1987-12-02

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what is the price we will have to pay for the so-called free trade agreement? It could be staggering. First there will be job losses. No one knows the exact number but some estimates run as high as 500,000 jobs, as indicated by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) himself. We will then lose our ability to shape our own economy and to develop our own economic, social and environmental policies.
In the case of energy, we give the United States guaranteed access to our resources without getting guaranteed access to U.S. resources. Furthermore, we will give away the power to set our own prices for our own energy. Our own decision making powers in energy matters will be seriously diminished. Of course, these conclusions are based on the information available so far. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet seen the final text of the trade agreement.
There is, of course, an alternative. We could liberalize trade between provinces and liberalize trade internationally, not just in North America. We are better suited for an international trade policy. We must reverse the decline in Canadian trade with other parts of the world. What we want first and foremost is not to give away our ability to determine the future we want for this and future generations of Canadians.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle)
and I officially opened the Canadian Institute of Industrial Technology in Winnipeg-a world-class show piece-federal Government, universities, and the private sector working together-a new era of computer integrated manufacturing and industrial technology.
Almost since its inception, nattering nabobs of negativism have been hounding the institute. First they predicted the $26 million project would be cancelled. When that did not happen they predicted the Government would build it and then sell it. When the centre was completed and open for business in early 1986, the critics began describing it as a white elephant, then as an empty or half empty building.
Well, Mr. Speaker, last week a miracle occurred. Critics finally got the message that 40 per cent empty is 60 per cent full. In a year, organizations will be on a waiting list to grab up the little remaining space. Nattering nabobs of negativism, go to your graves!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Egypt selling off the Pyramids, the Chinese people placing the Great Wall on the auction block, or the Eiffel Tower turned over to the private sector? Only in Canada we say "sell the CN Tower"! And what is the CN Tower to be called; Alpo Dog Food Heights, Loblaws Skyscraper, Pizza Pizza Peak or perhaps Ronald Reagan Lookout?
I find it astounding that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) measures the value of a structure by whether or not it can go choo-choo-chooing along. The CN Tower doesn't do that, but then, again, it's never late.
The Tower was built with $57 million of Canadian money. It does serve 15 media centres. It does accommodate two million visitors a year, and it does bring a sense of pride to Canadians. All of this, and the Tower turned a tidy $5 million profit last year.
If the Government insists on bequeathing the CN Tower to the private sector, it should at least attempt to secure a guarantee that the purchaser will find a small place for the Government's epitaph to be displayed for all Canadians to see.

December 2, 1987


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-54, an Act to control pornography in Canada. I urge all Members of this House to pass it as quickly as possible and send the legislation to committee.
Not a week goes by that someone from my riding of Niagara Falls does not write to me to urge quick passage of this legislation. They know that the present provisions governing pornography in the Criminal Code are so vague as to be almost unenforceable. Pornography has become a gigantic industry, one that exploits and degrades people, particularly women and children.
I reject comments from groups who say that the definition of pornography is too restrictive. I challenge them to appear before our committee and suggest a better definition. I believe that is only fair.
In the meantime, people everywhere are getting tired of those individuals who continuously want to postpone a crackdown on pornography. As it relates to this piece of legislation I am determined that that will not happen.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, after fifteen months the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology has decided to respond to the Picard Report's eighty-six recommendations this morning in Montreal. The people of Montreal were expecting concrete proposals but unfortunately, the Minister's response was just a lot of bluffing. I would like to know, and so would the people of Montreal, why the Minister failed to announce the establishment of a space agency in Montreal. Why didn't the Minister announce that a real banking centre would be set up in Montreal? Why didn't the Minister announce that $130 million would be provided to fund development of the Old Port in Montreal, as was done in the case of other Canadian cities? Why didn't the Minister announce that $25 million would be made available to the Montreal East development board? And finally, Mr. Speaker, why didn't the Minister announce that jobs would be created in Montreal East? I repeat, after fifteen months, this morning the Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion failed to provide the people of Montreal with anything tangible.


WELFARE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the just published report of the National Council of Welfare which provides advice to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is appropriately entitled "Welfare in Canada-The Tangled Safety Net".
It points out that the current social assistance system, although it has some good points, very often reinforces poverty and engenders continued dependence upon welfare. People can get caught in the net rather than being saved by it. The report addresses issues such as simplification, accessibility, equity, adequacy, and due process.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare ought to make a thorough study of the report to see which of its recommendations might successfully be implemented.
*	* v


INDUSTRY
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of the pledge he made to the grape growers of the Niagara Peninsula when he was campaigning during the 1984 election campaign.
During that campaign the Prime Minister vowed to 'revitalize the industry and keep our farmers farming". He said that the wine industry was "in a state of crisis caused in great part by the unfair trade practices of offshore wine producers". Then he vowed that a Conservative Government would promote Canadian wines and related products and adopt other protective measures because that would be "far less costly to the public treasury than to allow this vital Niagara industry to literally wither on the vine".
If the free trade deal goes through, the wine industry will wither on the vine. The Prime Minister who promised to protect the industry, who had a clear mandate to protect it, has instead betrayed it.
December 2, 1987


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, members of the Union des producteurs agricoles are having a convention in Quebec City.
Since the president, Jacques Proulx, will take advantage of this opportunity to continue his disinformation campaign, I would like to inform the Elouse of the positive impact our free trade agreement wil have on agriculture. This Government has earmarked $1.5 billion for the dairy industry over the next five years. Subsidy policies will continue to apply to farm producers, whatever their president may say to the contrary. Our subsidy policies and quota systems which are so important for farmers will continue to apply. Our marketing boards will not be effected by the free trade agreement.
I may add that our major processors have not spoken out against free trade, that Lactantia, a company that buys 40 per cent of Quebec's milk production, is in favour of free trade, and that agricultural by-products such as beef will find additional markets in United States.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, if farm producers have any business sense at all, they should not protest against free trade. They should challenge their president, Mr. Jacques Proulx!


ROAD TRANSPORT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, Route Canada, formerly CN Route, formerly CN Express, closed its operations in Sydney. The federal Government sold what is now Route Canada for less than its value on the understanding that all the closing of the terminals would be done by the new owner, thereby sparing the federal Government from giving the bad news.
Route Canada, the federal Government, and the union took away protection the workers had under the Canada Labour Code. The men in Sydney were dismissed with only two weeks' notice, and the 17 dismissed in Sydney had a range of service between 16 and 46 years. Route Canada has made it look like it just dismissed the individuals when, in fact, it closed the terminal.
The federal Government offered benefits to those workers if they resigned prior to June 1, 1987. But the workers in Sydney were dismissed only five months later, which shows that there was collusion between the federal Government and the
company because the workers only received a fraction of the federal benefits that the company had to give.
I ask the federal Government to extend the benefit package which expired on June 1, 1987, to the workers who were just dismissed at CN Route.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction in the House yesterday of the proposed Multicultural Act was a milestone in Canadian history.
Wrapped up in the word "multiculturalism" are many different concepts. Of course it means the right to retain one's culture, heritage, and language. But it also includes the concept of getting to know and understand each other better, the concept of equal opportunity for all, and the concept of full involvement and participation in wider Canadian society. It means that you can be proud of your background and that of your ancestors, and at the same time be fiercely proud to be a Canadian.
Multiculturalism is a Canadian creation. It has helped us to achieve stability and social harmony in spite of our great diversity. In doing so, it is the envy of the world.
Multiculturalism is a vital part of what makes Canadians different, a vital part of our Canadian way of life, a vital part of our national sovereignty. The Multiculturalism Act will help to reinforce and strengthen our national sovereignty.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it took the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) weeks to make up his mind, but last week I finally received his official refusal to follow up on his offer, or bluff, shall we say, of debating me in Edmonton on his grant to Fantasyland, and his defence of it here in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister's bluff was called, and he chickened out.
This is part of a growing Tory pattern of refusal to debate, while at the same time talking a lot about being open to such events. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) is another good example of this. He states that he wants to debate free trade with Premier Pawley. He can do that after he stabs Gary Filmon in the back and becomes Manitoba leader, having fled the sinking Tory federal ship. In the meantime, he is still an MP, yet he refuses to debate other Manitoba MPs,

December 2, 1987
Oral Questions
turning down an invitation to such a debate even in his own home town of Steinbach.
The Tories are afraid to debate the NDP in western Canada. They prefer to indulge in the political equivalent of hate literature, perversely insulting western Canadians by claiming that if they are for the NDP they are against the West. Western Canadians know that the Tories have no monopoly on speaking for the West. The CCF was electing western MPs when, as John Diefenbaker used to say, only the game laws protected the Tories. They are on their way to becoming an endangered species once again.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the current issue of The Economist, perhaps the most respected financial journal in the world, has bad news for the Liberals and their socialist partners in the House. The Economist has given Canada a glowing report card.
The Economist states that "Canada's producers are thriving". Those are its words. "Our output", it says, "is up 6.1 per cent to August this year", better than any other country it reviews. That 6.1 per cent for Canada compares with slightly more than 4 per cent for the United States and Japan, a negative return for West Germany, and less than 2 per cent and 3 per cent for France and Great Britain.
The figures show without a doubt that our Government is on the right economic course, that indeed our policies are working and are good for Canada, and that they are certainly good for Ontario. Freer trade with the United States will make it even better.
I invite Hon. Members to read The Economist for this week and to take a look at page 107 for themselves.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons and the country have been waiting patiently for a long time for the Parker Commission Report into allegations of conflict of interest against the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
The Government has had the final copy for several days, and I understand that it has announced today that it will be made public tomorrow at three o'clock.
I have been told that the usual courtesy will not be extended of giving an advance copy to opposition Parties or to the media. I rise to express the hope that that will not be the case and that the usual courtesy of an advance copy will be extended.
The Government has claimed to introduce civility into the House of Commons. Failure to give advance copies, as is the usual rule, will be a demonstration of hypocrisy on the part of the Government. I hope that it will give the usual advance copies.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on October 5 when the Prime Minister tabled in the House of Commons a document purporting to be a trade agreement between the United States and Canada, he said:
I am advised that there may be a minor typographical error in this
document, but that the document itself represents the fundamentals of the
agreement arrived at by the parties.
Now we learn that that typographical error has become a renegotiation of the trade agreement.
The parliamentary committee studying the so-called agreement has been travelling the country and will be concluding its hearings in the next five days, yet it has been dealing with a document which is nothing but a sham. No wonder the final legal text is delayed when the fundamental deal has not been reached.
Is the Prime Minister going to explain why, if in his view Canada cut such a good deal, he is renegotiating it? Just for once will he level with the Canadian people and tell us what is going on at the current moment in these negotiations?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the renegotiation of the trade agreement. There is no renegotiation of the trade agreement whatsoever. He asks why we are renegotiating it. We are not renegotiating it.
We are doing precisely what I indicated to the House when I tabled it. Clearly, as would not surprise any reasonable person, there are some approaches on isolated matters or details that may be mutually advantageous and, if required, may be considered by the parties. However, the fundamentals are in place and will remain intact.
December 2, 1987


John Napier Turner: I have no less an authority than the chief negotiator for Canada who said, "Well, if you call that a negotiation, then call it a negotiation".


REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister-he is the main spokesman for this Government, does the Prime Minister really know what is going on? Canada's chief negotiator has stated that he is renegotiating the agreement, and today in the House the Prime Minister keeps telling us that the agreement was concluded on October 4. Considering that the whole process has been characterized by incompetence, stupidity and even dishonesty, will the Prime Minister stop kowtowing to the Americans to schedule a signing ceremony for January 2? Will he give Canadians both time and opportunity to study the agreement if ever a final text is produced? Will he explain to Parliament why he tabled an agreement which cannot be considered as being one? Why did he mislead the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the question is basically unworthy of the Leader of the Opposition. He is talking about consultation with Members and the people, he who belongs to a Liberal Party which negotiated a very important agreement with the United States 23 years ago and which never did have the decency to submit it to the House of Commons for consideration by Hon. Members. That kind of behaviour is unworthy of the Leader of the Opposition.
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the basic elements which were negotiated are still valid, contrary to what my friend is quoting. Speaking to a journalist, Mr. Reisman is reported to have said:

"If you call that a negotiation, call it a negotiation. Call it whatever you want."

But as far as we are concerned there has been no changes in the basic elements or in the Government position. Mr. Speaker, there has been a radical change in the approach of somebody here in the House of Commons: the Leader of the Opposition used to say that he would tear up the agreement, but now he is telling the media that he will not tear it up, that he will go to Washington to renegotiate. That is the radical change on the part of the Leader of the opposition.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if we do not have an opportunity of a general election in defeating this agreement then we will be caught with the dynamics as we find it, but we are not bound by this agreement.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: We will not be bound by this agreement.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What are you going to do next week, John?


John Napier Turner: The chief negotiator says that they are renegotiating the Auto Pact. The chief negotiator says they are renegotiating the shipping clauses. The chief negotiator says they are renegotiating the dispute mechanism, so, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister why should we trust this Government, why should we trust this Prime Minister when he deposited a document with this Parliament that is not a final document and does not represent the complete agreement between the parties?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the chief negotiator did not say they were renegotiating the Auto Pact. He did not say they were renegotiating the shipping arrangements. He did not say they were renegotiating the dispute settlement mechanism. He said no such thing, and the Leader of the Opposition is consistently misleading the House of Commons and all Canadians by repeating statements like that.
The only change that has taken place is by the Leader of the Opposition who stood up in this House, I think on October 3 or 4 and said, "I am going to tear up the agreement". Now he is saying "I can't tear it up. I may have to renegotiate it".


John Napier Turner: We will.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let me relieve you of any worry. You will never get the chance to renegotiate it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN POSITION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
By way of introduction we know how often it has been that the Prime Minister and the chief negotiator have had to contradict one another. Here Mr. Reisman is quoted as saying that the Maritime Shipping Act is something that is on the table being renegotiated and the matter will have to be taken to Cabinet for further advice.
Why is it that this negotiating team is prepared to accept further negotiations on a matter which the Americans want to entrench further and protect, namely, their maritime industry, while at the same time the Canadian trucking industry, which just last week before the Commons committee said that this trade agreement will put that entire industry in jeopardy why are we prepared to negotiate American demands when a major transportation industry is going to go down the drain along with many others, data processing, food processing and agriculture which have all said the same thing? Why is the

December 2, 1987
Oral Questions
Cabinet further protecting American interests and totally ignoring a number of Canadian industries that are being put in jeopardy by this stupid agreement?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think we can count the Hon. Member as undecided.
The Hon. Member knows full well that Mr. Reisman said to the press yesterday that the negotiating teams are translating into law the agreed elements initialled on October 3. That is the basic position. That is what is going on now. It is not renegotiation.
The mandate of our negotiator has not been modified one iota. All this hype that the Hon. Member is yelling across the floor of the House is totally wrong.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we know that in 1984 a new vocabulary entered into Canada. It is called newspeak; in other words, do not tell the truth to anyone. That is the problem we got in 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that while technically what he has just said perhaps does not quite go over the bounds into unparliamentary language, it gets awfully close to creating disorder. I would ask the Hon. Member to call upon his own experience and good will and to refrain from that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will redefine the concept of newspeak. It means rearranging the facts to suit one's interests.


REQUEST THAT SIGNING OF AGREEMENT BE DELAYED
Lloyd Axworthy: I again ask my question of the Prime Minister who finds it convenient to duck the real questions in the House of Commons. In the report that was released-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has accepted the gentle admonition of the Chair. I am sure Hon. Members would want to give him the courtesy of being heard.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on November 7, the U.S. Trade Office released a report entitled The National Trade Estimate Report giving a survey of all trade negotiations going on in the United States. The report clearly states that a number of the issues related to the trade agreement with the United States will give Americans the right to challenge a whole host of Canadian programs in telecommunications, culture, agriculture and data processing. In fact, it goes on to say very clearly that the United States retains the right to retaliate in the cultural field when measures taken in these sectors impair benefits to the United States. That clearly
contradicts all the guarantees and assurances given by government Members in the House.
We want to know if the Government will revise its program in Parliament to ensure that the Commons committee and Parliament will have a full opportunity to examine the new negotiations that are going on and the rights of Americans to retaliate on these programs. In other words, will the Prime Minister delay the signing of the agreement, extend the mandate of the Commons committee and ensure we are not simply signing away Canada once again on the bland and misleading assurances of the Government?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a report that was provided to the Senate Finance Committee. I believe that report is mandated each year. The United States looks at all countries and, as a matter of fact, I believe the report refers to 40 countries in which there are what they consider trade irritants.
It may come as a surprise to the Hon. Member to know that when we were negotiating the free trade agreement, lo and behold, the Americans had some subsidies as well that they did not want to give up.
The Hon. Member mentions culture. Culture has been excluded from the agreement. That is indicated right in the free trade agreement and the Hon. Member knows that full well. The report to which he is referring is simply an annual report that is submitted to Congress each year. All this huffing, puffing, and blowing is for naught.


UNITED STATES POSITION-POSSIBLE BROADENING OF SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has assured us from the time it negotiated this abominable deal that there would be no change in the substance of the agreement, that there would simply be changes in the legal wording. The Minister for International Trade said that, and less than a week ago the Parliamentary Secretary said that to me in the House. The Prime Minister repeated it again this afternoon.
Yesterday, before a committee of the House, Mr. Ritchie had something to say, and I want to ask the Prime Minister if he was describing reality or not. Mr. Ritchie said that the United States is "seeking some broadening of the scope of the agreement". Is the United States seeking a broadening of the agreement or is it not?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member what was said in the House this afternoon by the Prime Minister and by me, which is that they are-


John Edward Broadbent: Yeah, I heard that.


John Horton McDermid: I am glad the Hon. Member heard it. Then I do not have to go any further than that.
December 2, 1987


AUTO PACT-NORTHERN AMERICAN CONTENT QUERY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, for once the people of Canada would like to see the Government be clean, straight and truthful with the people of Canada.
I want to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary since the Prime Minister, who, I suppose does not specialize in this subject, has decided not reply. Is the auto trade item, the changing of the North American content provision from 50 per cent to 60 per cent, now being negotiated? Is it or is it not? Is there a proposed change in the wording of the dispute settlement mechanism? Have the Americans requested that the Jones Act be put on the table? Will the Hon. Member please give us a clear-cut, honest answer to that question?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, by innuendo, I have been called a liar by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry this afternoon and now by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, no.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, yes, he has. He has made those accusations and I think they are totally unfair.
The Hon. Member knows full well that the Government has been open and honest with the people about this agreement right from the start-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That's why you're 25 per cent.


John Horton McDermid: I will remind the Hon. Member, if he can get his trained seals behind him to quiet down-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Okay, Mr. Speaker, they are not trained.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa will put his next question.


REQUEST THAT SIGNING OF AGREEMENT BE DELAYED FOR TWO MONTHS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a last question for the Prime Minister.
Looking at the comments made by Canadian negotiators on the Canada-US Agreement, our two countries are now discussing changes in competition regulations concerning the automotive industry and a few others.
If that is true, would the Prime Minister now consider postponing for another two months the signing of the final Agreement, in order to give Canadians a chance to look at the final version?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, the parties are now putting into a legal, final version the elements of the agreement that were tabled in this House early in October.
Of course, we are also discussing implementation procedures. That is a highly technical, very complex document that requires a tremendous amount of attention and care from the negotiators.
Of course, as in any negotiations or discussions of this kind, either party may raise a question, and the other of course has an obligation to listen.
But no formal negotiations are now involved. If at some point in the discussions there arose a situation of mutual benefit to both parties, well now, we would be in a position to consider it!
But we are in the process of approving the basic elements already submitted to this House, and I can assure the Hon. Member that contrary to one other trade deal, this time Hon. Members will have ample opportunity to discuss it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians will recall that during the First Ministers' Conference, the Prime Minister gave the assurance to Premiers and particularly Atlantic Premiers that regional development programs would not be negatively affected by this economic union agreement between Canada and the United States. They will also recall with some alarm that those assurances were not acceptable to Atlantic Premiers, including the Premier of Nova Scotia, who said that he leaned toward this agreement but wanted to see it in writing.
This morning in Prince Edward Island, the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce refused to endorse the Government's economic union agreement unless regional development programs are clearly exempted in the final text of the Canada-U.S. economic union agreement.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to tell this House today, and be consistent with what he said last week on television during the First Ministers' Conference, that when the final text is released next week, if it is, it will contain language that will provide a clear and unambiguous exemption for regional development programs from U.S. trade law? Can he give us that commitment today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will give the following commitment. The language will clearly ensure that this is not, and I am quoting my hon. friend, "an economic union agreement". It is no such thing. It

December 2, 1987
Oral Questions
is a commercial agreement with the U.S. It is a trade agreement. It has absolutely nothing to do with economic union of any kind.
As to regional development, the Government has already provided the Premiers with assurances in this regard. Indeed, during the course of the summer the Government created the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the western development initiative and infused $1 billion of new money into each of those regions. In all cases it was greeted with great favour by the Premiers of those provinces.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I have offended the Prime Minister by insisting on using the words of one of the two partners to this deal, the President of the U.S., who described it as economic union between Canada and the U.S. Those are his words.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF EXEMPTION FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, to go back to the question, because the Prime Minister has not answered it, is he prepared to give the House the assurance today, consistent with his commitment on television last week before all the people of Canada, that the legal text will contain words that provide a clear and unambiguous exemption for regional development programs from U.S. trade law?
Can he give us that assurance today, or were last week's First Ministers' Conference and speeches by the Prime Minister nothing but a piece of puffery, a charade with which to subdue the people of Canada and put them to sleep while their birthright is being sold out by a Government desperate for some kind of political success?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it appears that my hon. friend is clearly offended by successful demonstrations of the working of Confederation, and the First Ministers' Conference was just that. I know it is deeply offensive to a Liberal to see a federal system working in harmony, but that is the objective of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says he is offending me. He was not offending me at all. If he wants to refer to the term "economic union", he can. I am just telling him that it is a falsehood. It is not economic union; it is a commercial trade agreement. If he wants to persist in calling it that, let him go ahead.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)):: That is what Reagan said.


Martin Brian Mulroney: President Reagan is not infallible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: When he was here he referred to the hon. gentleman as Mr. "Tubin".


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On a number of occasions he has indicated one of the most important aspects of this agreement is the dispute settlement mechanism. Mr. Reisman is reported today as saying that he will be seeking Cabinet advice on the possible inclusion of judicial intervention in the dispute settlement process.


John Edward Broadbent: Requested by the Americans.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Which of course was requested by the U.S. We are attempting today to find out whether or not renegotiations are taking place. The Prime Minister has said formal negotiations are not under way, but indeed informal negotiations are.
Will he now do the honourable thing and simply admit that, while formal negotiations are not taking place, informal renegotiation of critical components of the agreement is in fact taking place?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the exercise of translating the elements of this deal into legal language is very complex. Both teams have been working very hard at eliminating all possible differences over interpretation in order to get as clear a text as possible. That is exactly what is going on at this time. The Prime Minister fully answered that question before.


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATORS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to direct a very straightforward question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Mr. Ritchie has said there is now an effort by the United States to broaden the agreement. Mr. Reisman has indicated that he will be going to Cabinet to change, if you like, the process of settling disputes. That is what he said and that is what his assistant negotiator said. Who is telling the truth? Is major renegotiation taking place? In other words, is the agreement being substantially changed or is it not? The negotiators say it is, and so far the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary have said there are no changes at all.


John Horton McDermid: No, there are not major changes being made, as the Hon. Member would say. I cannot answer it any plainer than that. He knows full well that Mr. Reisman always came to Cabinet for direction. The negotiators were supported by the International Trade Advisory Committee, by 15 Sectoral Advisory Committees, by the Premiers and Trade Ministers of the provinces. There was more input into this agreement than the Hon. Member could ever dream of, and that continues.
Mr. Reisman comes back to Cabinet for direction all the time. He has not yet come back to Cabinet for direction on that.
December 2, 1987


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Transport said there were two exceptions to a passenger match when baggage is put on board aircraft. Today we learn from people involved in baggage transfers of another exception. When baggage is transferred to a connecting international flight from a domestic flight it is not x-rayed or verified so as to ensure complete security. In some cases baggage match is only done in the case of a phoned-in threat. Does the Minister expect terrorists to call in their intentions?
What will the Deputy Prime Minister do to correct this serious security lapse and put an end to this unverified interline baggage transfer?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport responded to a number of questions raised yesterday with regard to airport security and pointed out the vast improvements over the last year or so. That was acknowledged by the International Civil Aviation Organization which indicated Canada had one of the best security systems in the world. I think he indicated there is no absolutely foolproof security system, and that Canada was working on a baggage match system for domestic flights. However, we are unable to start the system until an adequate computer system can be put in place.
While the Hon. Member has raised an important issue, it is also important to recognize that solid progress has been made. Whenever these kinds of discrepancies are drawn to our attention, Transport Canada certainly investigates, as it is investigating a number of allegations made in this House yesterday.


OBLIGATION TO X-RAY ALL BAGGAGE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, although an effort has been made, we know there are still some serious flaws. We were promised that everything would be done to ensure that passenger safety would be first-class.
Today, we heard about an American carrier that has asked to have all baggage X-rayed before loading.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to ask Canadian carriers to do the same? Don't Canadians deserve the same protection Americans get on U.S. flights? Is the Deputy Prime Minister ready to take action?
[ English]
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury
Oral Questions
Board): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what qualifications the Hon. Member has as an expert on airport security but I can-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: What are yours?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What are mine and this Government's? We have heeded the advice of the International Civil Aviation Organization. It has strongly recommended that the baggage match system is much more effective than the x-ray system, and that is precisely why we are following the advice of the experts in the field.
I believe that the International Civil Aviation Organization has many experts in the field and they are part and parcel of the world organization in which all member countries work together in close harmony to deal with the whole problem of international terrorism. I think the Hon. Member should applaud Canada for the progress it has made over the last two years.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-REFERENCE TO BROADENING SCOPE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the American attempt to broaden the scope of the agreement, as Ambassador Ritchie has said. If this new context has been created in which the Americans can seek to have at least three items reconsidered, why did Canada not seek to have some items reconsidered? Did Canadians say what they wanted to broaden or renegotiate on the basis of the many charges which have been made against the agreement, or did we simply let the Americans dictate the agenda once more?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if he is honest with the House, I think the Hon. Member will admit that the Americans did not dictate the agenda and that the Canadian team went into this with support from the sectoral advisory committees and people from the International Trade Advisory Committee such as The Consumers' Association of Canada. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre keeps yelling: "What about real people?" I am not sure to whom he is referring as real people.
I can tell the Hon. Member that his assertion that the agenda was set by the Americans is just not true. As a matter of fact, in setting out its goals in the free trade pact Canada reached every priority that it hoped to reach.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Americans are dictating the timeframe in which this must be decided and dictating what

December 2, 1987
Oral Questions
will now be up for renegotiation. The Parliamentary Secretary speaks of The Consumers' Association. The Consumers' Association appeared before the committee and was very critical of this agreement.


UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who indicated in this House that the American Export Enhancement Subsidy Program violated the spirit of the agreement. Why is this not an item that the Canadian Government brought back to the Americans as something that they must stop doing? Why are we always submissive? Why are items like this not raised in this new climate of renegotiation?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons for getting into the negotiations was because of the protectionist mood in the United States. That is exactly why we are into this process and why we have initialled a very good agreement. The Hon. Member says that the United States wins all these, but just last week a GATT panel came down in favour of Canada against the United States on customs user fees. The theory of the Hon. Member is all bunk.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday's Multiculturalism Bill comes on the heels of a Liberal Bill in 1984, three different Conservative Ministers of Multiculturalism, three years of promises and consultations on this Bill, and an all-Party committee which unanimously recommended to the Government that it introduce a comprehensive forward looking Bill that would go far beyond the general principles.
Why did his Government simply introduce a piece of legislation that is rooted exclusively on general principles and past laurels? Why did he not entrench a separate line Department or a Commissioner for Multiculturalism so that it would meet the aspirations of communities? Canadians are simply getting tired of your fine speeches on your summer ethnic picnic circuit.


Mr. Speaker:: Ministers may reply if they wish, but I must point out that the Hon. Member is out of order, certainly in the last words he used. I invite him to put his supplementary question. There does not seem to be any response from the Government.


Sergio Marchi: I do not know what was out of order, Your Honour-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will probably remember that he was using the personal "you" and, to the degree that that is used, it evokes a response which creates difficulty. I would ask him not to do that.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker-


Mrs. Finestone:: Thank you, Your Honour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: I do not know why the Government finds it so funny.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Listen to Sheila.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has put a question. The Chair has corrected the last few words and the Hon. Member has accepted that. The question is certainly in order, except for those words, and 1 remind Hon. Members that the reasons we are strict about this is that it leads to disorder. However, the Hon. Member has the floor and is putting his question. He is entitled to the appropriate courtesies. The Hon. Member.


Sergio Marchi: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister again, considering the political effort put into bilingualism during the sixties and the seventies, why he failed to incorporate in this Bill the energy and political will of the 80s to enhance multiculturalism, with the same government mechanisms used many years ago to support the policy on bilingualism, instead of expecting ethnic groups and all Canadians to swallow a bunch of platitudes.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister I would like to answer on his behalf, and I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me this opportunity. Since yesterday, Canada has a Bill on multiculturalism, and I think Canada is the first country in the world to table legislation of this kind. It was not only a special day for Canada and Canadians of other ethnic origins like myself, it was an historic moment. Canada is the first country in the world to do something like this, and as a Canadian I am very proud.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary expects that this is a big Christmas gift to the ethnocultural communities. Let me tell him that it is gift
December 2, 1987

wrapping and those communities expected something meaningful inside.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the fact that your Government has consulted far and wide-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sergio Marchi: Given that his Government has consulted far and wide and knows what those consultations were, why did he reject the unanimous recommendations of the committee that reflected the aspirations of the community to have a multicul-turalism Bill that legislates principles but also addresses the hard fact realities of the here and now, rather than patting people on the back for what happened yesterday?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite, and with him, those who have done nothing for multiculturalism, is challenging the partnership the Minister has proposed to be able to administer the new legislation. Perhaps I may repeat, for the Hon. Member's benefit, that yesterday was a great day for Canada. The whole world will come knocking at our door to ask us how we managed to accomplish this excellent piece of work.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I know that working parents who desperately need reliable child care are anxiously looking forward to the details of the national child care program which he will report tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the Minister assure us today that news reports are wrong and that billions of dollars for child care will not go toward regressive tax exemptions but will be used to increase substantially the spaces for quality affordable child care that are so urgently needed across Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is as anxious as I am to see what the statement will be tomorrow. It is ready, and I invite the Hon. Member to be there tomorrow.
Oral Questions TAX DEDUCTIONS


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the Minister as a matter of principle today, does he not agree that any program that doubles the child care expense deduction will not increase much needed child care spaces and in fact will benefit upper-income Canadians at the expense of average and low-income families? Does the Minister think this is fair? Is this fairness for Canadians?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the principles of today are valid principles for tomorrow as well. I want to tell the Hon. Member that I have said continuously that when we come forward with a national child care plan, which the Prime Minister said would be brought forward by this Government and which is another area in which the Government is delivering on its promises, the Government will bring forward a plan which will give parents choices. It will not fit one mould which the New Democratic Party, with its blinkered approach to life, feels is the only way to go with these things. I am not going to accept an NDP way of life.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Just a few days ago, Lev and Marina Furman were again denied their exit visas to leave the Soviet Union. I met this couple when I was in Leningrad in May of this year. For 16 years Mr. Furman and his wife have been trying to leave the Soviet Union. They are so distraught that yesterday, I understand, they began a hunger strike. I know Marina's health is very fragile. She just about lost her life in giving birth to their daughter Bayla Alyia.
Surely Canada can be of some help in a tragic and sad case such as this?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his continuing interest in this case and others of its kind. I am familiar with the case. The Hon. Member will know that I make it a practice in meetings with Soviet officials to raise cases of this kind, and I will continue to do that.
The matter has been raised by the Embassy in Moscow. We will continue to raise those kinds of pressures. I believe the Hon. Member himself intends to be part of a large demonstration of persons from across North America who are interested in issues of this kind and who will be making their views known directly when General Secretary Gorbachev is in Washington. I think these kinds of efforts also help to underline the broadly based concern for questions of human rights in the Soviet Union.

December 2, 1987
Oral Questions


SHIPBUILDING
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Industry,Trade and Commerce, Mr. Daniel Johnson, stated that the Quebec Ministers in the Tory Government are less inclined to keep their promises concerning the future of our Quebec shipyards. Moreover, Mr. Johnson said that the Minister of Energy,Mines and Resources, the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion do not understand the needs of Quebec shipyards and are not delivering the goods.
This is my question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether the Tory Government intends to respond to Mr. Johnson's request and save our three Quebec shipyards?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the Hon. Member that I believe the shipyards in Quebec presently have more orders than any other shipyards in Canada. In dealing with the frigates, we are naturally looking at all the defence infrastructure across the country before making a decision. When the decision has been made, we will be glad to announce it.


AWARDING OF CONTRACTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Mr. Daniel Johnson, Quebec's Minister of Industry and Commerce, has indicated that this would mean the end of the shipyards, and the unemployed Vickers workers in Montreal will let the Minister know he is wrong. Again, my question to the Prime Minister is simply this: Could the Prime Minister tell the House what other contracts the Federal Government intends to award to Quebec shipyards if they don't get any part of the frigate building contract? What other contracts are being considered to make sure that these shipyards will not close and that the Conservative Ministers will fulfill their commitments?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, the people involved in the shipbuilding industry a few years ago acknowledged the need to streamline this industry both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. As the Quebec Minister and the Hon. Member himself will remember, the Federal Government contributed last year to a large extent to the purchase of the Eastern division of the MIL. When referring to Quebec shipyards, the Hon. Member could
remind the House and our colleagues that their order books are filled for a number of years, that the planned restructurali-zation will take place and that the Federal Government will continue to help this industry both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, as it has tried to do since 1984.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-FINAL TEXT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On October 5 the Prime Minister made a commitment to this House that the House committee would have the final document to study before the agreement was signed. He said, and I quote from page 9632 of Hansard:
-I shall table the complete text of the Agreement as soon as the wording is
finalized. It will then be referred to the appropriate committee of the House
for analysis, study and debate.
Does the Prime Minister stand by that commitment? Will we have the final document? Will it be sent to a House committee for study before it is signed?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been discussed on many occasions in the House, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary responded quite fully to that. Of course we are disappointed that the final text is not in place. However, that has not prevented this House from debating it, and the committee, and debate has taken place in the provinces and across the country. As soon as the final text is available it will certainly be brought before the House of Commons and every ample opportunity for debate will certainly be provided.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Prime Minister because it was his commitment to the House. Is that commitment still valid? Will the people of Canada have the finalized document? And will it appear before a committee of the House before the Prime Minister signs the final document?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question and it is the same answer. There will be lots of opportunity to debate this issue in full, in the House, in committee and probably in the country.
December 2, 1987


PRIVILEGE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege on which I rise, and of which I have given you notice, arises out of a matter I raised under Standing Order 21 before Question Period and on the evident position taken by the Government in heckling while I was speaking.
I rose following the announcement this morning by the Government that it would finally be making public the Parker Commission report into allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as I submit, there is a well established practice of a courtesy being extended to the media, on which I do not insist as a question of privilege, but which has been an established practice, and to members of the Opposition concerned, of advance copies being provided of difficult, complex and lengthy documents, as it has been indicated this one will be. It is necessary in order to have informed debate. It is necessary in order to permit Members of Parliament who are called upon to respond and comment on the report to have an advance copy in order to discharge their proper functions as a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate, of course, to interrupt the Hon. Member because he is an experienced and senior Member in this place. He may have a grievance, but I have to make it very clear to him that it is not a question of privilege.
No Government, certainly in contemporary times, has ever been obliged to put out a document in advance. Sometimes it is done and sometimes it is not. In any event, while it may be a matter of complaint on the part of the Hon. Member, I have to advise him that it is not a point of privilege.
However, the Hon. Member has made his point and, of course, members of the Government are here and perhaps there will be some further action, but that is certainly not for the Speaker to say.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, this commission was established by the Government under the Public Inquiries Act. I am informed that the document will be released tomorrow through a briefing which is taking place under the auspices and control of the Royal Commissioner. Chief Justice Parker is in control of the briefing and will be dealing, at ten o'clock I think on the day of the tabling, with those parties which had standing before the commission.
1 have heard the Hon. Member and I propose to get the direction of the Chief Justice with regard to the request made. I would explain to the Hon. Member that this is not a government briefing but a briefing and release, with an embargo of
Statements by Ministers
course, to those parties which had standing before the commission. I think that includes the party of the hon. gentleman.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that is quite different from the understanding that I had arrived at from various rumours and statements made by the Government. I accept the Minister's word that it is not a document being put out by the Government. Therefore, I withdraw the criticism which I was proposing to make of the Government for failing to do so.
It is most unusual that a report of a royal commission is released by the commissioner. It is normally the Government which has commissioned it that releases it. That is the reason for the misunderstanding that arose.
With regard to advance briefings by the commissioner, I confirm what the Minister said, that I learned through counsel that documents were going to be made available in Toronto to the counsel to parties which had standing before the royal commission. I was not aware, and I gather that the Minister is not certain, that there will be an opportunity for counsel to be informed on, ask questions about, or see the report in advance of it being made public. I will look into that through the channel of the royal commission.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for his gracious comments. I also want to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Although it was not a question of privilege, as I said, this has perhaps helped resolve a difficulty.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2) I rise to table, in both official languages, a discussion document relating to the Central America peacekeeping observer organization.



Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House upon my conversations and meetings last week in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rice and, in particular, to discuss the peace process agreed to unanimously by the five

December 2, 1987
Statements by Ministers
Central American Presidents in their August meeting at Esquipulas.
That agreement seeks to achieve "the climate of liberty that democracy ensures", and it sets forth conditions with which all five Governments must comply. Two characteristics invest this agreement with unusual promise. It is unanimous and it is indigenous. It is not a prescription from outside but a commitment made deliberately by all five Presidents.
It is my impression, after talking to each President, that all intend to keep the word they gave. Indeed, a strength of this agreement is that no one-no Government, no guerilla force, no outside power-will want to stand accused of making this agreement fail. It is, therefore, of unusual importance that, in addition to whatever help countries like Canada might offer, we seek to create a public opinion that is informed and dispassionate about this process so that compliance can be fairly judged and pressure for compliance fully maintained.
No peace is simple. Countries which are serious about contributing to the success of this process must begin by understanding the complexity of the conflicts and the history of Central America and understanding also the relative frailty of the democracy which this accord seeks to promote.
Only eight years ago, in 1979, Costa Rica was the only democracy in the region. The Government of Nicaragua then was an oppressive, almost feudal, regime, a regime which invited revolution. The tradition in the region, again excepting Costa Rica, has been for crises to be resolved by force and military rule. There are, therefore, no deep roots for the democratic parties and institutions which can guarantee civil liberties and human rights as we Canadians have come to understand them.
The region is still torn by extremism-extremism of the right, extremism of the left-and it is marked by poverty, injustice and exploitation. Its economy is hobbled by debt, low commodity prices, frequent inefficiency, and the spectre and reality of war which drive growth away and distort domestic priorities. Even nature has been cruel. The capital cities of Managua, Guatemala and San Salvador have all been struck visibly by earthquakes. Those, Sir, are the circumstances in which the five Presidents seek peace.
Moreover, despite their unanimity, there are deep suspicions among them-doubts that the civil authorities in El Salvador, Guatemala and, to a lesser degree, Honduras, will in the end be strong enough to control the army, to control the police, to end the tradition of repression. There is also a profound skepticism as to whether the Sandinistas will let real democracy threaten the revolution which their constitution describes as irreversible.
In addition, each Government which signed the agreement must deal with combatants and refugees who have not been parties to this accord and whose views only become known in piecemeal fashion. That is to mention simply the complexities of the region itself which are complicated further by the
extension to Central America of the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union.
There are, Sir, plenty of obstacles, but there is also a genuine commitment to the peace initiative and a recognition that the alternative is hopeless; continued bloodshed, economic stagnation, the withering of young, democratic institutions, and the consequent rebirth of coercive forces of the right and of the left.

Canada's interest and involvement in Central America is relatively recent, but our standing is high. Over the last five years we have tripled our bilateral aid to over $105 million, and, on a per capita basis, our aid to Central America is second only to what we do in the Caribbean. In that period, total direct Canadian assistance amounted to nearly $170 million, including support for Canadian non-governmental organizations who are active throughout the region.
To get some better sense of the people and, the countryside, we visited a Farmers For Peace workshop in Nicaragua where farmers are trained to repair machinery.
We visited also two NGO projects in southern Honduras, one where Horizons For Friendship helps educate orphans, and the other, a rural clinic operated by Canadian church workers.
Members of our delegation visited different CIDA projects-with purposes ranging from purifying water to providing daycare for single parents, to improving dairy production, to building houses, and meeting other practical needs.
Some of our delegation also met with human rights groups, womens' associations, artists, and refugees in the camp at Limon. We saw for ourselves the good reputation of Canada, which gives us credentials to contribute to the peace process.
The Accord asks "the respect and support of the international community for our efforts. We have plans in Central America for peace and development, but we need help to make them a reality."
I had planned to visit the region sometime before the Spring of next year to provide a visible signal of Canada's support. I sought to meet, in seven days, as broad as possible a representation of the people and organizations who, because they are involved in the conflict, must be brought into the process of peace. I had meetings with the five Presidents; the five Foreign Ministers; other Ministers and commandantes; the two clerics, Cardinal Obando y Bravo and Archbishop Rivera y Damas who are charged with leading reconciliation in, respectively, Nicaragua and El Salvador; leaders of the political wing of the guerrillas in El Salvador; a contra representative in Costa Rica, Alfredo Cesar, who was once the head of the Nicaraguan Central Bank under the Sandinistas; the Miskito Indian Leader Brooklyn Rivera; Opposition leaders in Nicaragua including Pablo Antonio Cuadra, the noted poet and co-
December 2, 1987

director of La Prensa, and groups preoccupied with human rights.
In addition, our delegation included Lieutenant-Colonel Don Ethell and Lieutenant Colonel Gerald Thompson, two Canadian officers who have commanded international peacekeeping operations elsewhere in the world. They had detailed discussions with Central American authorities about the practical challenges of designing and operating verification and peacekeeping mechanisms.
I have just laid upon the Table of the House the basic document that was used by those two representatives of our military in their discussions in Central America.
The Esquipulas plan proposes procedures of verification and follow-up, but I told each President of Canada's concern that they were underestimating the complexity of putting such mechanisms in place. A peacekeeping operation must fit precisely the conditions in the regions where the peace is to be kept. You cannot simply shift a model that might work in Cyprus to the very different conditions of Central America.
Our experts believe that it could take up to six months to design and mount a mechanism that would prove effective in Central America. I said that Canadian expertise would be available for all or part of that work, if the five Presidents agreed unanimously that they wanted Canadian help. I emphasized, Sir, that we were not seeking an invitation, because we want the decision on this vital question to be taken by Central America for Central American reasons. I indicated that there were general conditions of unanimity and authority that Canada requires before becoming involved in any aspect of any peacekeeping operations.
I should tell the House that I do not think it would be appropriate to attach new conditions in this case, since the problems in Central America are already complex enough. As a result of our conversations, I believe the five Governments now have a greater sense of the urgency of getting on with the design of the mechanisms that they will need.
Peace and the peace plan are the overwhelming preoccupation in Central America now. Naturally, other issues arise. Let me deal with two of them, the question of the conditionality of aid, and the resumption of our program in Guatemala.
There has been a suggestion that, in the special circumstances of Central America, Canada should abandon the principle of not using our aid for political purposes. Part of the reason that Canada is respected in the world is precisely because our aid has been designed to help the poorest, to help the most needy. Other countries, including the United States, use aid for political leverage, and their reputation reflects their practice just as our reputation reflects our practice. If we make an exception in Central America, we would begin to discount that distinctive, valuable Canadian principle.
Statements by Ministers
I discussed the question in Central America, including with President Arias, who understands and accepts Canada's policy. I make the point, Sir, that it would be consistent with our practice to consider help to special multilateral mechanisms which the five Presidents might jointly establish to promote democratization or compliance or other specific purposes in the region as a whole and as part of the evolution of the peace process.
[ Translation]
We are maintaining active development projects in Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and El Salvador, and have announced our intention to resume bilateral aid to Guatemala. We will follow in Guatemala the precedent established two years ago in El Salvador, which allows control of our aid to rest in Canadian hands, at least until the program is well launched. That system has proven very effective in El Salvador. Some critics in Canada believe Guatemala should continue to be left out of bilateral programs, because of their human rights record. Unquestionably, abuses of human rights continue. The questions are first whether the democratically-elected government of President Cerezo has made enough progress on human rights to justify resumption of aid and second whether it is now safe for Canadian aid workers to deliver that program. The Gatemalan Human Rights Commission in exile, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the OAS, the U.N. Special Representative for Guatemala, and Amnesty International have all noted signs of improvement in Guatemala under the civilian government while indicating, as we would agree, that abuses continue. My judgment is that there has been progress, and that bilateral aid relation with Canada will encourage further progress on human rights in Guatemala.

Obviously, another question in Canada concerns the public position we should take regarding the support by the United States of the Contras, and the support by the Soviet Union and Cuba of the Sandinista Government and of guerrilla activity in El Salvador. We oppose third party intervention in Central America, whatever the source, and have made that position clear to both superpowers.
Some Canadians argue sincerely that our Central American policy should focus more on public criticism of the United States. I believe that such a policy would reduce, and not increase, whatever real influence we might have in Washington on this question. It could, in addition, impede our ability to play other, more active roles in support of the peace plan. The five Governments of Central America are in no doubt about the difference between Canadian and U.S. policy, and our conduct should be guided by what makes us most effective in Central America itself.
The issue of compliance with the peace plan is most acute in three countries-Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras.

December 2, 1987
Statements by Ministers
In Nicaragua, real commitments have been made to democratic reform-the formation of a National Reconciliation Commission, the reopening of La Prensa and Radio Catolica, the readmission of exiled clerics, and the release of almost 1,000 political prisoners. Earlier this month the Government also expressed a willingness to enter into indirect dialogue with the Contras, through the mediation of Cardinal Obando y Bravo. These commitments are real and they are encouraging. However, we should recall that by some estimates there are still between 7,000 and 8,000 political prisoners held in Nicaraguan jails, that some clerics remain in exile, that Radio Catolica was prevented from broadcasting its first newscast, and that the dialogue with the Contras is narrowly defined and still in very preliminary stages. There has been no complete amnesty.
In El Salvador, a full amnesty has been granted for political prisoners. Two prominent leaders of the political wing of the guerrilla movement have already taken advantage of this opening to return to that country's legitimate political process. The Salvadoran Government has also formed a National Reconciliation Commission and was quick to reopen talks with the guerrilla opposition. As well, El Salvador accepted the repatriation of some 4,300 Salvadoran refugees from camps inside Honduras. However, the violence continues in that country, and the Government-guerrilla dialogue was suspended after the assassination of Herbert Anaya, the head of the nongovernmental Human Rights Commission. Unfortunately, neither side seems prepared to take the serious initiatives needed to resume the dialogue.
Honduras is a country which does not have an internal conflict but is plagued with the problems of the Contra presence in the south, as well as the influx of enormous numbers of refugees from both Nicaragua and El Salvador. The Government has formed a National Reconciliation Commission to help deal with these problems. On the refugee side, as I noted, the Government co-operated fully with the UNHCR in the recent repatriation of Salvadoran refugees from Honduran camps. They have also asked the Contras to leave Honduran soil, though to date there has been no measurable movement. I was advised in Honduras that informal discussions may begin soon between Honduras and Nicaragua to move toward concrete compliance with the Esquipulas agreement respecting non-use of territory.
I remind the House that the notion of simultaneity, so central to this accord, means that implementation of the basic provisions of the accord must occur in lock-step. The Contras must be removed from Honduras at the same time as a ceasefire is negotiated between the Nicaraguan Government and the Contras. Neither objective has yet been reached, and each relies on the other.
I expressed at the outset my view of the importance of creating an active, informed, and dispassionate Canadian public opinion, whose interest and judgment might encourage compliance with the peace plan. I think it appropriate that the House of Commons pursue more formally the interest several
individual Members have already shown in the region and the process.
At the Government's request, House Leaders have begun discussions on the appropriate parliamentary committee to allow this House to monitor and encourage the peace process in Central America. I would place before that committee, on a monthly basis, a report on the current compliance with the plan and would seek to arrange other briefings and background. It might be useful for the committee to review the discussion paper on peacekeeping, which was just tabled and was the basis of our conversations last week, and to examine other ways by which Canada can contribute constructively to achieving peace. Officials of External Affairs, CIDA, and other Departments would be available to provide information.
Those of us who criticize the superpowers' involvement in Central America often unconsciously commit the error we condemn and see the region not by its own lights but in the shadow of a superpower. The initiative of the five Presidents is more than an attempt to resolve their own problems. It is an assertion of their distinct destiny. These are five countries with histories, aspirations, and identities of their own. Their development has been blunted by repression, poverty and conflict. Trade and tourists shift away from a region known as a war zone. Economic strategies are displaced by military strategies. Children, who should be in families, are orphaned. Youngsters, who should be in school, are at war.
The real issue in Central America is not Marxism, nor is it death squads, nor even is it the abuse of human rights. Those are symptoms. The root problems are economic and social, and Central America needs peace to resolve them.
Five different Presidents, with courage and uncommon unanimity, have launched their own initiative for peace. The issue now is whether the five Presidents who signed the accord will respect its principles, will keep moving toward peace, and will keep moving toward what they call in their own document "the climate of liberty that democracy ensures". I believe the House would agree that Canada should encourage and help them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: their territories at will by marauding mercenary bands, which is still part of their effort.
In one sense I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs falls short of the mark when he says that the problems are basically economic and social. Those may be the consequences, but I believe the problem has been the sense of imperialism, colonialism, or domination under which they have suffered. They have not lived in a world where there is a rule of law or where there is a recognition of the sovereign right of those countries to decide for themselves their own destiny, what kind of government they want to have, or what kind of economic and social systems they want to create. They have been dominated, manipulated, and pushed around. That is a cause that has inspired various countries and regions, not just for generations but for thousands of years. This is why I think that the opportunity for Canada to associate itself and to ally itself with that incredible historic initiative is something all Canadians support.
There is an understanding out there in the country. The Minister talks about trying to develop Canadian public opinion. It is there. It is amazing the number of churches and groups across the country that have sent people into Central America. It is amazing the number of people who have worked in co-ops in Nicaragua or Honduras and have direct experience from working in the most basic conditions. Canadians understand and recognize that they have a certain affinity for a small country trying to retain its independence in the looming shadow of a great power. That is why I looked forward to the Minister's visit. I really believe that when Canadians ask the question where we can play a role, here is a place for Canadian interest, Canadian affinity and a Canadian opportunity to do something meaningful, not by imposing our will but by providing many of those countries with the skills and support they are so desperately looking for.
One of the conversations in Nicaragua that I recall quite graphically was with one of the secondary Ministers. He told me that they were accused of being allied with the Soviets. What could they do, he said, when the Americans turned them down, started supporting the Contras and put an economic embargo on? Who did they have to turn to? Where else could they get support? It was only the Soviets and their bloc, he told me, who were prepared to come forward with the oil and sufficient economic aid to keep them alive. The Minister said, "Please, when you go back, tell your Government and country that we do not want to be associated with the Soviet Union. We want to be independent, but we need countries like Canada and others like you to give us that kind of support".
I have to express some disappointment with the Minister's remarks. I do not question or quarrel with his emotional sentiment. I think that he has been bitten, in a sense, by the same bug we all have when we go to Central America and we see the kind of struggle with which we all identify. But the Minister went there without a Central American policy and he
Statements by Ministers
has come back without one. We still do not have a policy as to how Canada will organize its various economic, diplomatic and political initiatives to meet the historic significance and the historic challenge that greets us in that region of the world.
Where I perhaps take quarrel the most, and I do it in all good intentions, is on the assertion the Minister makes that Canada should not speak out against U.S. aid to the Contras. That is the central issue in Central America. If the peace plan will work, aid to the Contras must stop. There is no other issue. All the rest of it is prelude and prologue. That is the central issue. Until that incredible, disruptive and immoral action comes to a halt, there will not be a peace plan. I believe sincerely, and I say it to the Minister, that Canada could play an important role in helping that aid to be halted.
When we visited Washington after our trip to Central America, the group that I was with met with a number of Congressman to talk about what would happen if Canada said no to Contra aid, specifically, clearly, directly, not in vague language of third party intervention, but clearly. They said that right now the issue is in the balance, that Congress must decide within a matter of months one way or the other. It is not the Reagan administration that will decide. Ultimately, it will be the Congress of the United States that will decide. There are people in that Congress fighting desperately to stop that aid on both sides of the House in both Parties. They said that if a country like Canada, with the kind of legitimacy and credibility that we have, seen as a good ally of the U.S., were to take the stand that the peace process is paramount and that the stoppage of aid is the priority, then that message would be heard in the halls of Congress. It might change 10 or 15 votes. I do not know the numbers, but they said it would have an impact and it would make a difference. We would add credibility.
Charges often heard in that kind of political debate about those going against aid to the Contras being soft on communism or something, the kind of rhetoric you hear from the right wing in the U.S., could be stopped if allies like Canada, the European countries and others took a stand. The American Congressmen told me that if we took a stand, then maybe some of the Europeans would take a stand, and all of a sudden the Americans would see it as the international community saying, "Stop this immoral practice". We could make a difference, Mr. Speaker. This Government could make a difference by saying in a forthright way, not in anger, not with vitriol, but by saying that if the peace process is to work you cannot have a surrogate war being sponsored by a great power which is designed to upset and overturn one of the partners to that peace process. That is what it is all about.
If I might be allowed a moment of anecdote, let me say this. Mr. Reagan does not know what he is doing. I believe he has no idea of the kind of inspiration that is in the hearts of many of those people in Nicaragua. I visited a farm village that had been attacked by the Contras five days earlier. As I walked into the village and watched the farmers and their families with rifles on their backs, I saw the destruction, the burned

December 2, 1987
Statements by Ministers
tractors, huts and granaries, and a little girl about seven years old approached. The translator told me that she wanted to show me her prize possession. It was a reading exercise book. She was the first one in her family to learn to read. That is what the revolution is about. As the Minister said, it is about children learning to read and proper health care. Her father said to me-I will never forget his words as he stood there- "You go back and tell Mr. Reagan that if he thinks he is going to take this away from me and my daughter, I will fight to the death to stop him". That is what is going on in that region. That is why it is so central for Canada to make its voice heard in a way that 1 think will ring not only through the Congress but throughout the corridors of Government in all parts of the world.
I realize there are dangers. I do not diminish the sense of caution of the Secretary of State for External Affairs', but if I may, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that this is a rare chance for a Canadian voice to be expressed in a way that would make a difference. I hope that this statement will not be the last word in our Central American policy. I hope, before the timetable of the peace process comes to an end, that we will say to our allies in the United States, "Stop aid".
In the next few minutes I would like to go beyond that. We should also tell the Americans to stop the economic embargo. This is something which the Minister did not mention in his statement. He spoke about poverty, economic difficulties and injustices. How would you like to be a country in which the largest power in the world is using its diplomatic influence to stop all trade, Mr. Speaker? Farmers for Peace, the Canadian aid project, send tools from Alberta, but they have to ship them to Costa Rica up a very difficult highway into Nicaragua. Inflation is 1000 per cent. When I arrived in Nicaragua, it was 55,000 cordobas to the dollar. When I left, it was 60,000 cordobas to the dollar. How can there be any kind of stability in that circumstance? The economic embargo is a large cause of that. We could be speaking out on that issue as well. If the process will work, you have to allow these countries to have some input into economic exchange. This is a Government that is talking about free trade, yet we are condoning a total blockage of trade of one of the countries in Central America.


Charles Joseph Clark: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am sorry, not condoning. I do not want to use the word condoning, but we are not speaking out against it. That subject was not in the Minister's statement and it should have been.
Equally on the question of our own aid, I know this is a difficult issue, we wrestled with it at the External Affairs and International Trade Committee, but once again I believe the wrong signals in part were sent. While we were there we were offering new aid to Honduras and Guatemala and really no new aid to Nicaragua. I would like to debate this with the Minister, and when we get to committee maybe we will have a chance-


Mr. Friesen:: No contest.


Lloyd Axworthy: I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is being facetious, but I am trying to make a point and I wish he would take it seriously.
In this question of the use of economic aid-I think this is a special circumstance because of the peace process-we will have to be careful. If we do business as usual and offer an extra S14 million in aid to Honduras when it is still harbouring Contras, does that signal to some of the other countries that we are implicitly supporting that practice? In the discussions which the Secretary of State for External Affairs had with the President and the Foreign Minister of Honduras that subject should have been raised. We are the second largest donor in Honduras. We have clout and leverage. Our economic aid is not being given in a heavy-handed manner. The Americans, as the Minister probably recognizes, are tramping in and using their military aid as a way of trying to stop Honduras from making a change in its policy. The Reagan administration is clearly using its economic and military aid in Honduras to try to disrupt the peace plan. We should provide an alternative to that by saying that our country and others believe that, with the right gestures, we can do more.
In this case, I endorse fully what I believe was a commitment from the Minister. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I do endorse the idea that there should be a Central American reconstruction plan and that Canada should take the lead in helping to pull that together. That is very important in allowing the other Central American countries, especially Honduras and El Salvador which are very dependent upon American aid, to know that if the peace plan succeeds and military aid is withdrawn, the economic vacuum will be filled.
One of the fears of those countries is that since American aid is such a dominant part of their economy, if it is pulled out, there will be nothing left. There must be a substantial contribution made by other countries of the world to fill that vacuum. I would hope that we could even go beyond that. I would hope that that would be an issue which the standing committee would address as well. It should address the question of whether or not Canada should take leadership by helping to organize, through the United Nations, NATO, the OECD and the various other multilateral groups to which we belong, a substantial reconstruction plan for Central America in order to provide a foundation for the peace plan.
A gesture that Canada could make immediately, even tomorrow, is to provide direct aid, perhaps through the auspices of the Red Cross, to help those countries carry out the amnesty. That costs money. If Contra rebels are to be persuaded to come from the hills back into the villages, they will need houses, training and farm tools. Those countries cannot afford that.
December 2, 1987

When I was there, members of the Nicaraguan Assembly asked us if we could find $50,000 in Canada to help them print their Constitution. They have no money with which to do that kind of work. An amount of $1 million in aid, an amount that is very small in terms of the CIDA budget, to help the resettlement of rebels and Contras, would have an enormous and magnifying impact on those countries. The money would not have to be given to the Governments. The Red Cross is already carrying out those kinds of functions, and aid targeted specifically at this early phase of the peace process would be a salutary and beneficial move.
I am not trying to fight the Minister's policy but I am saying that there are many elements that could go into that policy. There are elements of it that we could be implementing right now. This is not a condemnation of what the Minister saw and reported on, I am simply saying that there is a lot more that could be done.
Although my time is almost up, there is much more that I would like to say. I appreciate the fact that the Government will be establishing a committee, but in order to make that committee's work meaningful, the Government should place before it a clear statement of policy initiatives which we will be prepared to follow. Let the committee then debate and agonize over the issues and come to grips with them in a very quick and effective way. This should be done within a week or two, and my last message is that there is no time to waste.
The process is moving along. In some ways it is evolving, in some ways it is unravelling. Because the process is so crucial and historic and because there is an opportunity for Canadians to play a positive, beneficial and constructive role in it, we must take action immediately. We cannot wait for spring. That is why I urge the Minister to come forward with a policy, set up the committee and take the initiative.
I now return to my central point. Most important of all, we must be prepared to say clearly and without equivocation to our allies, using our influence, that after a proper assessment and judgment, the Government of Canada, with the support of the Canadian people, with members of the Opposition fully in accord, believes that the most important contribution Canada and the United States could make to peace in this world, to resolving the conflicts, would be to make a decision as quickly as possible that we will no longer support aid to that surrogate war that is going on in Central America and that it must be prepared to withdraw its military presence. That is the one most important ingredient in making the recipe for peace in Central America work.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would like to make a brief comment. It breaks my heart that Parliament has come to the point that a major statement on Canadian foreign policy contained in the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on his visit to a very troubled region of the world should be made in the presence of-how many Members are present? I suppose the rules do not allow me to comment
Statements by Ministers
on that, but I think it is a sad comment on the state of affairs in Parliament. I will not say any more than that because I do not want to use up any more of the time I am allotted to speak to the Minister's statement.
First I would like to say, on behalf of a great many Canadians, how glad we are that the Secretary of State for External Affairs decided to go to Central America. It was a very important thing for him to do and I hope that what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) alleged of him is true, and that is that he has been bitten by the bug of Central America and that his level of concern for that area will be heightened as a result of his visit.
I thank him as well for making a statement to the House in spite of the fact that there are so few Members present to hear it. The Minister himself has had something to do with the partial renewal of the practice of making statements in the House. Perhaps some day we will gather together Members of the House in ways that they no longer gather together for these kinds of things.
I was moved, as I always am, by the sincere rhetoric and the analysis of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, but I am also moved to a rage which I will suppress when I recall the timidity with which the Government to which he belonged dealt with this question in the early days of the Sandinista revolution. At that time, different Canadian policies might have made a difference in the evolution of the situation this Government is now trying to address.
I should begin by saying that I support the major Canadian procedural recommendation made by the Minister in his statement with respect to the formation of a committee. I would hope that the House Leaders would see their way clear to form a special committee with full powers and full flexibility, rather than a subcommittee of some other committee.
I am not sure I agree with the idea of putting a policy before the committee. 1 would like to think about it more before I decide whether or not it is a good idea. Perhaps giving the committee some time, although time is short, to make up its own mind would be a good idea. I am worried that government members of the committee might feel beholden to any policy that would be put before them by the Government, and I would rather have them have an independence of mind at the beginning so that the committee itself could form a view on the situation. However, in order for Canada to be helpful, we will have to take steps in the very short run. Whatever the committee does will have to be done with that in mind.
My problem with the Minister's statement is that, over-all, I find it to be too timid and imbalanced in ways that I hope I will be able to articulate in the time remaining to me. It is timid in its analysis of the superpower relationships in Central America and it is timid about obvious Canadian interests.
I would have thought that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement on Central America, he would have had some sharp words of protest to register against

December 2, 1987
Statements by Ministers
the attacks on Canadians and Canadian-sponsored projects. I thought that this would be an opportunity for the Canadian Government to send a strong message of disapproval to the American Government about what people supported by that Government are doing to Canadians and Canadian-backed projects.
The Minister said that the peace plan is unanimous and indigenous. These are of course what recommends the plan to everyone. We hope it is respect for those two characteristics of the plan which will cause everyone, including the U.S., to avoid trying to impose their own will on the plan or the region. I am glad the Minister made that statement.
He talks about the need for informed and dispassionate Canadian public opinion about this process. I say to the Minister that the Canadian public is already very well informed on Central America. In fact, I would say the average church-goer in the mainstream churches of this country is probably more informed about Central America than the average Member of Parliament. It is very difficult to walk into the lobby of a United Church, a Roman Catholic Church, an Anglican Church, a Mennonite Church, or various other churches, without finding in front of you an array of literature and material on Central America. So I would just warn the Minister not to be too paternalistic with respect to the Canadian public. There is already a large body of well-informed Canadians who have experience in Central America and have related that experience to other Canadians. On occasion the Minister has chosen to ignore the advice of those Canadians, most recently with respect to the resumption of bilateral aid to Guatemala.
I was glad to hear the Minister referring to pre-1979, say that the then Government of Nicaragua was an oppressive, almost feudal regime which invited revolution. Indeed, that was so, but would it not have been more historically informative, accurate and balanced to have noted that that very regime was put in place and supported by the U.S. for decades? This is part of the problem. It is one thing to say the problem is social and economic, but those problems cannot be divorced from the politics of superpower domination in that area. The fact is that the superpower domination we are talking about when we talk about Central America is American domination going all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. It did not originate with Ronald Reagan; it originated in the 19th century and an American commitment to domination of that area of the world.
The Minister displays this imbalance, if you like, in the analysis on page 5 of his statement when he talks about profound skepticism over whether the Sandinistas will let real democracy threaten the revolution which their Constitution describes as irreversible. Why the sarcasm about democracy in Nicaragua and not about elected Governments in other countries of Central America? All the observers of the election in Nicaragua came to the judgment that it was valid. There
are opposition Parties and there is an Assembly. I just think the statement would have been much stronger if he had left out the word "real" and posed a legitimate question about whether the Sandinistas would allow a democratic process to threaten their revolution. That would have been a legitimate question, but to insert this cute adjective of "real" before "democracy" it seems to me, weakened it.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will give you the word.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Besides, I recall it was the Minister himself, at a banquet here for Vice-President Ramirez, who used the word "irreversible" in the French portion of his speech to describe the Sandinista revolution.
What I am saying is that throughout this statement there is this sort of double standard with respect to burden of proof, and that a much harder case is made against Nicaragua than some of the other countries. That is a weak spot in the Minister's analysis and it is no coincidence, of course. It comes from an over-all willingness to be critical of those elements in Central America which might irritate the Americans.
With respect to peacekeeping, the Minister says on page 10:
You cannot simply shift a model that works in Cyprus to the very different
conditions of Central America.
I agree, but did the Nicaraguans or others ask for a model off the shelf? They probably did not, so I think it should be clear that they probably were not in the market for a Cyprus model. It may be that we will not have the six months or eight months that the Minister is talking about to work out that kind of peacekeeping plan. It may be that Canada will have to be part of a much more urgent process. I hope the Minister is at least open to that. I would also like to have seen some mention of how the Minister sees UN involvement. Does he see such involvement in any peacekeeping structure in which Canada would participate? It would have been good to have had that illuminated for the House.
With respect to aid, the Minister says Canada should not abandon its policy of not using aid for political purposes. I agree in the pejorative sense of the word "political", but it is nevertheless a fact that the choice of whom we give aid to and whom we do not is a political act. The resumption of aid to Guatemala was a political act. It will have political effects, even if it did not have ostensible political purposes. That was one of the criticisms made of it. It would send the wrong signal to the Government of Guatemala that perhaps the Canadian Government and people were satisfied with the progress made so far.
I know the Minister has a different view in that he feels this will encourage respect for human rights. However, no matter what side of the argument you are on, there is a political dimension to aid. I hope the Minister is not trying to pretend there is not and that therefore debate about it is illegitimate.
One of the things the Minister could have done in making this announcement was to announce some support for human
December 2, 1987

rights institutions, commissions and the like in Central America. That certainly would have strengthened the perception that human rights are central to the Canadian perception of the problem there.
I want to go back to the analysis, if you like, because this is crucial. The Minister made a good announcement with respect to the committee, but there is an ongoing problem with the analysis. On page 16 he says:
We oppose third party intervention in Central America, whatever the
source, and have made that position clear to both superpowers.
Tie says that as if there were some equivalence to the involvement of the United States and the Soviet Union in Central America. That is like talking about superpower intervention in Afghanistan, as if there were no difference between what the Soviet Union is doing there and the aid that the Americans are giving to the Afghanistan rebels. There is an obvious difference, one that I am sure he would maintain.
That difference exists in Central America. The Contra army, which is basically a proxy army, not a guerrilla army, would disappear minutes after U.S. funding stopped. It is supported by the American Government. It is an extension of long-standing American policy in the area. I just say to the Minister, anyone who knows anything about the situation is not going to accept an analysis which tries to equate the involvement of the two superpowers in the area.
It would be very helpful if just once the Government would condemn outright U.S. funding of the Contras. I can understand the Minister's tactical claim that there may not be that much good to be achieved in persistently haranguing the Americans about their funding of the Contras. I am not sure the tactic works; I am not sure anything works with the U.S. However, if just once, on principle, the Minister or the Government would say that we condemn outright U.S. funding of the Contras and then proceeded from there, that would be so much more helpful. It would clear the air and be helpful to our allies in the U.S. Congress who want to resist the attempts by President Reagan for further funding of the Contras. It is the same tactical debate all over again.
I see the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is in the House. As a result of being too nice in dealing with President Reagan's policies on acid rain, the Government undermined our real allies in the Congress who wanted to be able to refer to international criticism.
The same mistake is being made with respect to Central America. It would be more helpful if the Minister were able to make a strong statement about Central America, because, whether we like it or not, the U.S. funding of the Contras will have to stop if the peace plan is to succeed. Nicaragua will be unable to meet the standards it has set for itself as long as it is in a permanent state of mobilization. It cannot demobilize until it is no longer under attack, which will not happen until the United States decides to stop funding the Contras.
Statements by Ministers
It is very difficult indeed for the Minister to have an analysis of Central America without addressing that very crucial point.
I return to the imbalance which is finely woven into this analysis. We are told that Radio Catolica was delayed one day in presenting its first news broadcast. One day! There is no mention that this was due to a bureaucratic foul-up with respect to licensing, and that they were able to broadcast on the second day. That should not have been contained in the analysis. There is no mention of all of the opposition newspapers that have been shut down over the years in El Salvador and do not have a hope of ever reopening. Those newspapers were not just censored; the editors were shot, the presses were destroyed and the premises were bombed. Many of those countries do not even bother with censorship, yet acts such as these do not receive the same kind of attention as the shutdown and the reopening of La Prensa, the opposition newspaper in Nicaragua.
The Minister said that there has been no complete amnesty in Nicaragua. The plan does not call for complete amnesty. For instance, the plan does not call for the release of national guardsmen who were prosecuted for crimes committed before the Sandinista revolution. This question of imbalance in the analysis by the Minister is certainly something that I hope the committee could address.
We must be careful in regard to the peace plan. The Arias peace plan is the actual written peace plan. There is also the peace plan as it is perceived by the world through the influence of the United States and the international press. That plan, which does not bear any strict relationship to the actual text, is the one which the United States is interested in fulfilling in Central America. That unofficial plan requires compliance essentially from Nicaragua alone. While this does not mean there will be no benefits to other countries, a double standard applies in this unofficial plan. Nicaragua will have to live up to the letter, the spirit, and the additional interpretation put on it by the United States in this case.
I hope the Canadian Government and this committee can be useful in separating those two plans, between the actual collective judgment of the five central American nations with respect to what was required for peace and that which will come from the White House and the Pentagon about what Nicaragua must do in order for the U.S. to cease the funding of the Contras. That is what is so crucial in the first place, because Nicaragua will not be able to live up to the peace plan as it wishes so long as it is mobilized. No one can expect it to do so. Canada would not be able to live up to those kinds of commitments if we were under attack from an army on a daily basis. We had the War Measures Act over our heads when all that we had was a supposed apprehended insurrection.
We must attempt to avoid the double standard with respect to Nicaragua. I propose that the Government should make a clear statement about the crucial nature of the U.S. role in the funding of the Contras and the need for it to stop. While the Minister's statement today represents progress, such a clear

December 2, 1987
Introduction of Bills
statement by the Government would represent a much greater step forward. 1 hope the committee will be able to give good advice to the Government, and I look forward to our participation in that committee.


REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA, 1985 ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-94, an Act to bring into force the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-274, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (contempt).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently acquitted lawyer Harry Kopyto on the offence of scandalizing the court, and a majority of the court found the offence to be in breach of the guarantee of freedom of speech in the Charter of Rights.
The purpose of this Bill is to abolish this archaic offence of scandalizing the court, in addition to conferring upon the Houses of Parliament the right to impose a fine in cases of contempt of Parliament.
The time for abolition of this archaic and repressive offence of scandalizing the court is long overdue. Certainly I want to congratulate Harry Kopyto on having spearheaded this important initiative.


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

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-275, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (postal services).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to declare the Post Office an essential service, taking away the right to strike of all postal workers and subjecting both the corporation and the postal workers to binding arbitration.


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

Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition properly certified which has been signed by residents of the City of Thunder Bay, resident both in my riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon and in my colleague's riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan. These persons are protesting the federal Government's White Paper which proposes changes in the taxation structure of Canada. They protest the fact that these proposals do not change an already unfair tax structure which is experienced by average Canadian families but will give wealthy Canadians earning over $100,000 a year, who are presently not paying their fair share, a tax cut.
These proposals will also permit 60,000 profitable corporations to pay no income tax at all and threaten a levy on food and other essential items. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these tax changes, to reject the tax on food and to restore full indexation to the personal tax system.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?
December 2, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 wish to inform the House that because of the Ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by sixty-three minutes, unless the House Leaders would like to make some sort of arrangement.