1987-11-18

Mr. Jean-Ciaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: In
Montreal last week, Mr. Speaker, Mayor Jean Dore told the Quebec media that the City of Montreal and the municipal administration will not accept unfair treatment with respect to Montreal Old Port development and renovation.
Mr. Dore recalled that Toronto and Vancouver had received $140 million to help develop their old ports, and the mayor of Montreal stated that he would accept nothing less.
Current rumour has it that the federal Government will earmark only $39 million for the development of Montreal's Old Port. I would therefore urge the Conservative Members of the Montreal metropolitan area to bring pressure to bear on the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion so that Montreal may get its fair share, $140 million.
* *
*


WORLD ENERGY CONFERENCE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the World Energy Conference was founded in 1924 to study energy problems in both national and global contexts. It has 80 member countries. The world organization is headquartered in London and the active Canadian branch has its head office here in Ottawa.
It is an honour to Canada that the incoming Chairman of the International Executive Council is Mr. John Foster, former President of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Also,
Canada's position in the forefront of world energy developments has been recognized in the choice of Montreal as the site of the fourteenth congress of the World Energy Conference to be held in September, 1989, when the theme will be "Energy for Tomorrow".
Blessed with abundant reserves of hydrocarbons, coal, uranium, and hydro, Canada is well placed to reap future energy benefits.
* *
*


ETHANOL BLENDED FUEL
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources' discussion paper on oxygenated fuels confirms that 10 per cent ethanol blends are equivalent or even superior to gasoline, and that this fuel is environmentally safe and clean.
Ethanol, if properly promoted, will provide a market for surplus Canadian grains and forest wastes. Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba now have incentive programs in place for this fuel and we must ask what action we can expect from the federal Government to promote the development of this fuel in Canada.
In the meantime, why has Petro-Canada joined with other major oil companies in denouncing fuel ethanol when studies, including the Minister's own, have shown otherwise? Should not Canada's national liquid energy company be supporting ethanol development, particularly when it is using ethanol to fuel the torches in its Olympic torch relay?


TAX REFORM
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, in Le Devoir, a taxpayer described how unfairly she was treated by our tax system. This woman, separated since 1983, is fully responsible for and has custody of her daughter. Her estranged spouse has custody of their second child and is financially responsible for

November 18, 1987
that child. This seems to be a sensible couple, where both parties have agreed to share their parental responsibilities equally. And how are they being treated under our tax system?
This woman always gives the father the family allowance payment she receives for her son. She does not claim any deductions for this child because she is not financially responsible for that child. And now Revenue Canada is asking her to pay $1,089. Why? Because her file was reviewed and the tax credit granted for the child not in her custody has to go to her since she receives the family allowance cheques.
Mr. Speaker, this tax credit is granted on the basis of family income. Revenue Canada reviewed this woman's income tax returns while also taking into account her estranged husband's income, an income that is not hers-in fact she didn't even know how much it was. It is incredible that this taxpayer should be forced to avail herself of a right that costs her more than $1,000. What did the tax reform do for those who take their parental responsibilities seriously? This is an anachronism in a society where divorce and separation are common and where it is essential that fathers shoulder their share of the responsibility for their children.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Bloomfield Station post office closed its doors for the last time on October 31.
Bloomfield Station is a small community of some 50 households in my riding. When the acting post mistress resigned, Canada Post took the opportunity to implement changes according to its 1986 corporate plan.
I have no quarrel with progressive change, especially when it will save millions of tax dollars, but Canada Post could not and did not fulfil all of its obligations to this community.
The residents must now make a 30-kilometre round trip to get retail counter service. I do not feel this is right. Canada Post should not close rural post offices unless it can ensure that the residents will have retail service at their disposal.
If rural post offices are to be closed, then the postal corporation should be obligated to provide some type of alternate retail service within the community.
Closing rural post offices without providing alternate retail service is unfair to rural Canadians.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GREAT LAKES PORTS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, this week the International Association of Great Lakes Ports is holding meetings here in Ottawa. This association, which comprises representatives from all of the ports situated in and around the Great Lakes, on both sides of the border, is a dynamic and influential group doing everything it can to make both the Canadian and U.S. Governments understand the desperate situation of the maritime industry along North America's fifth sea-coast.
Led by Jim Hill of the Port of Thunder Bay and Davis Heiberg of the Port of Duluth, they are trying to point out that the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system is facing a great many obstacles to its continued viability. While some of these obstacles are the result of changing international economic conditions, and are not ultimately within our control, many others are the direct result of Canadian government policies implemented both by the present Government and the previous Liberal Government. They are policies which are, quite frankly, pricing the Seaway system out of existence. I am speaking of such things as elements of the Western Grain Transportation Act, inequitable distribution of grain by the Wheat Board, tolls, fees and pilotage charges, marketing of the system, and the list goes on.
I want to encourage all Members of the House to listen very closely to the voices of the IAGLP which is raising matters which are of the greatest concern not just to eastern Canada and the shipping industry but to our country and our whole economy.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the 69th anniversary of the Proclamation of Independence by the nation of Latvia. On November 18, 1918, after years of occupation by Tsarist Russia, Latvians united to create a sovereign and democratic republic. That treasured status perished when the Soviet Union invaded and occupied this Baltic country in 1940.
In commemorating this event, Latvians around the world are paying tribute to the brave and independent spirit of their nation. In spite of Soviet threats of reprisal, Latvians in Riga are rallying at the Latvian Statue of Liberty, and a sympathetic demonstration is scheduled at the former Latvian Legation in Moscow.
November 18, 1987

I have just received reports that three Latvian demonstrators have been arrested. Telephone lines used by the foreign press have been cut off and the CBC has been refused permission to travel to Riga.
Today the Latvian community in Canada invites all Canadians to join with them in commemorating the spirit of independence, and in demonstrating their desire for liberty and justice in their homeland.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON POLYESTER YARN MILL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, 1 received a letter in the mail which really confirms just how lousy the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) free trade deal is. It reads as follows:
This letter is written objecting to the planned agreement on free trade with the U.S.A.
You are familiar with our operation on Cameron Street in Hawkesbury at which we produce textured polyester yarn in a modern plant with excellent high-speed equipment. Should total free trade with the U.S.A. be placed in effect, we beyond doubt will have to close our plant in Hawkesbury.
We could not possibly compete with firms in the U.S.A., one of which presently produces in excess of five million pounds weekly. Our production in Hawkesbury is approximately 200,000 pounds weekly.
This letter was sent to me by the Texturon Mill in Hawkesbury. Less than 50 miles from Parliament Hill, plants will be shut down as a result of this lousy free trade deal. The Prime Minister should be ashamed of his deal. He should be ashamed to ruin the livelihood of my constituents.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is leading the fight against acid rain. The Government has implemented a series of programs that will drastically reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from the largest Canadian sources by up to 45 per cent by the year 2000. In regard to protocol, it is the Government's belief that all countries should immediately freeze their nitrogen oxide emissions.
Second, decisions should be reached quickly on the level of nitrogen oxide that cause environmental damage in each region. Once those target levels or "critical loads" are identified, each country should ensure that nitrogen oxide emissions do not exceed those levels.
Our Government has implemented one of the strongest nitrogen oxide control programs in the world. For mobile
sources, the elements of the program include, amongst others, anti-tampering and misfueling programs for vehicles in Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland, and virtual elimination of leaded gas by 1992. All 1988 cars and light trucks will be subject to three times stricter emission control than before.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has been relentless in his efforts to convince everyone of the dangers of acid rain. For that, and the strict standards he has implemented, he is to be congratulated.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I was most pleased to read this morning in the paper that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has finally lived up to his promise and set up a pension plan for workers in his former riding of Central Nova. At the same time I would like to ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) what happened to their promise for older workers in the financial statement of November, 1985.
There is a woman in my riding who, under the previous Liberal administration, would have been eligible for a pension when a clothing factory ceased to operate. She lived up to all the requirements of the Labour Adjustments Benefits Program. However, because the Government cut the program she does not receive a penny.
The Government promised it was going to replace the program with a new program for older workers. What is good for the older workers in Central Nova should be good for the older workers across Canada. I ask the Prime Minister to live up to his promise to every older worker, not just the workers in his former riding.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with Hon. Members a most gratifying experience. After an agreement in principle on free trade was signed by Canada and United States, I decided to explain the facts of the matter to my constituents, using the information material prepared for the House of Commons. I set up a temporary office in a mobile booth that goes to the three main shopping centres in my riding. This gives me a chance to meet with my constituents and discuss free trade and any other questions they care to bring up.

November 18, 1987
Oral Questions
People's reactions have been very positive. In fact, I am especially pleased to have a chance to correct the false allegations being made by the Opposition with respect to free trade. When the issues are properly explained, people quickly understand the advantages of this free trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will do likewise and that the Opposition will finally stop its political rhetoric and tell the truth about this historic project we have undertaken here in Canada.

[DOT] (MI5)


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, today I stand to defend those elected officials and other individuals who are being attacked by the Government. In its desperate attempt to sell the Conservative trade deal the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have been attacking their opponents and fanning regional animosities.
In 1984 the Prime Minister came to power preaching national reconciliation. We now see him fueling the flames of regional hatred. The Prime Minister has accused those who are against his trade deal of being against the economic wellbeing of the less fortunate economic regions of the country.
When questions were raised in the House of Commons about the Auditor General's Report and regional development grants being issued to the West Edmonton Mall, the questioners were accused of being against the economic interests of western Canada.
Accusations such as this made by the Prime Minister and by his cohorts are entirely unfounded. The Prime Minister speaks out against people from Ontario. His Ministers attack personally the Premiers of those provinces which oppose his deal. Where is the civility that we used to hear about? Where has national reconciliation disappeared?


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF NDPLEADER
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, as the debate on free trade continues I believe many Canadians must find it passing strange that the gurus of doom and gloom, people such as the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and
Bob White, have an atrocious record of forecasting job losses or new job creation.
They were against the Auto Pact when it was signed. The Auto Pact has brought unprecedented wealth and job creation to Ontario. It has created jobs in other regions.
The NDP Leader was against the privatization of de Havilland whose prospects have never looked better. Over
1,000	jobs have been added since its sale.
When the Linance Minister announced his new directions for Canada in November of 1984 the Leader of the NDP predicted the loss of thousands of jobs.
You know, Mr. Speaker, over almost 1 million jobs have been created.
A recent quote from an article stated this:
Oshawa drops right off the unemployment map. The healthy job situation in Oshawa may prove somewhat embarrassing to the federal NDP Leader Ed Broadbent who represents the city. The present situation makes it tough for him to persuade his constituents that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney didn't live up to his "jobs, jobs, jobs" election promise.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The news service Agence France Presse has reported that France has decided for the first time in history to deploy full-time French naval vessels on patrol off the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon to "establish a military presence in French waters".
According to the report the French naval vessel La Centaure will be the first to patrol the waters off St. Pierre and Miquelon from December 3 to January 13. This vessel will be followed by additional vessels of the French navy after it returns to France.
In light of the breakdown of the Canada-France fish talks, and in light of the Minister of Transport's commitment in this House on October 29 when he stated:
-if they go fishing one iota, one jot, one tittle outside the disputed zone, we will arrest their vessels just as we arrest the vessels of other countries.
In light of those facts, does the Government now consider the deployment of the French naval vessel La Centaure as an act of provocation? If so, what is the Government going to do about it?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, France has a perfect right, as the Hon. Member
November 18, 1987

should know, to send patrol vessels out to patrol the disputed waters in 3PS, or to accompany its fishing fleet. There is nothing strange or startling about that. We certainly do not regard it as a provocation; the same as there is no provocation when Canada sends its own vessels out to accompany our own fishing vessels, or to perform whatever services they perform. There is no provocation here, nor is any provocation meant, nor do we take it to be a provocation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We don't believe you one jot.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF JAPANESE PARLIAMENTARIAN, MR. HIROSHI OHK1
Mr. Speaker:: I hope the Hon. Member will forgive the Speaker for interrupting his lead question. However, we have a distinguished guest here who must leave shortly.
I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Hiroshi Ohki, Chairman of the Commerce and Industry Committee of the Upper House of the Diet of Japan and Member of the House of Councillors.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Last month the Prime Minister of France, Jacques Chirac, announced that French fishermen will now illegally take at least 36,000 tonnes of fish in Canadian waters, and that French fishermen will operate, to use his words, "under the best possible security conditions".
When asked about it by the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Transport stated, with respect to Prime Minister Chirac, that there has been no threat from the Prime Minister of France.
In light of the news today that a French naval vessel for the first time in history will permanently be deployed off the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, in light of the French Prime Minister's statement that France will take 36,000 tonnes of fish illegally under the best possible security conditions, when will the Minister of Transport wake up and realize that Canada is being turned into an international wimp? Will he wait until his home in St. John's West has been
Oral Questions
claimed by France as part of St. Pierre and Miquelon's 200-mile limit, or will he act now?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, where is the Member for Gander-Twillingate when he is needed? I regret very much that he is not here today to make something out of this piece of froth and puffery that the hon. gentleman is huffing and puffing about.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Some sovereignty.


John Carnell Crosbie: I might point out that at no time has the French Prime Minister stated that France will take 36,000 tonnes of fish or cod in the disputed zone this year. He has never stated that. The Hon. Member opposite cannot show that having been stated by the Prime Minister. It is a figment of his imagination, or a piece of conjuring by him.
The Hon. Member's Government, when he was a member here of the previous Government, entered into an agreement with France where we both agreed that in the disputed waters-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not one tittle, not one jot.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. lady can squeal as much as she likes, but it will not change the situation vis-a-vis France. It is not frightened by her interjections, and neither am I.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman's Government entered into an agreement with France wherein we both agreed that we would not interfere with the vessels of the other in the disputed waters, or board those vessels, or otherwise accost them. That agreement is still in effect.
i do not know where this appellation of wimp comes in, Mr. Speaker. We did not call them wimps. We had a better description of them, which I cannot use here out of politeness.


EFFECT OF REPORT ON CANADA-FRANCE DISCUSSIONS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for St. John's West paid as much attention to the French Prime Minister as he does to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, then Newfoundlanders might begin to expect that this Minister would put aside his body by Fisher and tongue by Gillette and take this matter seriously in the House of Commons.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right on.


Brian Vincent Tobin: France has been illegally fishing Canadian waters and denying Canadian fishermen their livelihood.
They threatened to catch 36,000 metric tonnes of fish illegally. They promised the best possible security conditions. They have now established, for the first time in history, a French naval presence off the East Coast of Canada, and this

November 18, 1987
Oral Questions
Minister says that he has no concern. This Minister should be fired from Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will be in touch with the Government of France, specifically the French Prime Minister, Mr. Chirac, and tell him that this kind of provocative action in the face of a breakdown of fish talks will not result in a positive conclusion of these talks and is unacceptable to Canada. Will he do that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the "good cops-bad cops" game with the hon. gentleman from Newfoundland; suffice it to say that one of the problems with the country is that there are too many policemen in the country, in some people's view.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: That will get you a two out of ten.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want Members of the House to become alarmed. There has been no change in the relationship between this country and France. There have been negotiations which took place just a week or so ago on the compromis. We are hoping that we will have a more positive response from the French Government in the next several weeks.
There has been no change. The French have been sending out patrol vessels to Newfoundland and Canadian waters now for some 400 years. There is no dramatic change.
It ill behooves the hon. gentleman to be crying wolf in the House when it is totally unnecessary.


EXPORT CONTROL POLICY-ALLEGED USE OF CANADIAN-MADE HELICOPTER PARTS BY IRAN
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. A year ago I raised in the House of Commons the issue of Iranian helicopters powered by Canadian-made motors. I would like to quote the answer of the Deputy Prime Minister at that time. As reported in the November 17, 1986 edition of Hansard, he said:
Where there is a clear case of spare parts being used for military purposes,
the export permit requests are turned down.
Now we know, a full year after this statement, that Iranian helicopters are still being deployed in the Persian Gulf. They are still in need of and they are still receiving made-in-Canada spare parts.
Why did the Government turn a blind eye to the shipments of Canadian-made parts that are being used militarily in one of the hottest conflict spots on the face of the earth? Why, at
the same time in so doing, did the Government give Canadians their own brand of Irangate?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is that we did not.
I have noted, as have other members of the Ministry, the report on Radio-Canada and CBC last night. To my knowledge all that has changed from last year to this year is that there has been a news report of an old story. Certainly there is no evidence in my possession-and if the Hon. Member has any, I would welcome receiving it-that there has been any shipping of Canadian parts for military purposes to Iran.
When the matter was raised last year I was in touch directly with officials at Pratt & Whitney. I think the House will join me in recognizing that Pratt & Whitney, although not obligated to do so by the law, took decisions to stop shipments to Iran from Canada for peaceful purposes that might be permitted under the law but that also might be subject to diversion to military purposes.
To my knowledge there is no shipment from Canada now. If the Hon. Member has evidence to the contrary, I would ask him to put it before us.


Jacques Guilbault: Certainly the Minister knows that these helicopters need Canadian parts to remain operational, and that is the problem.
[Translation}


ALLEGED EXPORT OF PARTS TO IRAN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would confirm that the Department of External Affairs has investigated these spare parts shipments that are getting to Iran. I wish the Minister would confirm that the Government refused to publish the report on this investigation, despite a request by the CBC under the Access to Information Act. I want to ask the Minister why the Government is refusing to publish this report. Why is the Government trying to cover up the report's conclusions? Why is the Government passing up this opportunity to take the kind of action that would save lives and reduce hostilities in the Persian Gulf?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Hon. Member for proof and I did not get any. He asked me for confirmation. I can confirm several things. First, I can confirm that our Government changed the legislation on exports to make the system far stricter than it was under the previous Liberal Government. That is one change we made. Second, I can confirm that 1 have no indication that Canadian goods are being delivered directly to Iran from Canada. Today, however, I have asked our ambassadors in countries where there may be diversion of Canadian commodities to seek information on how Canadian commodities are handled once they are outside Canada's
November 18, 1987

jurisdiction. As far as what goes on within Canada's jurisdiction, I have no proof to support the charges made last night and again today by the Hon. Member. If he has any evidence,
I hope he will realize he has a duty to disclose it.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday in response to a preliminary GATT ruling, the Minister then in British Columbia responded to the potential devastating effects of this decision on the fish processing industry by saying that he offered his assurances that "those jobs are not going to be jeopardized in any way".
I would like to ask the Minister, who uttered these encouraging words, does that mean if the final GATT decision is consistent with the preliminary decision that Canada will ignore it?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unwise to speculate to that extent at this point. I can assure the Hon. Member that the provisions of Canada's participation in GATT allow for export controls for the purpose of preserving security of supply, for ensuring adequacy of supply to plants and for the conservation of the resource. Many member nations of GATT take advantage of such export restrictions.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that the security of supply and security of resource are one kind of argument but a lawyer could perhaps make short shrift of that if the ultimate purpose is actually to have processing jobs in Canada, something which is totally defensible.
Will the Minister clarify once again what he said? Having gone to GATT to defend our position, as the Government has indicated it is going to do, and if we lose that decision, will the Minister live up to his commitment to make sure those jobs are protected by not agreeing with the final decision if it goes against us?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, there are many ways of dealing with the question in due time, but I can assure the Hon. Member and all who are concerned about this issue that a Government which spends over $100 million a year to manage and enhance the West Coast salmon and herring industry will not allow jobs, historically established, to be threatened by any such initiative.
Oral Questions


IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that it is one thing to say before a group of Canadian workers in their region that their jobs will be protected, but it is quite another thing to repeat that with equal assurance here in the House of Commons.
Therefore, 1 would like to ask the Minister for the third time, in order to live up to his commitment, will he make it very clear to the public of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, and not just to people in British Columbia to whom he was speaking yesterday, that he will implement his policy and not abide by that GATT decision if it goes against us?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is so skeptical at this point. I have given my assurance that both within our obligations under GATT and the free trade agreement with the United States there are provisions to ensure that adequate supply for reasons of production and conservation are reflected and quite appropriate for a nation, and we will take such measures.


AMERICAN COMPLAINT AGAINST CANADIAN FISH EXPORT REGULATIONS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. During two full years of negotiations, the Government has had numerous opportunities to get the Americans to withdraw their complaint against our fish export regulations.
Why did the Minister ignore this American complaint during the negotiations? Why did she fail to protect those thousands of jobs in our fish processing plants, not only in British Columbia but also in Atlantic Canada? Was the Minister so stuck on appeasing Washington that she turned a blind eye to what was going on in Geneva?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained at some length to the House, the proceeding in front of the GATT panel has nothing to do with the free trade agreement. I just wish that the Hon. Member could accept that.


George Roland Henderson: That is the problem with this free trade agreement they talk so much about. It has no protection for the fishery whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: What nonsense.


MINISTERIAL ACTION
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the Minister of Fisheries and the question asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The Minister seemed to be wimping out in his answer, saying one thing in British Columbia and another thing here in Ottawa.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is absolutely false.

November 18, 1987
Oral Questions


George Roland Henderson: I would like the Minister to answer very concisely just what action he intends to take. He had the glowing words that he said in British Columbia about what he is going to do and the power he has, but specifically will he tell the Canadian fish plant workers what action he will take if this ruling is upheld?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have listened diligently to questions both by the Hon. Member for Oshawa and the Hon. Member for Egmont. I would point out though that the questions are not only bordering on hypothetical but probably are. The Minister, of course, can answer if he wishes.


Thomas Edward Siddon: ye of little faith, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: O he of little faith, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Nothing that I have said in this House is inconsistent with what I or other members of this Government have said either in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada in recent days.
Many members of GATT use export controls to ensure adequate supply of raw material for their own domestic industries. I would even speculate that representatives of nations who sat on that GATT panel use such export controls. What we have here is a panel recommendation which will, in all likelihood, be overturned by the GATT council of which we are a member, and we will be opposing that recommendation when it reaches the GATT council.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's assurances sound suspiciously like the assurances we kept hearing in the softwood lumber deal, and we saw what happened as a result of that. All the time that the Canada-U.S. trade talks were taking place-


John Carnell Crosbie: Do you support GATT or not?


James Douglas Manly: -the Americans were staking a larger and larger claim to our resources by appealing to GATT against our export restrictions.
Why wasn't the U.S. appeal to GATT part of the trade negotiations while they were taking place? Why did we not get that question solved when we were dealing face to face with the Americans?


Mr. Clark (Yeilowhead):: Get out of NATO; get out of NORAD; get out of GATT!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: When are you leaving for Central America?


Mr. Shields:: Elect Shirley Carr. That is who you need.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister's colleagues to give her the courtesy of some silence so she may answer the question.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, in order to deal with the Hon. Member's anxieties about softwood lumber, may I remind the House that that industry has enjoyed record production and record profits this year at a time when the provinces owing the resource have experienced the refund of money to them. I can assure the Hon. Member that he does not have a problem on that front.
I again point out to the House that the proceedings before the GATT on this and other issues have nothing to do with the free trade agreement. For instance, in the same period in which the U.S. took this action against Canada we took action against the U.S. on their customs users' fees. That, again, is an action separate from the free trade agreement.
You will recall clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition Parties have put great faith in the GATT process. They have told us over and over again to forget about bilateral agreements and deal only in the GATT. Now they do not like the result.


EFFECT OF POSSIBLE GATT RULING ON CANADIAN JOBS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We have had vague assurances from the Minister, from which he is backing down all the time, that no jobs would be lost. In the meantime thousands of fisheries workers are being left in the dark. There is a GATT ruling the details of which they have not seen. No one in Canada has seen the final text of the trade agreement with the United States.
Can the Minister tell us precisely what he is going to do to ensure that those jobs will not be lost, rather than only a vague commitment?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to illustrate by example. If the precision with which we have created over one million new jobs in Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -including over 100,000 new jobs in British Columbia, is any example, then I can ask the Hon. Member to be somewhat patient. Our objective is to create additional employment, not by being hewers of wood or drawers of water, but by adding value to all of our resources. That is in the nature of our commitment in this matter.
November 18, 1987


EXPORT CONTROL POLICY-IRAN-ALLEGED USE OF CANADIAN-MADE HELICOPTER ENGINES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is supplementary to the very serious matter raised by my colleague with regard to the use of Pratt & Whitney engines in war helicopters in Iran.


John Carnell Crosbie: A very serious matter indeed.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is a serious matter. Perhaps the Minister of Transport does not take anything seriously, but this is a serious matter.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs asked for some proof. He must be aware of the fact that last summer the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute named Canada as one of the major suppliers of war materials to Iran. I know that the Minister is fully aware of that international organization and knows that it has a good reputation. It has named Canada.
At that time the Canadian Government made no response to that particular proof which was provided by that institute. At the same time the Minister promised in this House that the Department of External Affairs would undertake an investigation into the use of Pratt & Whitney engines in military helicopters in Iran. We have not received a report from the Minister on the results of that investigation.
The onus of proof is really on the Minister. What were the results of the investigation which he promised to undertake?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have three quick things to say. First, the export control law of Canada is much tighter now because we made it tighter than the loose law that existed under the Liberal Government of which the Member who placed the question was a nominal member.
Second, he exaggerates, as he knows, the SIPRI report.


Lloyd Axworthy: I never lost a convention though.


Charles Joseph Clark: He has not lost a convention but he is planning to and, by golly, when it happens he will.


Lloyd Axworthy: That must be the voice of experience talking.


John Carnell Crosbie: Go down to Harvard, Lloyd. Join your brother down in Harvard, buddy. Where is Tom when he's needed?


Lloyd Axworthy: Tell us about losing conventions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The right hon. gentleman will complete his answer. I would ask Hon. Members beside him to refrain from expressing their opinions unless they have the floor. The right hon. gentleman.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The third point I want to make is that we have no proof. The Hon. Member has no proof that there is a shipment of Canadian parts to Iran. If I have proof, and if I have means to stop that kind of shipment, I will stop it.
We have already secured the agreement of Pratt & Whitney with regard to direct shipments from this country to Iran. I assume that it is now being alleged that there is a diversion in third countries. I have already indicated, in answer to one of his colleagues, that I have instructed ambassadors of Canada to those countries in which a diversion might occur to seek all the information which may be available in those third countries in an effort, first, to find the facts.
Second, if the facts are as alleged, we will determine whether we can, by influence, change practices outside our jurisdiction which we do not have the legal power to change because they are outside our jurisdiction.


EXPORT CONTROL LOOPHOLES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Government promised to do that a year ago and it is now doing it all over again. The fact is that the so-called export controls which he says are so tight have major loopholes in them. One of the loopholes is that there is no provision for an end use certificate which would require trans-shipments to be recorded by the industrial supplier.
Why does the Minister not simply change the rules and regulations as he committed himself to do before the committee on external affairs a year ago? At that time he promised to look at that provision and come back with proposed changes. The Minister is simply not doing his job and is being caught out red-faced and red-handed on this issue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say about that. The Member referred a moment ago to a request by the CBC for information from my Department under the Access to Information Act. He did not say that the request was for all material since 1980. That is a very large request and it was submitted only ten days ago. He did not bring those facts to the attention of the House of Commons.
Second, he makes reference to end use requirements. If he is paying any attention to the facts, he will know the situation with regard to the voluntary assumption of end use requirements in the case of Pratt & Whitney.
Third, he referred to loopholes in the law. There are fewer loopholes in the law now than there were when he was a Minister of the Crown because the Government has tightened that law.


Lloyd Axworthy: They didn't use engines when we were in government.

November 18, 1987

Oral Questions


FREE TRADE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It looks like the Government has decided to sacrifice regional development on the twin altars of the U.S. trade agreement and the marketplace.
Can the Minister comment on reports in today's papers that the final text of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States will not be released until November 30?
What is the current situation? How much longer the wait? And can the Minister assure us that, if the full text is not drafted, 98 per cent of the text which is now complete will be made public before next week's First Ministers' conference?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the chief negotiators have assured us that they are working as rapidly as possible on the final text and that it will be made available as soon as it can possibly be ready.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION PRIOR TO MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, there is now a chance that we may not even see the text before it is submitted to Congress on January 3 at the rate the Minister is going.
According to press reports, we are talking about an eight-week delay between the October 4 signing and the possible November 30 publication of the text. Why can Canadians not know what is in the text of this accord? Why should Canadians be dragged into a free trade accord without knowing the details of it? Will the Minister assure us that the 95 per cent or 98 per cent which has apparently been signed is made public before the First Ministers meet to talk about the economy next week?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we have just had a very disturbing example of the kind of misinformation which the opposition Parties are spreading about the free trade agreement. The suggestion being made by the Hon. Member is quite simply wrong. By advancing the suggestion repeatedly, as he is doing, he is again doing what the Opposition is always doing on this issue- giving Canadians misinformation. I have said that the text is being worked on now and will be ready as soon as possible.


Some Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Raymond Garneau: Which is further evidence-

Mr. Speaker, could you ask people on the other side to refrain from holding private conversations? Look at the polls and then-


Mr. Speaker:: I can call for order, but the Hon. Member is entering into a preamble which is very argumentative. That does sometimes create a reaction. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Raymond Garneau: If I can have the floor for a moment, I will repeat that the Government seems to have abandoned the regions. This is evidenced by another decision of the Government-to abandon earned depletion on flow-through shares.
Will the Government change its White Paper and reintroduce the earned depletion allowance on flow-through shares so that mining regions such as the Abitibi, northern Ontario, northern Manitoba, western Canada and even the Maritimes, will be assisted in exploration for new mines?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that the Government has not abandoned its commitment to regional economic development. As a matter of fact a number of specific programs have been designed to overcome regional economic difficulties that are being experienced in some areas of the country.
If the Hon. Member is really interested in overcoming regional economic disparities, particularly in the Montreal region, he will join with his colleague, the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, in petitioning the Senate to move Bill C-22 along.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As far as the Hon. Member's reference to flow-through shares is concerned, the Minister of Finance has pointed out in the House on a number of occasions since the report of the standing committee was brought down that he will study the report very carefully and will respond to the recommendations when he tables a Ways and Means Motion.
November 18, 1987


FLOW-THROUGH SHARES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the finance committee report does not radically change the White Paper proposition. Since I cannot get a response from the Deputy Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines). What does he intend to do to convince his colleague the Minister of Finance to maintain the earned depletion allowance on flow-through shares so that such regions as Abitibi-Temiscamingue, northern Ontario, northern Manitoba, in fact a major part of western Canada, and even the Maritimes may continue to benefit from this tax incentive which creates many jobs and promotes regional development throughout the country?


Hon.   Gerald. S. Merrithew@Minister of State (Forestry and Mines: Mr. Speaker, we share the view that the flowthrough share mechanism has been very useful. In fact there has been an increase of some 30-fold in mining exploration in terms of what has been spent. A great deal of that money has come through the flow-through share mechanism.
The Hon. Member knows full well that the tax reform program left the flow-through share mechanism in place. It is in place this year, and it will be in place next year and the years following.


UNITED STATES GRAIN EXPORTS-USE OF EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. The discussions some weeks ago between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Schultz do not appear to be inhibiting the U.S. from continuing its use of the Export Enhancement Program in Canada's traditional grain markets.
Since the United States is now offering to sell China one million tonnes of subsidized wheat and has added Bulgaria to its list, is the Government doing anything to convince the U.S. that it should switch tactics and attack the problem at its source, which is price? Has the Government asked the United States to raise its loan rate and to revert to its old policy since its new one has been so harmful to all world grain markets?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that we regularly advise the Americans of our concern in this matter and let them know that we do not think it is helping at all as far as price is concerned. He will also know that our sales continue to increase, in spite of what the Americans are doing.
Oral Questions
If the Hon. Member wanted to be fair about it, he would also do as the Government has been doing, which is to complain to the Europeans who are in many ways more guilty than the Americans in seeing the problems develop in the international grain markets.
The Hon. Member talks about Bulgaria. That is not a major market for Canada. While we do not like what the Americans are doing in Bulgaria, we have only sold wheat to Bulgaria two out of the last nine years. We do not feel it is a major market for Canadian grain.


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM TO INCREASE GRAIN INCOMES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since it appears that all the Government's initiatives thus far have not corrected the grain pricing problem, and there is a great shortfall since the implementation of the U.S. Farm Bill, will the Government announce now that it will put into place a $2.6 billion program to bring grain incomes close to what they were before the implementation of the U.S. Farm Bill?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have three comments in response to the Hon. Member. First, we are preparing to announce shortly a record amount of money available to western farmers under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We have been holding discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and the farm leaders about the possibility of having another direct financial assistance package available for all Canadian farmers this fall.
Third, if the Hon. Member wants to do something, he should deal with his cohorts in Manitoba. Agriculture is a joint responsibility. The Province of Manitoba is doing virtually nothing on behalf of farmers. This year the federal Government will spend $600 million in the Province of Manitoba while the province itself will probably spend about one-tenth of that. There is a great responsibility on behalf of the province, and his NDP friends in Manitoba are letting the Manitoba farmers down.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Senior Citizens. May I say in passing that it is my experience from travelling with the Human Rights Committee that the seniors of this country are very confident that the Minister will apply the same dedication and sensitivity to them as he has given to veterans.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 18, 1987
Oral Questions


Bill Attewell: Approximately 10 per cent to 12 per cent of the population of Canada is now over 65. By the year 2020, that group will jump to almost 25 per cent.
It is time that we made some long range plans for these demographic changes, not just in health care but in the whole question of improving self worth and living meaningful lives.
Does the Minister agree that there is a sense of urgency to this issue? Is he taking steps to develop plans to meet the needs of seniors?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Senior Citizens)):: Mr. Speaker, I have been conferring extensively with seniors and seniors' organizations to find out their ideas regarding useful measures which could best be included in a program for seniors. I expect to be announcing such a program in the very near future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Defence Minister. I preface it by stating that the Liberal Party remains opposed to the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines for many reasons other than purely economics. However, with respect to economics, will the Minister explain to the House the discrepancy between the estimates his Department gave in June of this year of $5 billion for the acquisition of submarines and the report by the Centre for Arms Control which states in their opinion that these costs are at least in the neighbourhood of $10 billion?
The Minister's own Department has changed the original $5 billion numbers upward to what is now estimated to be between $7.5 billion and $8 billion. Consultants to the British Navy estimate the cost of the program at $11.25 billion. Would the Minister explain the discrepancies between all of the numbers, and which numbers is the Department now using?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to try to explain to the House and to the hon. gentleman. If he followed the democratic procedures followed in this country and in the United Kingdom, he would find that in the estimates of defence expenditures put before the British Parliament is listed the cost of the Trafalgar Class submarine. We used those same figures last December, this June, and again recently when the discussion came up.
The difference, translated into Canadian dollars, has been the exchange rate differences as the dollar has been going down and the pound has been going up. That is the only difference that has been going on.
There is an additional expenditure of which we estimated about $2 billion for the infrastructure. We have been consistent on that all the way through.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, they have been using different sets of numbers, and I think they are attempting to confuse the Canadian public's mind. The numbers the Minister is using do not include the cost of training, setting up facilities on both coasts, Pacific and Atlantic, nor the cost of the recycling of the fuel which will be used in a nuclear powered reactor. Would the Minister table in the House of Commons the estimates that the Department is now using to acquire 10 to 12 nuclear powered submarines, the same estimates which are now being used as the Government debates the five year capital project plan within the Cabinet committee system?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we are using the same figures in debating the annual review at the Cabinet level as we have been using publicly because those are the accurate figures for the construction and implementation of a submarine program. The fact that seven years later we may happen to recycle some fuel hardly is a cost which can be applied to the construction program. That is seven years later.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be a question from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, followed by a single question from the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal, and that will close off Question Period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns his impending visit to Central America. The Minister will know that many Canadians welcome the fact that the Minister has chosen to go to Central America, and we wish him well on that visit.
Many of the same people who welcome that visit are also concerned that the Minister chose, prior to his visit, to make a decision to resume aid to Guatemala, given the fact that they feel the situation there has not improved to the degree which would warrant such a resumption. Why did the Minister feel he should take this kind of action prior to his fact finding mission? Would it not have been better to have waited to visit Central America and to have arrived at a judgment after his
November 18, 1987

visit rather than prejudging the situation and making that decision last week?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons. First, it is our view that there has been an improvement in the human rights situation there, not the improvement we would like to see but an improvement nonetheless. Second, I think the Hon. Member will agree with me, and has agreed in the past, as his Party has with the analysis of the Government of Canada that the fundamental problems in Central America are problems of poverty and inequality. They are not problems of ideology.
If the fundamental problems are problems of poverty and economic development, then it makes sense for countries like Canada to follow aid and development programs which will lead to the resolution of those basic problems. It is a demonstration of Canada acting as we speak, which is something we on this side of the House try to do.


MINISTER'S IMPENDING VISIT TO CENTRAL AMERICA
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister would also agree that questions of poverty and inequality cannot be separated in many cases from the quality of the regimes which are in place in these various countries, and from the responsibility of countries like Canada to put pressure on such Governments. So I repeat the question, to a degree, and further ask the Minister whether or not he intends upon his return to make a statement in Parliament so that we might have an opportunity to hear his views and to respond to whatever the Minister has decided as a result of his visit to Central America?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that it has been my practice quite regularly to make statements to the House. In fact my predecessors in the Liberal Government, to my knowledge, in four years made no statements to Parliament on foreign policy. I have made several because it is the belief of this Government that it is important to try to involve the whole of Parliament and, indeed, the whole of the country in foreign policy matters. So I will report either directly to the House or to the standing committee.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Across the country there have recently been a number of rural post office closures. In some cases, such as Bloomfield Station in my constituency and Head of St. Margarets Bay in
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
Halifax West, Canada Post has closed the post office without providing alternate retail service to the community.
In view of the unfairness of this policy, would the Minister consider meeting with Canada Post officials in an effort to restructure the rural services policy to prevent closures from occurring before alternate retail service outlets are found?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is, I am sure, aware, the policy Canada Post has been following has been that when there is a retirement, resignation or some other event, where a postmaster or postmistress is leaving their post, it examines whether it is appropriate to continue the same kind of service which existed before. If not, because of changing demographics and so on, it would seek to make changes. It is supposed to do that with full consultation with the community, Members of Parliament and so on. However, I hear the Hon. Member's representation and I will certainly take it to the Crown corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to say to the Hon. Member for Regina West that I have his notice of a point of order or a question of privilege and I will hear him shortly. However, I have some matters I have to take up with the House before that.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I want to deal now with a matter that arose on Thursday, October 29, which is of some importance to the House. On that day the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) asked the Chair to review the statement of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made during Question Period on Wednesday, October 28. I refer to Hansard at page 10482. The Right Hon. Prime Minister in response to a question said the following:
I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are
opposed to the interests of western Canada. That becomes clearer every day.
That is the exact quote of the latter part of the answer of the right hon. gentleman.
During the procedural debate, the Chair was asked to carefully review that statement in the context of citation 316 of Beauchesnes' Fifth Edition which states that it is not proper to "impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged to a Member".
I have also had the opportunity to review our practice and precedents as well as the whole of the discussion that took place on that difficult afternoon of Thursday, October 29, 1987.

November 18, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Jourdenais
What the Prime Minister said was targeted at Parties in opposition, in a generic sense, and was not directed as a reflection on a specific Member. Some Hon. Members may feel that this is a fine line. As your Speaker, 1 can say with some experience that Hon. Members often come too close to the fine line in both questions and answers during Question Period. No one Party has the monopoly on walking the fine line from time to time. There is not an Hon. Member here with any experience who does not realize that that fine line can be breached either in the preambles to questions or in remarks made in answers. While it may not be unparliamentary, the experience of this place is that it makes it more difficult to maintain order. Ultimately, of course, in this place what causes disorder eventually will be ruled by someone as being unparliamentary.
However, in keeping with the decisions of my predecessors, I must rule that the statement of the Right Hon. Prime Minister did not violate our rules. There is no doubt that the statement of the Right Hon. Prime Minister was met with considerable emotional responses from both opposition Parties. Indeed, it led to the uttering of some unparliamentary language by some Hon. Members. It was clear that some Hon. Members were clearly offended by the statement of the right hon. gentleman.
In the first case with respect to the statement of the Hoh. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Chair adjourned dealing with that matter for one hour, after which the Hon. Member for Oshawa returned to the Chamber and corrected his own statement out of respect for the Chair and for the dignity of this House. He did so in the finest tradition of this place.
In the latter case, that of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the Hon. Member for Skeena expressed his unwillingness to withdraw the unparliamentary expression he had used in view of the Right Hon. Prime Minister's statement and in view of the way he took that particular statement.
The Chair then invited the Hon. Member for Skeena again on Friday, October 30, to reflect upon his position and to reflect upon the duty of the Chair and of all Hon. Members elected to this House. The House of Commons can only function properly when Hon. Members respect and abide by the rules they themselves have set down.
I know perhaps better than many Members in this place that the Hon. Member for Skeena is an effective Member of Parliament and has made a considerable contribution to British Columbia, my own province, and has represented his constituents very well indeed. I understand that the Hon. Member may have a statement to make to the House. The Hon. Member for Skeena.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I accept your interpretation of the Prime Minister's words. While Your Honour has ruled that they are not unparliamentary, you have recognized that they did deeply offend Hon. Members.
I have spent the past ten days in western Canada and have found that westerners were similarly offended by the Prime Minister's attack. The Prime Minister's remarks certainly offended me because they were intended to question the devotion and patriotism which I as a westerner and other members of my Party from throughout Canada serve western Canada. As I stated some days ago, I am a westerner, and a third generation westerner. I love and am honoured to serve Canada. But the west is my home and no Prime Minister should impute motive to those who have long and honourably served the West.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, why I reacted with such anger to the Prime Minister's remarks. I had hoped for these past two weeks that he would apologize but he has not seen fit to do so. However, I hold this House in great respect and 1 support the Speaker. Therefore, I withdraw the unparliamentary words which I used.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Before leaving this matter I want to thank the Hon. Member for Skeena for making the statement that he has made.
I want to say one other thing to all Hon. Members. I wish that all Hon. Members on both sides of the House would watch the fine line. There are occasions when the preamble invites an intemperate response. There are occasions when, of course, the answer does the same. There is a fine line and I would ask Hon. Members to make every effort to try to keep it in mind.



Mr. Speaker:: On November 3, 1987 the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) raised a question of privilege with regard to the conduct of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, which was held on October 7, 1987 for the purpose of electing a Chairman of the committee pursuant to Standing Orders 91 and 92.

I had indicated that I might come back to the House to hear further comments, but when looking at Hansard for that day, I found everything I needed to make a ruling on the matter today. I wish to thank the Hon. Members who took part in this procedural debate for their interventions.
November 18, 1987



The Hon. Member for La Prairie maintains that the Hon. Member for LaSalle misled the committee by stating that he had relinquished the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works on the day of his election, namely, October 7, 1987, when he offered his candidacy as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. He furthered claimed that the Hon. Member for LaSalle was being paid an additional amount of salary awarded to Parliamentary Secretaries as shown in the Public Accounts of 1986-1987 on page 12.9 for the period covering October 15, 1986 to October 16, 1987. The Hon. Member for La Prairie seems to imply that this somehow made the Hon. Member for LaSalle ineligible for that chairmanship.

The Hon. Member for LaSalle replied that he had told the Minister of Public Works and other people about his resignation from the position of Parliamentary Secretary at a meeting on October 6, 1987, and that, that same day, he had written a letter of resignation to the Prime Minister indicating his intention to seek the chairmanship of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. He also pointed out that, as he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and not to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Employment and Immigration, even if he had kept his position of Parliamentary Secretary, there would clearly have been no conflict in his seeking the chairmanship of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. However, he formally stated that he had resigned and gave as evidence of this fact his letter to the Prime Minister.

The receipt of the additional amounts of money as Parliamentary Secretary did not cause concern to the Hon. Member for LaSalle because, he argued, adjustments will be made as soon as the change in his status affecting his salary is made known to the appropriate authorities.
I wish to underline to all Hon. Members the role of the Speaker with respect to a question of privilege raised by any Member of the House. The Speaker simply determines whether a prima facie case of breach of privilege has occurred. If he so finds, the motion moved by the Hon. Member raising the matter is immediately proposed to the House by the Chair and thus all other business is set aside until that motion is disposed of by the House. It is for the House to decide the matter and not the Speaker.

After examining the reports carefully, for several reasons, I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege.

As to the issue of the Hon. Member for LaSalle being a Parliamentary Secretary and whether or not he was eligible to be the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour,
Privilege-Mr. Jourdenais
Employment and Immigration, Standing Order 89(2) has a note which was adopted by the House in June of this year. That note reads:

For the purpose of this Standing Order, a Parliamentary Secretary shall not be a member of a standing committee which has in its mandate the review of a department to which the said Parliamentary Secretary is attached.
This note should be sufficient to settle the matter as the Hon. Member for LaSalle was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and not to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There was therefore no objection to his being elected chairman of the Committee.

Further, the Hon. Member for LaSalle has told the House that he had in any case resigned his parliamentary secretaryship. We have so much tradition in this area that I do not need or intend to cite the authorities about accepting the word of an Hon. Member.

I note on page 10687 of Hansard for November 3, 1987, that the Hon. Member for La Prairie moved the following motion:
That the question of the behaviour of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, and in the meantime I would ask you to invite the Hon. Member for LaSalle to relinquish the chairmanship.
May I point out that it is not sufficient to make a charge in general terms with regard to the conduct of another Member. Such charges should contain specific accusations. I would like to remind all Members of the long established traditions of the House, and its committees, that an inquiry with respect to the conduct of a Member can only take place provided that he has been charged with a specific offence or offences.

I think that it is especially important to remind all Hon. Members of the comments made by Speaker Michener in his often-quoted ruling on the Pallett case on June 19, 1949. These comments can be found on page 584 of the Journals'.

In my view simple justice requires that no Hon. Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
Such a procedure or requirement is the only means of ensuring fairness, and Speaker Michener was clear that Members are as entitled to such protection as is every ordinary Canadian citizen.
Therefore, I must rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege in this matter.

November 18, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez PRIVILEGE


ALLEGED RESTRICTION OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF STANDING COMMITTEE-MR. SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I have another ruling with respect to a matter raised on October 13 by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who raised a question of privilege alleging improper restrictions on the rights of the members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. Supported by several other Members, the Hon. Member objected specifically to the adoption by the committee of the following motion:
That during the course of the evaluation of the Committee's researchers and research needs, no Member of the Committee engage any of the researchers without the consent of the Chairman.

Just before the motion at issue, it had been agred to proceed to an evaluation of the committee's research needs.

On October 13,1 told the House that I did not think that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt had a question of privilege. I said that perhaps he had a complaint. After studying the precedents and the authorities I can now confirm that my first view of the matter was indeed correct. There is no prima facie question of privilege to be found in the issue raised by the Hon. Member.

Previous rulings and parliamentary custom are quite clear. Committees are definitely in control of their own procedures. In this respect, I may refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's, Fifth Edition, Citation 569(3), which reads as follows:

The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for him to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.
On May 3, 1972, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux had the following to say about a problem in a committee that was raised in the House:
I think it is long-established practice that difficulties in discussions and debates in a committee should be settled by the committee itself, and that if there are difficulties which are to be considered by the House this should be done at the time the report of the committee is before the House for debate and consideration by the members of the House.
In addition to these points there is in my mind a question of the propriety and practicality of having the proceedings of one committee investigated by another committee of the House. I can foresee all sorts of difficulties if this were allowed and became a practice of the House.
That is a quote from the judgment of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on May 3, 1972.

According to established custom, the proceedings of committees may not be considered or debated in the House except in the form of a committee report. If a point of order or question of privilege is raised in a committee, the matter should be dealt with in committee rather than being raised in the House.
Traditionally, the conduct of a Member may not be submitted for scrutiny to the House by way of a question of privilege.

The Speaker went on in the same ruling to say that he had:
-always had serious doubts of the advisability of having proceedings of a committee investigated by another committee of the House.
I would also cite Mr. Speaker Jerome on May 26, 1975, when he stated:
First, both Members at one time or another suggested that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections ought to have these questions referred to it, which to me would seem to establish a precedent and initiate or encourage a practice wherein the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections would become some kind of court of appeal on the proceedings of other standing committees. It seems to me that nothing could be more unacceptable as a practice which ought to be more directly discouraged.
I can refer Hon. Members to many rulings that are similar and make the same point.
I thus feel that our precedents are clear and repeat, with regret, that I cannot find that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has made out a prima facie question of privilege.
I should also add that, perhaps appropriately, the Chair has been lenient in hearing complaints that may have come forward as a question of privilege or point of order from committees. I have done so because the committees have new powers and are finding their way. Perhaps by hearing some of those matters, it has assisted all Hon. Members to make the committee system work more satisfactorily.
I would ask Hon. Members to keep in mind that the leniency of the Chair for a while ought not to be pressed too far, and especially because of that I have taken a few minutes to put some of the procedural law, which is our tradition, before the House. I would ask Hon. Members to strive mightily to resolve their problems in committee before they feel it necessary to come to the Chair on those matters.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has given me notice of perhaps a point of order or question of privilege. Perhaps the Hon. Member could advise the Chair.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain which it is, and I will leave that to you to judge, Sir.
I have two points. The first one concerns the welfare and good order of the operations of this House, and most particularly the operations of the standing committees.
Almost three weeks ago a report of the Standing Committee on Transport was sent over to the translation division. There
November 18, 1987

was a meeting scheduled for last Tuesday which had to be cancelled because the report had not been translated. We had a meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning which has now been cancelled because the translation has still not been received.
1 am informed, Mr. Speaker, that the translation division took off all last week when the House was adjourned. It was my impression that the House of Commons was adjourned, meaning the MPs. I did not understand that the people who are supposed to be working here on a full-time basis also adjourn.
I think that is a handicap. We have had a chronic number of times, including occasions when cabinet Ministers have had to rise in the House and state that they are waiting for the translation. If the division is understaffed, something should be done about that. If they are goofing off, something should be done about that. If it is both, something should be done about both things.


PARKING ON THE HILL-ALLOCATION OF SPACE NOS. TO MPS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My second point is an entirely different subject. For the fourth time in the past three weeks I have driven up behind the Centre Block of the House of Commons and found that all the parking places were taken. I would like you, Sir, to inquire as to how many staff people of MPs or cabinet Ministers are using parking places, or whether Members of Parliament who have a parking place around the Confederation Building are bringing their car up here.
Would you consider, Sir, allocating a parking place number to each Member of the House of Commons in order that this does not occur. My car is presently illegally parked, and if I get a ticket, Sir, I will be giving it to you.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that both of the Hon. Member's points are points of order. I can advise the Hon. Member that neither of them are points of privilege.
Let me deal first with the question of the translation services. This is a very serious matter indeed, and the Chair takes it as serious. Except for the press of other things, I was about to deliver this afternoon a reply to exactly the same problem which was raised some weeks ago by colleagues of the Hon. Member. I will attempt to do that tomorrow. The Hon. Member will see then that the Chair does think that the matter is not only of interest to this place, but it is a serious matter. Somehow we must find a resolution to it.
On the other question the Hon. Member has raised, I will take notice of it. I will ensure that at the appropriate time someone gets back to the Hon. Member and, hopefully, the matter can be resolved. In the meantime, of course, he can send his tickets to the Speaker's chambers.
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, all Parties in this House have supported the actions taken by the Prime Minister and Government of Canada to hasten a peaceful end to apartheid. A central element of our policy has been to recognize and enlarge the important role of the Commonwealth in encouraging peaceful change in Southern Africa. Members of the House shared the Prime Minister's determination that the meeting he chaired in Vancouver of the Commonwealth Heads of Government should maintain the pressure upon South Africa to end apartheid.
Four of the Front Line States are members of the Commonwealth. So are Lesotho, Swaziland and Malawi; so was South Africa, until her adherence to apartheid cast her out. These "family connections" of the Commonwealth impart a unique capacity to help end the evil of apartheid, and help promote secure and endurable economic development. Other nations have more economic influence in southern Africa; but no other organization has the potential political influence of the Commonwealth. That was demonstrated most clearly by the work of the Eminent Persons Group, whose authority rested upon the combined credentials of the individuals involved and the Commonwealth which sponsored them. The negotiating concept formed by the Eminent Persons Group remains the best prospect of ending apartheid, and was obviously the most enduring result of their work. But the Eminent Persons Group was also important as proof that the world's abhorrence of apartheid was not passing and would not wane.
Part of the challenge facing serious opponents of apartheid is to maintain and increase the steady pressure upon Pretoria. That becomes even more important as the Government of South Africa increases its repression and censorship at home, and intensifies its propaganda abroad. Commonwealth Heads of Government, in Vancouver, noted, and I quote:
The unfolding-but often unseen-tragedy of South Africa impels us to ensure that the world continues to focus its attention on apartheid until we meet again in full session.
In that spirit, all member countries except Britain accepted a Canadian proposal that a Committee of Foreign Ministers be established to meet periodically between now and the next Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur in 1989. The mandate of that committee is broad-"to provide high level impetus and guidance in furthering the objectives agreed upon" by Heads of Government in what has become their Okanagan Statement.

November 18, 1987
Statements by Ministers
I have the honour, on behalf of Canada, to chair that Committee, whose other members include the Foreign Ministers of Australia, India, Guyana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
I have been in touch with my colleagues on the Committee, and with the Commonwealth Secretariat, and am advising Parliament today that the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers will hold our first meeting in southern Africa itself, in Lusaka, Zambia, at the beginning of February. We are using the weeks before that meeting to take up directly some of the initiatives in the Okanagan Statement, and to work with the Commonwealth Secretariat on others.
The Vancouver Conference focused on three major areas- sanctions, aid to the Front Line States, and reaching into South Africa to aid the victims and opponents of apartheid, and generally promote dialogue. The Committee of Foreign Ministers, and the Secretariat, will look into means to widen and intensify the program of economic measures already in place, including an examination of the way sanctions have been frustrated and studies on the impact of sanctions and on South Africa's financial relations.
The Committee will also give priority to encouraging and assisting the opponents of apartheid within South Africa, and to counteracting the effects of censorship and propaganda. Real progress against apartheid requires genuine dialogue between the South African Government and authentic black leaders. Unfortunately, as I learned for myself during a visit to Southern Africa in August, the short term prospects of reaching that goal are not great. But we believe the Commonwealth can contribute to the possibility of internal talks by increasing our contacts with South Africans of different view points.
At Vancouver, heads of Government were unanimous in their resolve to strengthen the capacity of South Africa's neighbours to resist Pretoria's policy of destabilization and destruction. Mozambique is particularly important to the landlocked Front Line States; so the Commonwealth established a special technical assistance fund for Mozambique, and is committed to establishing secure infrastructure, including the rehabilitation of transportation routes, and measures to protect them against attack. Each country will decide how it can best contribute, and Canada has pledged $20 million to rebuilding the vital Limpopo railway line.
The mandate of the Committee of Foreign Ministers is far-reaching. It will keep the pressure on South Africa. It will give encouragement to the opponents of apartheid. It will reinforce the Commonwealth's role in promoting change and dialogue. Canada will contribute to the committee's work in every possible way. Everyone in this House believes apartheid must be ended. The Government also believes apartheid can be ended, and a better system put in place. That of course, requires countries like Canada to continue the kind of
leadership the Prime Minister provided in Vancouver. South Africa should be in no doubt that, if other measures fail, all of Canada's economic and diplomatic contacts with be ended. That would be a last resort, when our other influence has ended. Both the Government of South Africa, and the opponents of apartheid, should also know that Canada intends to continue to mobilize our resources and our influence to maintain steady pressure and leadership against apartheid and the violence it engenders.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Government has gone a long way in its policy on South Africa. Many of its initiatives have been good. In this respect I think a good deal of credit should go to the Minister personally.
Unfortunately, however, these actions taken by Canada and other countries have only had minimal success. Apartheid, which is institutionalized racism, remains intact in South Africa and is still a way of life in that country. The state of emergency is still in place. Thousands of political prisoners, including children, are incarcerated for opposing apartheid. There is heavy censorship, and there is increasing unrest, violence, and repression.
The Minister's statement today in respect of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers is another step in the right direction, but one wonders if it will be enough. If we look at the statement, the commitment by the Minister and the committee to look into means to widen and intensify the program of economic measures already in place is a worthwhile pursuit, and we wish them success. The committee also intends to examine the whole problem of why the sanctions have been frustrated; a worthwhile pursuit that must be encouraged. Concerning the assisting of opponents of apartheid within South Africa, again we think that must be supported and we encourage the committee. Finally, again we support the initiatives to strengthen the capacity of South Africa's neighbours to resist the policy of destabilization and destruction.
The Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers, made up of a number of countries is good; they have a lot to offer. Unfortunately, Britain is not a member. We all know that Britain would have more economic clout in getting results with respect to the goals we all pursue than many other countries. 1 must say that the response by the big hitters; the United Kingdom, the U.S. and West Germany, has been disappointing concerning these problems. The U.S. Government has put in place a strong economic embargo against little Nicaragua but fails to do the same with respect to South Africa.
November 18, 1987

What further can be done, Mr. Speaker? At the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver all countries, except the United Kingdom, called for wider, tighter and more intensified sanctions. These were not announced today, but let us hope they come out of the Lusaka meeting in February. I hope, and it is not made clear in the statement by the Minister, that we will not have to wait until the meeting in Kuala Lumpur for the committee to report before further action is taken. If I understand the Minister correctly, following Lusaka some further action might be taken with respect to these matters.
The Government has said before, and it has said again today, that if there is no progress in ending apartheid Canada is prepared to invoke total sanctions and may have to sever relations. We still hold the Government to that commitment. Sweden and Denmark have already severed diplomatic ties.
In September, the leader of the Liberal Party took the following position and I quote from his speech to Liberal International "We must see concrete action by the end of this year. The message must be direct. If clear progress is not made by the end of the year to end apartheid, our Government should impose complete economic sanctions and withdraw diplomatics relations from that country".
Today, we in the Liberal Party would like to say that a minimum indication of clear progress, as referred to by the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) in September, would be the unconditional release from prison of Nelson Mandela before the end of this year and the commencement of discussions between the South African Government and authentic black leaders opposed to apartheid, including Mandela, to prepare for the dismantlement of apartheid and to establish a non-racial representative government. That is the minimum we would expect, and we hope that the Minister will put this proposal on the table at Lusaka. When Alan Boesak and Tambo M'beki were in Canada earlier this year they praised Canada's efforts to fight apartheid but said that measures the Canadian Government had taken so far, at that time, were too weak to be regarded seriously. They said that far tougher sanctions are needed if apartheid is going to be dismantled.
As I said earlier, we support many of the efforts and initiatives taken by the Government. However the situation is degenerating in South Africa and more will have to be done. We will look closely for greater progress as a result of today's announcement and the meetings that take place in Lusaka.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, of course my Party welcomes the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) today which announces the holding of the first meeting of the committee of foreign ministers delegated by the Commonwealth Conference held in Vancouver recently to examine the effectiveness of sanctions, to ensure their application and effectiveness and to pursue other measures.
I think it is fair to congratulate the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for having reflected the
Statements by Ministers
attitude of the Canadian people with respect to apartheid. We have as a nation assumed leadership in the Commonwealth, assumed the leadership abdicated by Great Britain in a way which I think is serious with respect to the Commonwealth. If there was any significant characteristic of the Commonwealth that gains respect for it, it is that it is a multi-racial, multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-national collectivity. It falls far short of the necessary characteristics which must bind it together if it refuses, or any nation within it refuses- particularly if the motherland refuses-to understand that the most fundamental enemy of the Commonwealth and what it stands for is, in fact, apartheid in South Africa.
Our Party has been, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows, supportive of the leadership that Canada and the Government have provided for much of its term. Indeed, the New Democratic Party is truer to the statements on the issue by the Prime Minister than is the Government itself. This I think is very nearly the second annual occasion on which the Government has indicated that if there is no progress with respect to dismantlement of apartheid Canada would sever all diplomatic and economic relations with South Africa. There is, therefore, a difference between my Party and the Government Party, more recently less difference between us and the Liberal Party as it has identified where it stands.
With respect to a particular approach and strategy, we feel that Canada must exercise another kind of leadership than that heretofore expressed. If we are going to encourage others to follow our lead, then we must, of course, live up to our promises and impose the strongest possible sanctions available to us. I have stood in this House many times without contradiction and said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated to us that he has the approval of Cabinet for the imposition of yet further sanctions. What we have out of the foreign ministers committee is commitment to ensure that the present sanctions are effectively applied.
Many of the sanctions that we have applied are not being effectively imposed. Indeed, to give just one example. Madam Speaker, we find recently that there is no compulsory imposition of an embargo on a shipment of oil and petroleum products to South Africa, irrespective of the fact that that is supposed to be a mandatory sanction out of the United Nations. Furthermore, we find that the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Jelinek) has refused to react to many complaints about the failure of Canada to impose the sanctions under the Gleneagles Agreement. Further, Canada has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the imposition of yet further sanctions in the area of sport upon South Africa.
In spite of the manifest leadership of Canada and its Government concerning the battle against apartheid, we too are deficient and we ourselves have a requirement to tie up a considerable number of loose ends. Even that, as I have said, is not enough. If we are to express the kind of leadership which

November 18, 1987
Motions
this Party feels we should be expressing, and if we are going to show others what should be done, then Canada should proceed to live up to the promises of the Prime Minister and act accordingly.
Far from being dismantled, apartheid, and the Government which supports and implements it in South Africa, seems to have been in a measure unleashed. There never has been since the issue arose such an effective propaganda campaign in Canada. Supporters of the Conservative Party are leading activities designed to discredit the battle against apartheid. More than that, Madam Speaker, we find that South Africa is imposing censorship so that we know not what goes on there and that South Africa continues to oppress, jail, and treat brutally those who are not members of the Africaans or other white races of South Africa.
South Africa continues, with some collusion by Canada through the contact group in Namibia, to act in complete contradiction to world opinion and actions of the United Nations in the occupation of Namibia. Canada has kept its voice silent with regard to what is happening there and with regard to the collusion of the United States of America with South Africa in the attacks on Angola most recently taking place over the last week or so. It has been stated that 30,000 South African troops are arming and supporting UNITA as surrogates for the United States in the overthrow of the Angolan Government, which is one of the Front Line States.
The battle is not being won. If the battle is to be won it will have to be won with far more commitment than the western nations have so far shown. Although I express my appreciation to the Government for the leadership it provides as a reflection of the view of the Canadian people, we have yet more to do.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Madam Speaker, the House will remember that prior to the break we passed an order on consent which set out the days on which the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade would travel in Canada. At the request of the committee we have extended that from December 5 to December 7. There have been discussions among the Parties and it has been agreed that this would be appropriate. I think you would find consent for the following motion to be moved and passed:
That, further to the order of this House adopted on November 5, 1987, authorizing the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to travel within Canada for the purpose of holding hearings on the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States be amended by
deleting the words "December 5, 1987" and substituting the following therefore "December 7, 1987".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition forwarded to me by Mr. David D. Brown of Dundas, Ontario, on behalf of a number of Canadians who are concerned about the "disappearance" of Luis Armando Lemus Urrutia and Miguel Rivas Hernandez along with the murder of Eduardo Garcia Cuellar in El Salvador. The petitioners pray that the Government stops bilateral aid to El Salvador until arbitrary arrests, murders, disappearances, and torture are practised no longer by the security forces of that country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 18, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 21 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Hopkins:: Madam Speaker, I have a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) had finished his intervention when the House rose last night. There would normally be a period for questions and comments. As Hon. Members will be aware, we cannot proceed with that right now. I am in a very difficult situation in that I do not like to say that a Member is or is not in the House. However, we are in the position that we cannot proceed with questions and comments.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is normal that after Members deliver a speech they are in the House for questioning. The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) started off this debate by saying that he was the only one in the House to debate while I was on my feet when he was recognized.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Haven't you got over that yet?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I believe the Hon. Member will agree with me that we have gone over this point of order on a previous day with regard to who was in the House and ready to debate this Bill. The Hon. Member for Spadina is not in the House to answer questions or hear comments on his speech. I believe that we should proceed with this debate.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) on a question of privilege.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I simply want to put on the record, Madam Speaker, that it is a question of privilege that Members of this House are able to question other Members. The fact that the Hon. Member is not here inhibits debate in this House because he did make statements that should be answered. If they are
Emergencies Act
not answered here, we will have to find other means of having them answered.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I raised the same grievance several weeks ago after the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) spoke. He spoke one evening and the period for questions and comments did not conclude that evening. I rose the next day to ask him questions but he had left the House. I rose on a question of privilege because I could not harass the Member from Kamloops. I thought that was terribly unfair and unjust. Nevertheless, I lost the question of privilege because there is plenty of precedent to establish that the Member does not have to be here. It is too bad that the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is not here, but that is the way it is.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I believe that this point of order has been discussed thoroughly. We can all agree that the Hon. Member is not in his seat to answer questions. I believe that in the interests of the House we should go on with debate on the Bill before us at this time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure and sadness that I rise to speak on this Bill. Before beginning my remarks let me say that I read the speech made by the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), and I thought it was good.
In the 120-year history of this country, Parliaments and governments have taken actions that we have later regretted. We must ensure that any legislation to replace the War Measures Act will not allow any government of any political stripe to repeat the errors of omission or commission that were committed before. There must be safeguards in the law to prevent a government or, for that matter, a Parliament from taking actions in a moment of panic or hysteria that we will all regret later.
We must ensure that there are safeguards in the Bill to prevent a repeat of what happened to Japanese Canadians, who are still awaiting redress and an apology, or of what was done during the Winnipeg general strike in 1919, when there was a hue and cry to get rid of what was called the foreign element in this country.
There must be safeguards in the law so that our police and security forces will not be able to carry on as they did between 1920 and 1950, following people who were not attempting a violent overthrow of the Government, but trying, through dissent and debate, to bring about a fundamental change in this nation and the purpose of our society.
We must have a law that will not allow the kind of discrimination that took place against Chinese immigrants, who are the only people on whom we levied a head tax. I still believe that tax can and should be refunded, because the records are still within the Department of Immigration. We owe the Chinese Canadians that money and an apology.

November 18, 1987
Emergencies Act
During the so-called October crisis of 1970, over 400 people were arrested, none of whom were ever charged and convicted. I believe those people deserve some kind of redress and apology. 1 believe it is proper for a government or a parliament to provide redress to correct a historical error because, not only does it correct a mistake that was committed many years before, it shows a sign of national maturity and allows the nation as a whole to display an element of conscience.
We must keep these events in mind as we debate this Bill, when we hear evidence in the committee and decide upon amendments before passing the legislation in its final form.
I believe this legislation should go to the appropriate standing committee rather than a legislative committee, unless the Elouse is prepared to provide the authority for the legislative committee to travel. Otherwise, we will only hear form those who can afford to come to Ottawa. We should hear from others throughout the country who, either themselves, or their parents or grandparents, have been affected by the implementation of the War Measures Act or other discriminatory and uncivilized measures of a parliament or government.
I was a Member of Parliament in 1970 when every Member of the House went through a great deal of agony during the so-called October crisis. One of my very few regrets, which I will carry with me all my days, is that I missed the vote on the War Measures Act. I would have voted against the implementation of that Act if I had been here. My leader, the Hon. T. C. Douglas, was to speak at an NDP nominating convention in southern Manitoba on the day of the vote. Naturally, I thought it was more important for my leader to be here. Therefore, I took his place to speak to that nominating convention in southern Manitoba and missed the vote. There were two unfortunate consequences on that day. First, 1 missed the vote, and second, that overflow crowd in the hall in southern Manitoba came to hear Tommy Douglas but got me instead.
During that October crisis some of the over 400 Quebecers who were never charged or convicted spent from 24 hours to 96 hours in jail before being released. One humourous incident during those bitter days took place when one of those put in jail had the same name as a person on the RCMP list. That person turned out to be a Liberal organizer who ended up in jail in Hull. Many said at the time that he was more deserving of jail than an FLQ member.
The lengths to which the government went during that moment of hysteria and panic, generated primarily by the premier of one province, is illustrated by the fact that an 18-year old soldier carrying a loaded automatic rifle was assigned to follow my leader. It did not seem very suitable for a soldier to be following a clergyman, even to the washroom and to his home; my leader never did collect the bill for room and board.
The implementation of that Act not only put the civil liberties of people in Quebec into jeopardy but the rights of people from coast to coast. Everyone was subject to arbitrary
arrest, search without warrant, and being jailed without communication with anyone.
When we consider the lengths to which Parliament went in that moment of hysteria, surely it is incumbent upon this Parliament to ensure that there are safeguards in any legislation that replaces the War Measures Act.
The War Measures Act came into being in this country at a time when one can hardly say there was a great degree of tolerance, understanding and compassion among the population and our rulers of that day. We now have a great improvement in the attitudes of the the public and of the Government.
There is one section of the Bill to which I take particular exception, that is the section entitled "Public Welfare Emergency". Should there be another national railway or postal strike, or a strike by the airlines, grain handlers or the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Government will not have to bring in back-to-work legislation and let Parliament decide each case on its own merits. It has only to invoke that clause of the Bill, which means that a fundamental right to strike or, for that matter, the fundamental right of an employer to lock out, is denied in advance and for all time. And this applies to anything the Government considers to be an essential public service.
Those kinds of circumstances must be decided individually as and when they occur. The Bill allows Government to bypass Parliament in such cases for 90 days and it must confirm it by motion within seven days. Thirty Members of Parliament can sign a motion for revocation. If it is passed, it can then be revoked, but many days, weeks or months will have gone by and great harm can be done to many people directly affected.
Part I of the Bill, Public Welfare Emergency, covers a breakdown in the flow of essential goods and services or resources as a result of a strike or lockout. I submit that that must deleted from the Bill and should not be covered in any way, shape or form in this legislation. I recommend to the committee that Clause 3(d) of the Bill should be deleted.
Public welfare emergencies should be in the Bill and I think the rest of Part I is legitimate. Clause 3(a)(b) and (c) provides that public welfare emergency means fire, flood, drought, storm, earthquake or other natural phenomenon, an epidemic of disease among human beings, animals or plants, or some horrendous accident or pollution, such as Chernobyl, for example. It seems to me it is legitimate for a province and the national Government to have the powers to declare an emergency within a matter of hours and act upon it. Therefore, I have no particular objection to that definition of public welfare emergency.
However, I would hope that the committee would take a good strong look at it in the sense of is it really needed in this Bill? Probably the same thing could be accomplished by a strengthening of legislation on emergency measures both by
November 18, 1987

the national Parliament and by the provinces and territories so that the ability to act quickly and call upon all sectors of the community to assist is there in place at all times.
It does not matter whether the Government leaves the part of the Bill in place regarding natural disasters or strengthens the emergency measures legislation, the fact is that we as a country are still not equipped to deal with an emergency, anyway. 1 hope the debate on this legislation and the discussion in committee will help to persuade the national Government and the provincial Governments to further enhance and strengthen the resources they have to deal with in emergencies of this kind. That includes, I submit, additional training for our Armed Forces so that they not only know how to handle guns, tanks, planes and ships, but will know how to put a city back together, be it to fix the sewer and water systems or establish a hospital. They should be prepared to deal with the electrical power distribution system, the direction of traffic and looking after refugees, the homeless. We, would always have that kind of training, resources and equipment to help in case of some disaster in our own country, and what makes it so worthwhile is that should we be called upon to assist in the event of another earthquake in Nicaragua, or Mexico, Yugoslavia or anywhere else in the world, we could send people there who had the equipment and know how to be of even better help than they are at the moment.
It is not enough just to have a law that allows a national Government to declare an emergency of a public welfare nature. Unless we have facilities and resources in which to carry out the requirements of the law and the regulations that will come thereafter, all we are doing is making symbolic gestures. This will cost a lot of money, but it seems to me it would be money well spent. That part of the Bill which the Government can invoke in the event of a national strike of something that is considered an essential public service should be deleted.
There is also the heading of "Public Order Emergency"; I think not only of the Winnipeg general strike of 1919 but of the Estevan strike and the Regina riot. People who were peacefully dissenting were victimized by a government which I can only say over-reacted in a paranoid fashion. If there is one thing we must guard against in this legislation it is that kind of paranoia; looking under the bed all the time for a Commie, a Bolshevik or whatever is uppermost in the minds of those who happen to be governing at the moment.
There are some measures in the Bill which I like. I have spent my time on the items in it that I do not like. I hope that the committee and the Government will address them and correct them as I have outlined.
[ Translation]


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I will take an active part in the debate this afternoon, but I would like to make a few comments. As a Member who experienced those
Emergencies Act
tragic events that affected our lives as Canadians, Quebecers and residents of Montreal, I read and especially listened very carefully to yesterday afternoon's proceedings. Yesterday and the day before, I had the privilege of attending festivities in honour of a visit to Canada by the Armenian Katholikos from Soviet Armenia, who received an enthusiastic welcome in Montreal. He was suppose to visit Parliament, but unfortunately, he was not well enough to come to Ottawa. So I was in Montreal, and this is just by way of explaining to my constituents why I was not in Ottawa. I attended the festivities, Monday night and last night until three o'clock this morning, but in my office I could not help watching what was going on in the House of Commons, and I heard a few speeches which quite frankly astonished me.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Glued to your television set!


George Albert Proud: Yes indeed, but you may have something else to say when I finish.
I was particularly interested in some speeches by Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party, and especially some of their statements in French.
Madam Speaker, it is always easy to judge history with today's hindsight. After the fact we can do no wrong, we are perfect, we can make sweeping moral judgments and we are always right. This is more or less what our NDP friends wanted to do with a message that was obviously directed to the people of Quebec-that is why I will make my statement in French. What they said was more or less that the New Democratic Party knew what it was all about in 1970. And this despite the fact that 88 percent of Canadians-it's true - were asking the Government to do something, and despite the impact these events had on me personally-anyone who is interested can read my speech-and the impact on our Quebec caucus. It also had an impact on our national caucus. We were divided on what should be done, and in the light of the information we had-that is the important point: Did we have all the information? That is another chapter I hope we will be able to write someday. However, in the light of the information we had at the time, we thought it was our duty, unfortunately, to vote in favour of a measure we found abhorrent. I found it abhorrent to have to vote in favour of the War Measures Act. I more or less said so in my speech at the time. And I think that trying to woo Quebecers by saying that a certain political party had virtue on its side from the word go is stretching the truth somewhat. It is a tarted-up version of the facts, because I have a clear memory of those important events. In fact, they say I still have an excellent memory for the important things in life. I remember that the party that today is trying to woo Quebecers was divided as well and that four Members of the New Democratic Party, and that is what Hon. Members forgot to tell us yesterday, four Members, including one as illustrious as the Members in the House today, and I am referring to Dr. Saltsman. Everybody always liked Dr. Saltsman. He was a distinguished, and a great parliamentarian.

November 18, 1987
Emergencies Act
Yet, he voted against it. Who does not remember-with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I shall conclude by giving these four names-who does not remember the great parliamentarian, Mr. Winch? This member of the New Democratic Party and former member of the CCF also voted for the War Measures Act. He probably found this as repugnant as I did, but he still voted for the War Measures Act. I also recall that Barry Mather, a distinguished Member from Western Canada, also voted for it. I also recall one of our colleagues, who is now a member of a National Asembly, I believe, Frank Howard-

1 do not know if Frank is still a Member in the provincial House in British Columbia or not.
[ Translation]
Mr. Howard still sits in a legislature, but he now sits in the provincial legislature of British Columbia. He also voted for the War Measures Act. Even when you want to score political points and attract votes, you should still have to tell all the facts. I am not saying that my colleagues lied, but they would have done better to give the whole picture instead of giving us only part of it by suggesting as they did yesterday to Quebec, and it is to this that I object, that all NDP members opposed the War Measures Act when the fact is that they were very much divided. They remained divided up to the end since four of them voted for the War Measures Act, which was a repugnant gesture for which we shall one day have to offer reparation and excuses to those who were stupidly arrested by the police. All this will be said during the third reading debate, but I still wanted to state the facts, and I thank you for your patience, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I simply wish to point out to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that I certainly did not want to show any sign of impatience. I simply wanted, in the spirit of parliamentary reform, to remind the Hon. Member that the period for questions and comments is normally restricted to short exchanges to allow everyone to take part and to make the debate and exchanges as animated as possible. I am certain that the Hon. Member will want to get back to this issue during his own intervention. This is why I indicated that he should speed up his comments.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, as an experienced parliamentarian, I immediately accept your suggestion. Instead of going on, I shall ask the previous speaker whether he remembers-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You have had eight minutes out of ten. Sit down and let him answer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Order, order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time will of course be added to the Hon. Member's response.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thought bootlegging was illegal, Madam Speaker.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You should have been here yesterday.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My hon. friend makes a bootlegger look like an honest man. If he wants to get up to give a diatribe against the NDP and what we did in 1970, then let him get up and make a 20-minute speech at second reading and not use up my time.


George Albert Proud: It is not your time. I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There he goes again, Madam Speaker. He can get up right after me and make a 20-minute speech if he wants.


George Albert Proud: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is he up for now? He has had his turn on questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member has risen on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Another bootleg.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will listen and rule afterwards.


George Albert Proud: I assure you, Madam Speaker, that it is a point of order.
Madam Speaker, you know my respect for the Chair and the rules. I was not taking time away from the Hon. Member since he had finished his speech. According to the new rules, I am using the second part. Therefore, I was not bootlegging. I know that it was said in good spirits and was meant well, so I will not pursue the matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Regina West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. gentleman sitting beside my colleague rose a little while ago and complained that the Hon. Member who had just finished his speech was not present for questions and comments. Then this hon. gentleman rose and proceeded to direct comments, and I presume that they were comments to me. The Hon. Member did not need to use up the whole 10 minutes. He can make his own 20-minute speech.
November 18, 1987

I wish to respond to the remarks of my hon. friend who stated that the NDP always posed as the great moralists who are always right. Like everyone else, I hate people who say, "I told you so". I cannot stand them. Therefore, I will not say it. It is not something that we are saying now in hindsight; we are not curling behind the glass. This is not hindsight, it is what we stated in October, 1970. Of course our caucus was divided. I believe there were two members of the Conservative caucus who also voted against the War Measures Act. We all knew that there were many members of the Liberal caucus who were very unhappy with the invocation of the War Measures Act. We tried to encourage them to have more courage of their convictions.
In any event, all I can say on that matter is that we felt then deeply, and just as easily we could have been wrong as we turned out to be right. I am not denying that. You have a position, you take it, and you take your chances. History will judge.
To the everlasting credit of a former Hon. Member of this place, whom I considered to be one of the finest human beings to ever grace this Chamber, one of God's gentlemen and a real humanitarian, the former Leader of the Conservative Party, Robert Stanfield, who, even though he was unhappy about the desires of the overwhelming majority of his caucus, acceded to their wishes. But within a year or two of no longer being a Member of this place he had the grace and the humanity to say that of all the things that occurred during his tenure as Leader of the Official Opposition, he wished that he had done as Tommy Douglas did in October, 1970, and I will leave it at that, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to participate in this very important debate. Unfortunately, this debate has not received much press, public attention, or very much attention in the House. We have debated it for a while, but it certainly does not seem to be on top of people's agendas. Yet it is extremely important legislation, because surely in some ways how we are judged as a country is reflected by it.
First, I wish to congratulate the Government for bringing in a piece of legislation that will replace the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act was introduced at the beginning of World War I. It was found to be quite unacceptable to most Canadians, yet the ability and the opportunity to change or amend it never came forward. Despite former Prime Minister Trudeau having stated publicly on several occasions that the War Measures Act had to be replaced, that it was wrong for such tremendous powers to be placed in the hands of any Government, he failed in his long tenure as a Prime Minister to indeed bring forth the needed changes.
I do wish to commend the Government for taking this important step and fulfilling an important promise that it had made.
Emergencies Act
With a piece of legislation that gives tremendous emergency powers to a Government, great care must be taken with the type of powers that a Government is given over its citizens in times of emergencies. First, we must be concerned that the term "emergency" itself is properly defined; that the legislation has a very clear definition of what is meant by an emergency. We must be concerned that the powers that the Government takes upon itself and therefore takes away from its citizens are not abusive and will not be abused.
When we give this type of power to a Government, the nation and our civilization stands on the edge of falling into the abyss of a dictatorship with the very emergency powers that are called upon to attempt to protect us. There must be great consideration given that in the name of defending democracy we do not destroy it; that in the process of defending civil liberties and the rule of law we do not destroy them. That is why legislators are called upon to exercise great wisdom and care in drafting legislation that is needed in times of emergencies.
I underline the word "needed" because certainly there will be instances when emergency powers are needed by Government. We know that living in this day and age, not only will natural phenomena occur, for instance, tremendous storms, dust or drought, and various other natural disasters, but with modern technology there are man-made disasters.
There was the pesticide chemical plant in India and the melt-down in the nuclear plant in the Ukraine. Given modern technology and its power, a disaster can occur that would endanger the lives and well-being of thousands of citizens. In fact, when we talked about nuclear energy as the melt-down started in the Ukraine, we know that the radiation emitted from that plant was endangering the well-being of the globe. Because of modern technology, we do face those crises that endanger our global village.
In those circumstances, it is necessary for Governments to be able to act decisively and with speed; to be able to move and direct people and bring forth manpower without proper appropriation from Parliament and, at times perhaps, without care for due process because the well-being of the community at large, whether it is a village, a city, a province, a nation or the globe, is at risk.
I wish to warn again that, in drafting the type of legislation that gives that emergency power, great care and wisdom must be exercised. As various of my colleagues have pointed out, we have found the legislation brought in by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), Bill C-77, to be wanting. We have major concerns, for example, that the reference that once the Government assumes any emergency powers, those powers shall be referred to Parliament within a certain period of time and passed by Parliament. This also means that it must be passed by the Senate. Is the Government serious in giving this extra power to the Senate, an unelected body? I urge the Government to rethink this provision and to consider seriously amendments in committee.

November 18, 1987
Emergencies Act
Four basic classes of emergency are described in the Bill. Each one is more severe than the previous one. The first one is an emergency based on public welfare-natural disasters, the outbreak of contagious diseases, man-made disasters, et cetera. The Government will be given the power to order persons. In other words, part of the possible interpretation of the emergencies power under public welfare is that an interruption in the flow of central services can be considered an emergency. This can be interpreted as giving the Government the power to break a legal strike or to use the legislation against strikebreakers.
I was encouraged to hear the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) state that that was not the intention of the Government. He indicated that the Government would seriously consider amendments to this section to ensure that the Act would not be used against a legal strike. I take the Minister at his word and I hope, when the legislation comes back from committee, that this section will be properly corrected.
The second level of emergency is public order. This would be similar to what was used in the October crisis of 1970. The Government would assume emergency powers at the appearance of an outbreak of civil unrest or civil disorder.
We also have some problems with this section. In part, the "threat to the security of Canada" definition comes from the Act which created CSIS. In terms of the record of CSIS, we know that it has some difficulty from time to time being able to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate protests. We are also concerned that the public order emergency provision might be used against legitimate protests or legitimate opposition to government.
Another concern is that the Act, taking the section from CSIS, would allow action on the part of the Government in a situation where there might be economic or political unrest in some area of the globe that it deems to be of vital interest not only to Canada but to a major ally of Canada. In such a situation the Government could use its emergency powers under the section dealing with public order emergencies to impose the Emergencies Act.
We could interpret that in such a way that indeed it would open the door to the Government imposing the Act at any time. I remember debating this point when the previous Liberal Government established CSIS. We in this Party-and I believe it was the case with members of the Conservative Party at that time-found this section wanting. We are facing a major global challenge with the outbreak of hostilities between Iran and Iraq. These potential hostilities certainly threaten the economic well-being of the United States, a major ally of Canada. In that event would the Government, under this section, impose these emergency powers? It does not seem to make much sense.
Another area of concern that we find unacceptable is that persons affiliated with a group which advocates the use of violence in another country could conceivably have their basic liberties and freedoms removed under this Act. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have met with representatives of the African National Congress. The National African Congress certainly advocates the use of violence to overthrow the racist regime in South Africa. We could think in terms of the President of the United States who addressed us and attempted to justify his support of the Contras. Certainly the Contras are involved in the use of violence to overthrow a legitimate regime, a legitimate Government. Perhaps, had this Act been in power, the President of the United States might have been arrested when he came to Canada.
Of course the President of the United States will not be arrested and our Prime Minister will not be censured for meeting with members of the ANC. It is ridiculous to assume that they would be. However, the point we are trying to make is that the Act would allow for that interpretation. We are asking the Government to tighten the interpretation so that major powers would not be used in an illegitimate way.
We have other concerns. The greatest level of power will be given to the Government under the section dealing with war emergencies. In essence, Cabinet will have carte blanche to do anything it wants to do. It is no different from the War Measures Act.
These are some of the concerns of my Party. I am happy to hear that the Minister of National Defence has expressed interest in our concerns and has sounded as though he would accept some of our amendments.
I hope the Minister would also give serious consideration to the area of compensating people who might have lost property, their civic liberties, or income during an imposition of the Emergencies Act. We are concerned that in this area where expropriation can occur it will be up to Cabinet to set the limits of compensation. It will be up to Cabinet to determine arbitrarily whether there will be any compensation whatsoever. As well, there will be no appeals to the courts, just an appeal to a person appointed by Cabinet as an assessor.
I think history has taught us that this is wrong in terms of the Japanese Canadians who were wrongfully treated under the War Measures Act at the outbreak of World War II. They lost property and economic opportunity. Under the War Measures Act they did not have legal opportunity to obtain compensation for this wrongful act. I think everyone in the country now recognizes that it was a wrongful act. Let us make certain that these wrongful acts will not happen in the future. Let us make certain, if they are applied in a wrongful way, that those people will have a chance of getting compensation for the wrongs committed to them.
November 18, 1987

When one thinks of the history of Canada one thinks of the Japanese Canadians and the October crisis of 1970 which should surely have taught us all some lessons. It is so easy in the name of national emergency to trample on the individual freedoms and rights of people. It is my belief that a country that cherishes its democratic tradition, freedoms and individual civil liberties would take great care to ensure that in the defence of those freedoms and liberties it does not destroy the freedoms and liberties of its citizens and others. That is why again I repeat that a great amount of wisdom is needed. In times of national emergencies there is a tremendous ground-swell of public opinion by the majority wanting quick, decisive action. It is a wise government and wise legislators who are able to say no, that the preservation of individual rights and freedoms must be fully considered.
We heard earlier today from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) stating that during the October crisis 80 per cent of the population wanted action. That must have been very difficult for legislators in this House to deal with. After all we are political animals. We do read our mail, and when 80 per cent of our constituents tell us to put this violence that was occurring in Quebec down and to put it down fast by giving consent to the War Measures Act, it was very difficult to stand up for one's own feelings and one's own sense of what is right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In the face of hysteria.


Simon Leendert de Jong: As my hon. colleague from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has stated, in the face of hysteria.
In addressing Bill C-77 today I wish to pay tribute to Members of this House. I understand that there were members of the Conservative Party who had misgivings. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition at that time had grave misgivings and there were numerous government Members who had grave misgivings about the measure. A large number of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party were able, in the face of that hysteria, to stand up and do a very nonpolitical thing in expressing opposition to the measures being taken. I hope all of us as legislators in the future, if ever situations like that occur again, will have the courage to exercise our wisdom.
I urge the Government to consider amendments to the proposed legislation so that when this legislation is passed by the House it will have the support of all Members.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to my esteemed colleague who has just spoken. It is always very difficult to talk about a subject that dates back so far. I agree with the Hon. Member that it took a lot of courage to vote against the measure. I agree that when hysteria hits the fan it is always difficult to make a decision. But I have to remind him that what was happening was happening in the Province of Quebec so the people in Quebec were right in the middle of the turmoil. This turmoil did not
Emergencies Act
happen overnight. I am pleased to be still here today because it was an unbelievable debate, I admit that, and it was a terrible decision to take.
I have not looked at the speech I made in 1970 since then but I think I could repeat it today. I was not part of student life at that time. I was a leader in a way at many universities. I had in mind Kent University. My colleague is well aware of that. Kent University had a youth rebellion, a rightful one. I was a protector of American deserters and draft dodgers. It is written in many books in the United States what I did then, so I have no lesson to learn from anybody for having taken a tough decision then.
I do not know if the Hon. Members know the Van Doos in Quebec, but that regiment was given the task. I was afraid that if a student from my province had jumped on the military in Quebec, someone could have been shot. I repeat again that the agony I personally and others went through was terrible. I had a choice to make, being an elected person. My duty was to stop something that may take place, never knowing if the event would take place. If one does nothing and something happens one is forever sorry for not having acted. That was the agony many Members had to go through then. We will never know in our conscience if we were right. In our conscience some of us, as repugnant as it was, voted for the War Measures Act because we thought we were stopping something from taking place.
I just want to tell Hon. Members something before I sit down. Someone from my own family attended the meeting of the youth at I'arena Paul Sauve. They were being warmed up to go out in the streets. My relative called and said that they were about to go out in the streets. She was convinced that terrible events would take place. So I voted for the measure.
The Member was very kind in saying that it was repugnant for some, but I noticed that all people from Quebec then Voted for the measure.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Could I have one minute before we recognize it being 5 o'clock, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Regina East.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, for his comments. I understand the internal turmoil and difficulty that he faced and which many faced at that time. I also remember the October crisis in 1970. 1 was in Vancouver working with a youth agency. We had a mayor called Tom Campbell who wanted to impose the War Measures Act against the Georgia Strait, against the organization I was working for called Kool-Aid as well as against a number of other people. Had people of the ilks of Tom Campbell had the power of the War Measures Act within their hands they would have thrown into jail hundreds of young people who were involved in legitimate, democratic organizations. That showed me how power in the wrong hands could have done

November 18, 1987
Emergencies Act
tremendous harm to the democracy, the freedom and the rights of ordinary Canadians.


George Albert Proud: The Hon. Member is right.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Living in the late 1960s and early 1970s was a period of tremendous social upheaval and unrest. I predict in this day and age that there will continue to be periods of tremendous unrest. We are living in tremendous social, economic, cultural and psychological changes. Pieces of society do not fit in as nicely as they did before. The social glue that has held communities, families, and societies together is dissolving in many ways. I am afraid that it will be an easy cop-out to use the Draconian powers of a War Measures Act to impose order while what is needed is the freedom and wisdom to allow for organic changes and searches for solutions to the problems which society faces today.
The constant fear I have is that as we are thrown into tumultuous changes in our lifetime the forces which fear progress, the future, and change, will use these powers to impose a political order that will be unacceptable and, of course, anti-democratic. They will do it all, of course, in the name of preserving democracy. That, unfortunately, is the greatest fear I have for this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say no.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the		
motion carried. Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to			
a legislative committee.			
November 18, 1987


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, in view of the progress we have made today I think you will find that there is a disposition to call it 6.21 p.m.
Emergencies Act


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to offer my consent on behalf of the Official Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.21 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.39 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, November 19, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers