the summer under difficult circumstances and said to us, as passionately as they possibly could, "We want Canada to be a peacemaker. We want Canada to be a leader in the fight for peace. We want Canada to challenge those who are not prepared to give their priority to a peaceful world for the future".
That challenge has not been taken up. With the case of Cruise missile testing, a simple, easy, and straightforward message could be sent to the United States, without great cost to that country, without great cost to the alliance system, or without great cost to United States' thinking or its overwhelming concern about security. A step could be taken. Cruise missile testing could be stopped easily. It could be stopped at once, which would have an effect. The effect would not be to stop the arms race. The effect would not be to cause immediate changeovers in American thinking from escalation to disarmament. It has taken, instead, some quite creative and courageous gestures on the part of the Soviet Union-and I am not afraid to say so-to take that direction in the future. It has also taken a much weaker President within the United States looking for ways to respond, to get the direction of change finally shifted. It could have been helped. It could have been assisted. We in this country could have given it a little push. We could have listened to young people across the country who have talked to us in heartfelt and very deeply concerned terms. We could have said no to future Cruise testing.
If we had done that, it would have helped. We could have taken, as our motion suggests, a much more critical position vis-a-vis the United States in respect of its attempts to overstep SALT II. We could have taken a much more argumentative position in respect of the ABM Treaty in public than we have done thus far. We could have taken those steps.
In doing that, we would have made the contribution for which our young people are asking. I am referring to the contribution believed in very strongly by the generation that came after World War II and that believes that any future war will destroy the world. I hope not just this Government across
Supply
the aisle but future Governments will take the opportunities given to them.
I urge my friends on all sides of the House to take the opportunity provided by the resolution, which strongly expresses the passionate concern of our young people, to put their voices and votes behind the resolution and to give it support, not as a panacea or a final answer, but as something which will help change the dangerous escalation of the present to what I hope will be the disarmament of the future.


Mr. Crofton:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and a question for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). He alluded to the Joint Committee on External Affairs, which travelled the country and listened to many Canadians from all walks of life, making representations on the matter of arms control, disarmament, and SDI. I happen to have been a member of that same committee. I heard the same representations. In many instances they were very informed; occasionally they were not so informed. However, on every occasion we heard feelings that were deeply felt. They asked Canada to show leadership and to show responsibility.
When the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) made her opening remarks today, she said that Canada should stop playing at spectator sports. I suggest that the resolution before us indeed invites Canada to stay at home and be a "no show". Canada is indeed a participant and has worked very hard, in all forums available to it, toward disarmament.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor said that it was time for reality. I suggest to him that he and his Party sometimes show a remarkable lack of reality. I, for one, am not prepared to declare our neighbourhood burglar-free. It is only common prudence if one takes appropriate measures to ensure our security as a nation.
People in the country belong to associations and unions because it makes for a more effective voice. Is he suggesting that they should not belong to unions if they want to make a better argument and have more strength? I think not. Indeed I think his observations lack some reality.
If ever there were a wrong time for Canada to send the wrong signal to the wrong group, it would be to break our agreement arbitrarily on the testing of the Cruise missile at this time. Can he stand in his place and honestly say that Canada's taking that action would not have an adverse effect upon the negotiations and would not undermine the position of the United States in these very difficult times?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I stress again to the Hon. Member, for whom I have great respect and with whom I have discussed many of these issues in the course of many hearings across the country during the summer, that our goal as Canadian parliamentarians cannot be to think in terms of what will help the United States in these difficult times.
Our goal-and I believe it passionately-should be to try to work as hard as we can for world peace. Often I think that this

March 6, 1987
Supply
can involve us in work with the United States. 1 am not one of those people who buys the argument that the United States is some kind of malevolent nation ruled by a Dr. Strangelove who is somehow attempting to dominate the world.
We are talking about a very difficult process to try to take us toward greater peace. I agree with the Hon. Member that greater peace or greater disarmament is not something which will wipe nuclear weapons off the face of the earth in a year and a half or something like that. That is not realism.
As I see it, realism is the attempt to respond to what many young people across the country want-a leadership role for Canada which takes us as urgently as possible in the direction of disarmament.
I am quite willing to answer the Hon. Member's final question by saying yes. If we were to say to the United States that it is now time for disarmament to be the first priority for all of us in North America, and for that reason we are cancelling the Cruise testing program, that would be a positive contribution toward peace in the world.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). The Member talked with some passion. I am sure he is sincere about his desire to participate in the debate that would lead to peace in the world. He talked earlier in his remarks about receiving letters from young children who said they wanted a more peaceful, safer world. 1 hope the Member in making those remarks realizes and appreciates, as I do, that on the question of peace and on the question of wanting security for ourselves, for families and for the community of nations, there is not a single Member of this House of whatever political stripe marked across his back who has a monopoly. It is not a monopoly that the Liberal Party enjoys, it is not a monopoly that the Conservative Party enjoys, and it is not a monopoly that the New Democratic Party enjoys. All of us aspire to that kind of safe and secure world. The question then becomes, how do we achieve it? I would submit to my friend from Essex- Windsor that it is not good enough to stand on any given day on any given subject and say, it is what the people want today, therefore, we should do it. The polls tell us almost consistently that people want capital punishment, but I do not believe the Hon. Member or his Party wants capital punishment. The polls tell us that the majority at least of people want on any given day a ban on abortion, but I notice the Hon. Member and his Party do not seek to put that forward as public policy, at least not as NDP policy.
It is the job of parliamentarians of whatever Party to examine all of the information available, to be concerned with what public opinion and what public feeling is and, having all of that information available to us as full-time public policy makers-not as people who get the news on Friday night and suddenly develop an opinion-to come to the House with what we believe to be a responsible proposal. I submit that members of the Liberal Party and members of the New Democratic
Party have in common a desire to see an end to all nuclear weapons and have a common desire to see the day when the Cruise missile is no longer tested in Canada. We all have that desire.


Mr. Witer:: Or anywhere else.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Or anywhere else. We all have that desire. The question then becomes, what is our role in achieving that objective? Where I think the New Democratic Party historically, and again today true to its tradition, has failed in its attempt to participate in that process is that it seeks to close the door upon itself, to ignore Canada's relationship in the community of nations, to set a policy, a wish list, of how the world ought to be, and to send that message beaming like some signal into space in the hope that it will find intelligent life at the other end. It is not going to find intelligent life at the other unless it is hooked up to organizations and associations that allow it to communicate with its partners on the planet earth, particularly those people in the western alliance.
My passion for peace is as great as the member's-I know he would not doubt that. I have three children also, one seven, one four and one four months old, and I want to see them all grow up, and I also want to see my grandchildren. I want to do what is right, not just for my constituents and what they say today, but what is right for them. It is more than a vote at stake, it is the continuation of the planet that is at stake.
What is the position of the New Democratic Party? What is the Member's position with respect to Canada's role in NATO, Canada's bilateral treaties and, in particular, NORAD? Does the member not believe that our influence can best be felt when we are an active and independent sovereign member of those western alliances? If he shares my view, why will his Party not accept the Liberal amendment which acknowledges Canada's role in those western organizations?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief in answering the question. First, I want to say to my hon. colleague and to all colleagues in the House that I do not want to pretend, and I hope that nothing that I have said has suggested, that I feel that our Party or myself or any given group has a monopoly with respect to being concerned with peace. The reason I put the position that I put as strongly as I possibly could is that I want to persuade as many people as I possibly can to take the concerns of our young people, not because they are somehow the majority in our constituencies, but because they are the people who will carry this world on beyond us for peace very seriously. But a tough intellectual question has to be faced, namely, what is happening in the whole arms control process?


An Hon. Member:: 


Steven W. Langdon: Are we heading toward escalation, as so much of the last few years suggest to me-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are avoiding the question.
March 6, 1987


Steven W. Langdon: or-I will come to the question too-are we in fact heading toward disarmament? I have to say, as I look at the way the world has evolved, that we are heading very much toward escalation. That is something that Canada should have fought vigorously and should fight vigorously.
With respect to NATO, which is not part of this debate or this motion-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You cannot separate them.


Steven W. Langdon: -I am quite willing to answer the question. 1 am not sure whether the member was here when I dealt with it in my speech, but I said that if it becomes a choice between working for peace and defending an alliance, one has to work for peace as the first priority.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What about right now?


Steven W. Langdon: I believe right now, with my Party, that to work for peace requires us to put distance between ourselves and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That is a decision which we have held for many years, as the Hon. Member knows.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I seek unanimous consent of the House to let the member continue explaining his position with respect to NATO? We have not had this on the record in the House. All members from all Parties, I believe, would give consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Pauline Jewett: We have heard it 100 times.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent. Debate. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this has to be the most amazing thing that Members of Parliament have ever witnessed. Members of Parliament assembled for debate initiated by the New Democratic Party from both the Conservative and Liberal Parties have just given unanimous consent to the New Democratic Party for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) to tell the House his Party's position on NATO so that we could understand the context in which this resolution was put forward. Let the record show that every Conservative Member and every Liberal Member gave the required unanimous consent. But a member of the New Democratic Party said no.


Pauline Jewett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is not true.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I do not need to reflect on who said no and where it came from, but I heard a no and I do not think there is any other explanation.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are not exactly a large contingent at this stage of the proceedings on a Friday afternoon. I certainly did not hear anyone from our caucus object to it, so I suggest that the Hon. Member put the question again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not wish to reflect on who said no. I heard a no. Therefore, the Hon. Member is on debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Of course, the Speaker is right as he always is. It does not matter ultimately at the end of the day who said no. Let me only say, as I am entitled to, that it is with great regret that I heard from whichever direction I heard it, but my left ear picked it up best, the "no" that was shouted out because I was looking forward to hearing finally from a member of the New Democratic Party indeed what the Party's position was with respect to Canada's obligations under NATO and other bilateral treaties.
There is an interesting phenomenon in Canadian politics. In Canada, we have a system of the two traditional Parties which have put forward policy, postulated on the solutions to the problems of the nation at any given point in time, and engaged in vigorous debate while a third Party has sat on the sidelines with a pea-shooter in an attempt to score quick, easy, cheap points. In recent days, for whatever reasons-and I won't go into them-this Party has found itself with a slight surge in the public opinion polls. Today is as good a time as any for Canadians to begin to ask themselves what it is this Party stands for.
For far too long, Canadians have taken the view that it does not really matter what members of the New Democratic Party stand for because they will never be in a position to do anything about it anyway. They do not look that closely at what it is they stand for because Canadians have traditionally taken the view that the NDP has a Utopian view of the planet, everything for everybody, a carrot for everyone, and what they stand for is not really that important. Unfortunately, this Party picked a Friday to move this motion, a day not traditionally known as one for a great membership in this place. They picked a moment when the Leader of their Party could not be here. One must understand that he had other more pressing and realistic engagements to attend to.
I said a moment ago, and it ought to be restated, that as much as I as a Liberal disagree with my friends opposite about unemployment initiatives, I must believe that as human beings, they care fundamentally about the unemployed. They may be awfully stunned about how they are trying to cure the problem, but I have to believe they care. As much as I may be concerned about peace on this planet and as much as I may believe from time to time that their policies are not the right ones, I must believe that they care about every man, woman

March 6, 1987
Supply
and child in Canada. We may agree to disagree on how we come to grips with many of the problems we face, be they social, military or economic, but all of us are here perhaps pursuing different policies but ultimately trying to achieve the same objective.
What I find offensive-yes, offensive-about the motion put forward by the member of the New Democratic Party is that it was almost blinding to watch members of the New Democratic Party deliver their presentations on this motion because the effect of the haloes they were wearing would nearly knock your eyes out, Mr. Speaker, It is the holier-than-thou attitude that says: "We can create in this nation an island apart and separate from the rest of the planet earth, and because, having carved a trench so deep and wide around this nation that the rest of the world does not matter, we can speak out, send out our message, express our Utopian vision and the rest of the world will listen". It is that kind of naive, narrow quality that emanates from members of the New Democratic Party that is either the function of a childlike, beautifully innocent view of the world, God bless them, or a kind of insidious simplifying of complex issues in an attempt to attract votes. It is one or the other, either a childlike beauty in their thinking, and may they retain it for a long time, or a deliberate attempt to grab the polls on any given day and say they have a policy to solve world problems and express it by way of resolution in the House. I suspect it is the latter.
The fact is that every Member of Parliament wants to see an end to Cruise missile testing in an appropriate fashion within the context of our obligations under NATO and NORAD and to our partners in the western alliance. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, if we go beyond the stereotypes painted by members of the New Democratic Party of Conservative or Liberal Members, that in the appropriate context, even the Conservative Party would find an appropriate moment to end Cruise missile testing when it makes sense in the context of our obligations. However, this motion sets Canada up as some widget existing on some unknown planet that has no neighbours, alliances, organizations or treaties to worry about, and that is not reality. That is why the Liberal Party moved a very simple amendment to the motion of the New Democratic Party about which members of the New Democratic Party claim they care. It was an amendment that said that disarmament measures including the termination of Cruise missile testing in Canada should be taken in a manner consistent with our NATO and bilateral obligations.
If members of the New Democratic Party were sincere and meant what they said, if they were serious about convincing more people in Canada to look at grasping the opportunity when appropriate to end Cruise missile testing, they would support the Liberal amendment that was put today because it does not negate their motion. It merely asks that we grow up and recognize that we are not an island unto ourselves. It is an amendment that asks that we recognize that we are full players in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is an amendment that asks that we recognize that we are part of the
NORAD agreement, and one that asks that we recognize the nature, reality and history of the planet earth, as imperfect as it is, on which we live. That is all it is. It is an amendment that proves that we are now out of the university debating club and into the House of Commons, a part of the real world that takes us beyond fantasy. That is all it is. We asked the NDP to support that amendment. Yes, all Members of Parliament want to give voice to their desire to achieve a safer world. However, our actions have to be more than empty words and rhetoric. They have to be meaningful. To be meaningful they must be taken in the context of our obligations to NATO and our neighbour to the south.
There is something which occurs in this place far too often and it troubles me. Some Liberals and Conservatives are guilty of this, but it is primarily Members of Parliament from the NDP who have a hard time making a distinction between a disagreement with U.S. policy on any given day of the week, and expressing an overwhelming and general dislike for the U.S. No one can be brought to his feet faster in a fit of frustration than this hon. servant from Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe when a tariff is put on fish. No one can express quicker his frustration and anger when cedar shakes and shingles, softwood lumber and countless other products are harassed by the U.S. administration. However, I make the distinction between U.S. policy on trade or, for that matter, any other area, and my frustration and anger at that policy, and my sentiments about my neighbour, that nation south of the border. Too few members are making that distinction. We have heard the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) say he is not one of those who believes that the U.S. is some kind of sleeping giant being run by a Goldfinger in the back room. I am glad to hear that because too many members of his caucus have and express that view.
The motion before us as amended expresses the concern of the House with the role of the air-launched Cruise missile and its deployment as a violation of SALT limits. The motion expresses the concern of the House about the integrity of the ABM Treaty. It calls upon the Government of Canada to adopt stronger measures to protect the integrity of SALT II and the ABM Treaty, including cancellation of Cruise missile testing within Canada's obligations as a member of NATO and under our other bilateral treaties. That is the amended motion before the House. I submit that every single Member of Parliament can and should be able to support it. I say that not only to my friends in the NDP, I say it to Members of the Conservative majority. It merely expresses the will of this Parliament to use all of those vehicles at our disposal, within the bounds of our responsibilities and obligations, to try to play a role and exert some influence in this world. The words we have added to the motion remind us of our obligation and take us back to the real world. Canada is but one of many players. We like to believe, as we sit in this place enraptured by the splendour of our chandeliers, television lights and stained glass windows, that this is the only Parliament on the planet. The
March 6, 1987

NDP would say that this is so. Everywhere around the world people are tuned to what is being said in the Parliament of Canada and there are no other voices and no other Parliaments. All we have to do is but to speak and megamillions stand up and applaud. Well, that is not the real world. That is not the planet we live on. That is not the way it works.
Unless this nation is prepared to play its role in the treaty organizations we belong to, we may as well abstain from the international arms debate. That is what the NDP would have us do. That is its policy as spelled out at its convention and spelled out by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor today. The NDP believe the best way that Canada can have a say and exert influence is to withdraw from NATO. Let Canadians from coast to coast hear that. That is its policy. It is also its policy that we withdraw from NORAD. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has said it for the first time, I think, in years in this Parliament.
The reason this motion is put before the House today and the reason the NDP has rejected our amendment is that that Party wants to make this House and its members turn Canada into an isolationist, pacifist nation of philosophical angels wandering about in the clouds miles above what is really happening down here on the planet. It is a wonderful place we want to preserve, but it has some warts, and wishing them away will not make them disappear. I beseech members to support the Liberal amendment to this motion


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for his statements about the NDP. He was very clear and direct, and I want to thank him. I would also like to ask him where he thinks that Party places its faith. The NDP certainly does not place it in our NATO or NORAD allies. Perhaps it places it with the other side, the Soviet Union. That regime would not permit a man suffering from cancer for over six years to leave that country. How can we possibly trust a regime like that in disarmament talks when we cannot trust them to follow the basic human rights accords they have signed? If the NDP does not put its faith in the teamwork of democracy, where does the Hon. Member think it is placing its faith?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and comments, although I suspect I may disappoint him slightly. You have to believe one of two things about members of the NDP. Either they are as childlike in their view of this world as they portray themselves to be and are genuine about it, or they are very Machiavellian. I do not believe they can possibly be that Machiavellian, so I assign to them a childlike beauty in their view of the world. I would not want to suggest, as the Hon. Member might lead me to suggest, that the NDP would put its faith in the Soviet Union. I would not want the Member to believe, despite my comments about the NDP, that I think the role for Canada is to follow in a slavish manner the lead of the U.S. Nor should we follow in a slavish
Supply
manner the lead of the U.S. Nor should we in a slavish manner always condemn the Soviet Union. I think the role for Canada is to take an independent course, to be slavish neither to our NATO allies, nor to be bound in some doctrinaire way to suspect or condemn always the initiatives of the Soviet Union. Our role is to stay in the game, as frustrating and as tough as it is. As angry as we may get on some days with our NATO partners, we can only have a role to play if we are in the game.
The New Democratic Party motion and its policy to get out of NATO and NORAD and set itself up as the high priest of honesty and integrity is the equivalent of myself, the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, not being satisfied that I am heard properly in this place, going to a mountain top to talk to myself and be satisfied because no one disagrees with me. The NDP would have us go to the mountain top, talk to ourselves and listen with pleasure to our own echoes because no one disagrees with us.


Ms. Mitchell:: What is your position on the Cruise?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I rise today simply to say to members of the New Democratic Party that if they are serious about this motion and making progress, they should lend support to the amendment put by my Leader which would ask us to play a mature and responsible role in the world. If the NDP were truly interested in an improved world, rather than making a flamboyant statement, it will lend support to this amendment.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Hon. Member. What is his position and the position of his Party on Cruise missile testing in Canada? Does he support nuclear weapons and the original agreement that was introduced by Mr. Trudeau in the last Parliament?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the position of this Member is that Canada is a full-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Do you support Cruise missile testing?


Brian Vincent Tobin: As I said, the Member would be happiest on the mountain top where she could hear her own echo. She does not want me to give an answer. That is a common problem among members of her Party. If she will listen quietly, I will give her an answer.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes or no.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Member says: "Yes or no". This is not a yes or no planet. It is not black and white.
The answer is that as part of its commitment to our partners in the western alliance, particularly with our partners south of the border, Canada has engaged in a testing program of a guidance system for a Cruise missile. We signed an agreement in 1983, and as long as Canada can use that access to Canadian space as a means of exerting influence on our partner south of the border, we ought to use it.

March 6, 1987
Supply
When it becomes clear that the current initiative on Euromissiles is not making progress or that our partner south of the border is not acting sincerely and seriously, Canada ought to exercise its option to put an end to those tests.
The member can criticize the Government on free trade, or for giving up the NEP, Investment Canada and many other things for nothing in return. If she suggests that Canada, as a member of NATO, ought to cancel the Cruise for nothing in return, then the member is hardly being consistent in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have terminated. Debate.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate, if only for one and a half minutes. Last week I received a letter from one of my constituents, Patricia E. McGuil, who protested against the Cruise missile tests and wanted her protest put on the record of the proceedings of the House of Commons. The same afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I received nine telephone calls. Not many perhaps, except that even a single protest in my riding is important and deserves consideration.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about armament or disarmament, we are tempted to consider every possible solution under the sun, and I think everyone wants to have the widest possible range of solutions open to public scrutiny.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am against capital punishment, but that does not mean I want to see murderers walking down Main Street. That is why we must go beneath the surface and take a serious look at issues like Canada's participation in the NATO Alliance and the cruise missiles, especially in a country-and I think this is very important-that has no nuclear missiles on its territory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4.45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply in accordance with Standing Order 82(9). The question is the following one: Ms. Jewett, seconded by Mr. Nystrom, moved:
That this House, alarmed by the role of air-launched Cruise Missile deployment in violation of SALT limits and alarmed by threats to the integrity of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, aware also of the possibility of a negotiated elimination of all medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, calls for strong initiatives by the government to strengthen arms control and disarmament measures including the termination of Cruise Missile testing in Canada.
In amendment thereto Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Johnston, moved:
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end of the motion to a comma and adding the following: "in a manner consistent with Canada's NATO and bilateral obligations".
The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), a recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m., Monday, March 9, 1987.
It being 4.47 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1)


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 9, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers