1988-08-24

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last night a big family party was held in Lafontaine Park to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Tremblay-Brassard team. As reported by Jocelyne Lepage in today's La Presse, the family turned out in large numbers and brought together the whole Quebec theatre community.
Mr. Speaker, it must be said that the play Les belles-soeurs, first presented 20 years ago, in August 1968, marked a major turning point in the history of Quebec theatre. It was a decisive turning point, as actress Rita Lafontaine said, and she added, "We did not know it would become such a historic monument."
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that when Les belles-soeurs came out, many of us were shocked by the language. But since then, that play and all the plays by Tremblay and Brassard are part of our culture and our heritage.
So I say to them, "Congratulations and thanks!" Many of us will go to the Outremont Theatre on September 6 to see Le vrai monde.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, following final passage of amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Program, I wish to recognize the successful efforts of the Minister of State for Grains and
Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) and many members of our western caucus. The stabilization program changes will expand and improve the safety net for prairie farmers by adding nine new crops to the list of eligible crops, by authorizing a $750 million debt write-down, and by increasing the level of payments for rejoiners, new farmers and conditional participants.
Under the new legislation a producer joining the program will now receive a 70 per cent payment. Next year it will increase to 85 per cent. The stabilization program is an important source of income support for western producers. This Government has provided comprehensive, long-term support and leadership in this type of income program.
I want to recognize the efforts of all Members in acknowledging the hard work that this Government has put in on prairie agriculture and the fact that we have worked with and stood beside the farm families of western Canada in a time of need.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from the newly elected Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Mr. Bentley Cheechoo. This letter details some $11.4 billion in government expenditures proposed for the Defence Department. Grand Chief Cheechoo then points out that the 44 Nishnawbe-Aski communities across northern Ontario are forced to live in inadequate housing, with unhealthy water supplies and unsanitary sewage disposal. That is the situation for the "lucky" communities formally recognized by the Department of Indian Affairs.
For the six so-called new bands in the region, they cannot even get funding for schools, housing, or community infrastructure of any kind, which has led to scores of children receiving no schooling for the last two years.
To quote Grand Chief Cheechoo: "This is a national disgrace and the priorities of the federal Government should be realigned to demonstrate a caring and concern for those citizens in the greatest need ..." In the meantime, in spite of the Government's declared $40 million for family violence initiatives, four communities, three of which belong to Grand Council Treaty 3, have had funding for their highly successful crisis intervention programs summarily terminated.

August 24, 1988
Quoting Grand Chief Cheechoo again: "The best defence is a healthy, educated and informed population capable of handling international relations without the need to resort to war and weaponry".
The Government would be well advised to heed that advice.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the notion of arbitration is not a new concept for dispute settlement. Many societies, since the earliest of recorded times, have used this procedure as a quick and less costly dispute resolution mechanism. For example, the Hebrew Law of Judges required a judge to ask litigants at the outset of a trial whether they would submit to arbitration to settle their dispute.
Here in Canada arbitration has been recognized as a legitimate and significant part of our legal system. Every province and territory in Canada has an Arbitration Act, and the Parliament of Canada has approved legislation such as the Commercial Arbitration Act which permits the use of binding arbitration as a dispute settling mechanism.
I strongly urge the federal Government and those under federal jurisdiction to consider sourcing the Arbitrators Institute of Canada in all matters where a satisfactory resolution can be achieved through arbitration.


AIRPORTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, it may come as some surprise to the Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock), but garbage stinks. When I was travelling in my riding on Monday night, in the neighbourhood of Swaru, it became increasingly clear to me that the people of Hamilton are very prepared to deal with their own garbage. They do not want to deal with garbage from other municipalities.
The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North, instead of trying to place the garbage problem on the shoulders of other municipalities, in what I consider to be a form of garbage blackmail, should place the blame for the situation squarely where it belongs, that is on the federal Government, the federal Department of Transport and, in fact, the Minister who continued, over our loud objections, to license international airlines to fly into Pearson International Airport knowing full well that he did not have the facilities to deal with garbage.
We in the Liberal Party believe in one principle. We should be responsible for the garbage that we create.
I would like to ask the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) why he does not ask the airlines to take the garbage back-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) had the floor. I would ask that she be allowed to continue her remarks. Perhaps the Hon. Member could finish off her remarks.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We believe it is a problem created by the federal Tories. It is one they have to clean up and we do not intend to be responsible for the garbage at Toronto International Airport, Mr. Speaker.


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, after La Tabatiere and Smithville, we again have another PCB alert. A serious fire in a PCB storage facility last night required the evacuation of more than 3,000 residents of Saint-Basile-le-Grand on the south shore of Montreal.
It was total confusion this morning. It is only after a disaster that Governments seem to become aware of the seriousness of the PCB situation in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, where is public safety? Today, we have had enough; we must all know where PCB's are stored in Quebec and Governments must require that existing storage sites be guarded 24 hours a day.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why, in 1988, people's health should be threatened.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, a committee of the Canadian Bar Association has brought to the attention of all Canadians just how badly our justice system deals with aboriginal peoples. Extreme poverty, high unemployment, poor housing, and cultural conflict all combine to bring, in far too many cases, aboriginal people in urban settings into confrontation with the law. One of the few
August 24, 1988

agencies trying to prevent and respond to this crisis in the cities is the Aboriginal Friendship Centre.
These centres are doing a most commendable job under extremely difficult circumstances. The Government, however, is making their work even more difficult. Five months into this fiscal year, the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) has yet to finalize their funding arrangements. This financial uncertainty is placing the centres under great stress and must not be allowed to continue.
I urge the new Secretary of State to turn his attention to this situation without delay and clarify the funding question immediately.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has said it has a serious commitment to creating quality child care and claims to be making advances in that direction. In the Yukon this issue is very close to our hearts. We have a very young population. Not only do we have the second highest birth rate in Canada but we also have the highest percentage of working mothers.
There is a golden opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it is willing to be innovative in creating solutions to the child care crisis. The new federal building being constructed in Whitehorse will house federal government offices as well as provide office space for private business. Employees have been unsuccessfully petitioning the Government to include child care space in that new building for well over a year. Numerous studies have shown that in the workplace child care facilities help to reduce employee absenteeism and generally improve the health and happiness of the employees and their children.
I strongly urge the Government to ensure that child care space is made available in this new federal building. It can only make the quality of life better for everyone.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, last night about 90 concerned residents of Grosse Isle, Manitoba, gathered in the community hall to discuss proposed changes to postal services in their community. The current postmaster is soon to leave the village.
The residents listened to Canada Post officials describe the options. They heard that they would be offered a retail postal outlet in their community. They heard that there would return all of the current postal services available to them. They heard that they would be able to choose postal lock boxes if they desired, that their addresses would not change, and that delivery would be the same as always. They heard that the new postal outlet would be open for a full 70 hours a week compared to the 21 hours it is now open.
They liked what they heard. With a unanimous show of hands, the residents of Gross Isle gave Canada Post Corporation the authority to implement a retail postal outlet prior to the end of the 90-day consultation period.
Gross Isle residents are joining the majority of rural Canadians who know that our Government has a commitment to improve postal service, and do not listen to the fears of NDP Members.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, on August 23, 1988, yesterday to be exact, votes on report stage of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal took place. Some Members of Parliament were present, others were absent. That is not unusual, but one Member of Parliament was conspicuous by his absence.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John R. Rodriguez: There was one Member of Parliament who said he would use any means to fight the trade deal. He would fight it in the Commons, he would fight it in the streets, he would fight it in the Senate, but when the opportunity arose to strike down this deal in the Commons, where was John?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt will rest eternally in the annals of Hansard.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, almost all the socialists, except one, were here in the House to take a negative stand-to vote against free trade. Their chief

August 24, 1988
Oral Questions
fund-raiser Bob White, leader of the United Auto Workers' union and vice-president of the socialist party, must be strong! Ele must have a lot of clout! With the socialists, as we saw yesterday, money talks-it gives the orders. Bob White's money comes from the free trade in automobiles that has been going on between Canada and the United States for 23 years. The money comes from the union dues paid by the 840,000 Canadians who already benefit from free trade. The socialists have forgotten that 12 million other Canadians want to share in it too. That is why we have free trade. All Canadian workers should enjoy a better life, not only the auto workers of Bob White and Broadbent, Mr. Speaker!


HOUSING
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, a coalition of representatives from Canadian housing groups today visited the three political caucuses in Ottawa and outlined in startling terms how the federal Government is abdicating its federal responsibility for the provision of affordable housing for all Canadians.
Over 500,000 people across Canada do not have adequate housing. Over 100,000 people do not have any housing at all and are forced to live on the streets, in shelters, and in church basements.
The Government now provides 19,000 units of non-profit housing in all of Canada when estimates show that approximately 14,000 units are needed in the metropolitan area of Toronto alone. In the urban centres the Government is not releasing federal surplus lands to ease the pressure on housing and on the cost of land. There is no RHOSP-like program to encourage first-time home buyers among young married couples. There are no municipal incentives to encourage developments that facilitate progressive housing policies.
It is time that the federal Government picked up its federal responsibilities in the area of housing and delivered, because there is a social cost of not doing so.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, freedom is great and we in Canada enjoy that freedom. As an example, there have been two characters parading just outside this House yelling at MPs for the past few weeks. I am sure you
have noticed them, Mr. Speaker, wearing a U.S. flag as a cape and a plastic pig nose, hurling insults at one and all.
Yesterday, one called me a Fascist, yes, a Fascist. Then he asked me what my name was. How he could deduce that I was a Fascist without knowing my name, let alone my beliefs, is totally astounding. Obviously he is one of the many on Parliament Hill who do not let the facts confuse their convictions.
Yes, Canada's freedom is great. Even to the extent of allowing an individual to make a complete ass of himself.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is of course directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, the fratricidal battle in the Conservative ranks rages on!
Yesterday in the House, the Right Hon. Prime Minister said in referring to the call made by his chief of staff to the Hon. Member for Rosemont, and I quote at page 18697 in Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, there was no threat.
The Deputy Prime Minister himself told me that the purpose of the conversation was to remind the Hon. Member of her duty to hand over any evidence she might have to the police.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we read in the press that this was not the interpretation put on the matter by the Hon. Member for Rosemont, since she said, and I quote:

Mr. White said if I don't issue a public retraction I'll be expelled from the
caucus.

And the Hon. Member for Rosemont went on to say at her press conference: "The Prime Minister's chief of staff asked me whether what I told the press was accurate. I said yes, but just the same he asked me to state publicly I had been misquoted."
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Does he maintain that the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Mr. Peter White, simply called to get some information? Does he still maintain no threats were made? Does he still maintain it was simply a courtesy call, considering the circumstances?
August 24, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: I want to make something very clear here before we go any further. The question is in order and I want Elon. Members and others who are watching to know why.
The question is addressed to responses made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister yesterday. It might otherwise not be in order. However, it is in order and I want Hon. Members to cooperate with the Chair in my ruling. The Hon. Minister.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question was answered yesterday. As 1 indicated, and as the Prime Minister indicated, the Principal Secretary did call the Hon. Member. That was before he was made aware of the fact there was a police interview. I was advised about that interview before entering Question Period. If I recall correctly, that was somewhere between ten and eleven o'clock in the morning. My understanding is that the call took place at roughly 8.45 or nine o'clock in the morning.
The thrust of it was whether in fact she was accurately quoted when she said there exists a system of kick-backs on contracts. If she was not quoted properly, she should seek a withdrawal. If she was quoted properly, then she had a responsibility to report it to the RCMP and to substantiate the allegations. If that were not the case, then it would be very embarrassing to all Members to make an allegation without foundation, and particularly would cast a very bad reflection on the Quebec members of caucus. I assume that he indicated clearly that the Quebec caucus would want to deal with that.
Surely the Hon. Member would not want any Member to allege with a broad brush incidents of wrongdoing without having some evidence, or some statements or some concrete proof to back it up. I think that is really what was done, and that was explained to her.


REQUEST THAT PETER WHITE APPEAR BEFORE PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to one of my questions, the Prime Minister said in referring to the Hon. Member for Rosemont:
The same person who said that she had no evidence for the accusations
made against people's reputations has no evidence for such a statement.
This was a reference to the allegation that threats had been made by Mr. Peter White. This morning we read in the press that the Hon. Member for Rosemont recorded her conversation with Mr. White. If the Deputy Prime Minister is sure of the facts he gave the House this morning, considering that another Member contradicts those facts and, in fact, did so several times yesterday during her press conference, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to appear and to have Mr. White appear before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to see whether there was any attempt at arm
Oral Questions
twisting and to find out whether all the rules of ethics were followed? Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple: Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to have Mr. White appear before the Committee, at which time we could listen to the conversation on the recording made by the Hon. Member for Rosemont, which would certainly be a practical way to get at the truth?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a recording of the conversation. If the Hon. Member has, that is fine. He says he has it. I do not know whether it is appropriate and proper for any individual to record a conversation which takes place between two individuals on a telephone. That may very well be a legal question.
It is quite obvious that the Hon. Member would rather believe the Hon. Member for Rosemont whose allegations have been unfounded, who has been discredited, and who still wishes to stick to her original allegation without providing proof or evidence. The police have looked into this and found that there was absolutely no evidence.
As a matter of fact, it is rather strange that she has also charged that public servants, lobbyists, and Ministers and members of former Governments are involved in this. Is the Hon. Member of such certainty right now that he confirms that the Government of which he was a member was involved in wrongdoing? If he is accepting her word, that is precisely what he is accepting, the fact that former Governments were involved in kickbacks and wrongdoing. He may want to come clean and give us his evidence about past Governments.
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should listen to his own rhetoric and look at his own contradictions. We asked for a royal commission of inquiry on the whole patronage issue, including past allegations. We in the Liberal Party are not afraid of a royal commission of inquiry.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my third question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Since the Hon. Member for Rosemont claims that. . . She said the same thing happened to another colleague, in referring to threats of expulsion, and she said: "I am not unduly surprised or troubled", did, for instance, the Hon. Member for Duvernay or the Hon. Member for LaSalle get the same kind of courtesy call from the Prime Minister's principal secretary? Did Mr. White, for instance, translate the English word "prison" for the Hon. Member for Duvernay? Was this approach used in the case of all three Members who were visited by the RCMP, prior to those visits? What was the attitude of the Prime Minister's chief of staff? Is that the way you deal with your problems, trying to put out the fire before the RCMP gets there and the investigation is finished?

August 24, 1988
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister to wait for a moment. I am not going to stop the Hon. Minister from responding if he wishes. However, I do want it clearly understood that as long as I am Speaker questions on matters of great importance to this country will be asked in this chamber. I am, however, bound by the rules. As I clearly indicated, the Hon. Member's first two questions were completely in accord with the rules. His last question is getting once again into an area which may go well beyond the administration of government. I will certainly hear the Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that which has been circulating in the last couple of days is pretty well described by Mr. Bill Johnson of The Gazette when he wrote: "We have not often seen her likes before in this country but her style is familiar from a well-known figure in the United States, the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member is the epitome of high morality and high integrity. If that is the case, I wonder why he and his colleagues are so silent about what is going on in the other place with regard to a Senator who happens to be a member of their Party.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Today the Journal de Quebec reports that a few days after the Prime Minister apppointed the returning officer for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve, the latter gave $4,000 in cash, without a receipt or acceptable justification, to the Conservative Member for the riding, as part of the money raised at a political fund raising dinner for the Party and the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister aware of this fact? What have they done or what do they intend to do about this?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what this has to do with government business.


Mr. Andre:: Nothing.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about ethics?


Mr. Speaker:: I listened carefully to the question. I have some doubt as to whether it has anything to do with the administration of government at all, but of course the Hon. Minister is quite entitled to reply if he wishes to do so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I can respond to every news story and allegation that is trumpeted by the Liberals and their friends, any acts of wrongdoing, without first obtaining the facts. I do not think credence should be given to any of these stories until they are properly analyzed and until the facts are brought forth.
It is my understanding that in the same article the Member confirmed that the funds in question were in fact deposited in the association account and that receipts were issued. I know as well that the Hon. Member appeared on a radio station talk show this morning, on CJMS, where he denounced the whole story. I am also advised that the Hon. Member will want to clarify this, as the Hon. Member opposite saw fit to do just a few days ago, because he too is not always dead right.
We are not sure whether these allegations are founded. He says they are not. I think he has the right, and deserves the opportunity to make a clarification if he so desires, as a Member of this House.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, other than the statement that the Deputy Prime Minister is making right now, has the Government, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, or Peter White-have the RCMP been alerted and brought in on this case-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Order, order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What steps has the Government taken in the light of this allegation?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Please, please! Order!

I interrupted the Hon. Member for York Centre two days ago on a number of occasions. I was exercising what I thought was the obligation of the Chair. I interrupted him yesterday. The Hon. Member accepted those interruptions.
The Hon. Member just asked a question which is in order. I would ask Hon. Members to exercise as much self control as they can when we are discussing issues which are as difficult as these issues are for your Speaker.
They involve matters of public importance. They also involve matters of people's reputations. As I have said before on appropriate occasions, I am going to try to conduct the questions in such a way that the Opposition has a right to ask,
August 24, 1988

but that nobody is unduly slandered. It is not an easy line to find in a House of Commons which traditionally has the right of privilege, which is the right to say anything Hon. Members want no matter what the consequences may be.
I am trying to put some rational constraint on that, but I have to say to Hon. Members that the Hon. Member, who has been admonished by the Chair and has accepted that admonition, has just asked a question which in my view can be asked in the House. I would ask Hon. Members to accept that. The Hon. Member for York Centre.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I had concluded my question. To put it again more clearly, and to come right to the heart of it, in the case of the Member for Rosemont the Government indicated that after seeing her statements it called the police, and that Peter White had called. I am asking in connection with this case, nothing more or less, what steps has the Government taken in relation to this apparent-


Mr. McKnight:: Apparent what?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -in relation to this matter? I will leave it at that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the admonition, I find the Hon. Member's comments rather cheap and sleazy, I must say.


Mr. Nunziata:: That describes your Government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: To accuse an Hon. Member without the facts, when the Hon. Member has already issued a clarifying statement, and I believe wants to come to the House to respond and clarify the article, surely to accuse the Hon. Member, a fellow Member of the House, as the former Solicitor General has just done, without facts, is not fair, is not just, and it is not in keeping with the traditions and practices of this House.


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Last night, at Saint-Basile-le-Grand, there was a very serious explosion in a storage depot for PBCs, which are very toxic substances. Three thousand people in the region were evacuated. Could the Minister inform the House today about the present situation in the area?
Oral Questions


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because it affords me the opportunity both to express to the House the Government's deep-seated concern, which I believe is also shared by the Opposition, about what has happened, and to bring the House up to date.
The fire itself has been extinguished. The clean-up has begun. A sampling has been taken and analytical work is being conducted by the Government of Canada in concert with the Government of Quebec.
Water run-off from the fire collected for analysis and treatment and has been studied. As the Hon. Member will know, people have been evacuated. I am assured by my health experts and environmental advisers that the people themselves are not thought to be at risk. The firemen who were on the scene last night were the most vulnerable. We are following the case with a great deal of care and scrutiny.
The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party and the House in general can be assured that everything possible is being done both by the Government of Canada and by the Government of Quebec.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO EVACUEES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is clear there are some serious problems for the evacuees and also for farmers in the area. Does the federal Government intend to provide financial assistance to both evacuees and farmers in the area?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP will know that the Government of Canada is already assisting in a fairly major way, albeit indirectly. For example, the resources of the Department of National Defence have been made available for those people who have had to be evacuated, to ensure that they have a comfortable and secure place to live until they can return to their homes.
There is a federal program under which, in certain circumstances, the province in question, in this case Quebec, can apply to the federal Government for emergency assistance, in which instance there is a formula that either applies or does not, depending upon the extent of the damage and the hardship on the individuals concerned.
I have asked my most senior people to inquire whether there has been any overture from the Province of Quebec in that connection and, if so, whether such assistance would be possible under the relevant program.

August 24, 1988
18790_______________________________________
Oral Questions PCB STORAGE SITE LOCATIONS


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. My last question is also directed to the same Minister.
Would he confirm the following information that was given to me this morning when my office checked to see if the federal Government has an inventory of all PCB storage sites in Canada? I was told that there is no such inventory. I want to ask the Minister if it is true that the federal Government is not aware of where these very dangerous substances are being stored.
If there is no such inventory at the present, will the Minister assure us that the federal Government will undertake to obtain the precise location of the storage of such dangerous substances? Once we have that inventory, will the minister also ensure that all such substances have the maximum safety requirements to protect the public?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the NDP probably knows that the storage of PCBs is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. However, because of the strong national interest, and in particular the interest of the federal Government, in the matter, we have provided a lot of leadership through the Canadian Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers, CCREM, both to assess the needs for PCB storage facilities across the country and to arrange for the technology needed for the disposal of the PCB materials themselves.
At present, an installation has been built in Alberta, a site has been chosen in Ontario, and one is in the process of being chosen in Quebec as part of a Canada-wide effort, again with the involvement of the federal Government.
As for an inventory in each province, that is the responsibility of the province concerned. I will take the particular representations of the Leader of the NDP under advisement, and see, together with my colleagues at the provincial level, whether the inventory is complete, and whether there might not be a particular role for the federal Government in that connection, beyond what has already been done, which is significant.


EXPLOSION AT SAINT-BASILE-LE-GRAND-DESTRUCTION OF PCBS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: My question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. As was said earlier, more than 3,500 people at Saint-Basile-le-Grand were evacuated yesterday because of a fire in a storage depot containing PBCs.
I would like to remind the Minister that on May 31, 1985, at a federal-provincial conference of Environment ministers in Montreal, the federal Government made a commitment to speed up the development of facilities for the destruction of these highly toxic substances. I can inform the Minister that today in Montreal and in the general area, there are 350
storage sites for PBCs similar to the one at Saint-Basile-le-Grand. What does the Minister intend to do to speed up the destruction of PBCs, now that we have seen what happened at Saint-Basile-le-Grand, which may be due to the federal Government's failure to act as it promised in 1985?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, I do not think that this is an occasion for grandstanding. There is no basis upon which to make the sort of charge that she has made.
The federal Government and every one of the provinces, irrespective of political stripe, have been working together hand in glove for many months on the question of PCB storage. It is a most difficult question. It is not an easy one technologically.
For example, it is very difficult to get communities to accept a PCB storage facility. Even given all the restrictions and confinements, much has been done. For example, a major installation has been completed in the Province of Alberta. It is now pretty well on stream. The Ontario Waste Management Corporation has advanced its work within the Province of Ontario. Now Quebec has gone a long way to following suit in the context of a Canada-wide effort in which the federal Government is one partner, but only one.
[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: I would just like to tell the Minister that I got my information from a press release issued by the Department of the Environment in May 1985.
I would also like to know from the Minister what the federal Government intends to do for the 3,500 people whose health was endangered last night and who were forced from their homes. What does the federal Government intend to do as well to help people if Saint-Basile-le-Grand and the neighboring towns are contaminated? What will you do for the health of the people who have been contaminated?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, we will do what we have been doing. We have been treating it as a prime priority. It was the Government of Canada that was on site within minutes of the accident, of the fire, and of the explosion. It was the Department of National Defence that provided the equipment and the foam to make it possible to extinguish the fire in the first place. There were several Departments, including my own, that made it possible, in concert with the Quebec Government, to evacuate the people, to monitor the situation, to provide up-to-date reports on the situation, and to keep everybody fully informed with every relevant piece of information.
The two Governments-that of Quebec and the Government
of Canada-could not be acting more harmoniously than they
now are to ensure that the interests of the people who have
August 24, 1988

been so disadvantaged in this case are uppermost in the minds of Government and of the public of Canada in general.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the contradiction between the version of the Hon. Member for Rosemont and Mr. Peter White of the Prime Minister's Office regarding the conversation that took place last Friday. Mr. Speaker, the Member said, and I quote, "He then ordered me to retract or to resign, and when I refused, he told me that I would be expelled from the caucus by my fellow Members."
Mr. Speaker, my question is: Since this conversation was recorded by Mrs. Blais-Grenier, the Member for Rosemont, would the Deputy Prime Minister be prepared to ask Peter White to agree to make the tape recording of this conversation public so that everyone can know exactly what the Prime Minister's representative said?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Mr. White is not in the habit of recording conversations that go on between him and anyone else. I note that the Hon. Member is being prompted by the Member for Shefford. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member who has put the question has enough talent to rely on rather than relying upon an expert in patronage and the kind of allegations that he would refer to.


An Hon. Member:: That's out of order.


Mr. Benjamin:: You can do better than that.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Not from a Deputy Prime Minister, surely.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Burnaby would put his second question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, given the record of this Government in the last four years, that Minister is the last person to speak about someone being an expert-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: There are many different ways in this place to say things that one would not otherwise say. I hope that Hon. Members understand that the Chair is also pretty acute when it comes to these matters.
Oral Questions
I know the Hon. Member has a serious question, and I would ask him to put his question.


ALLEGATIONS OF MEMBER FOR LASALLE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The first question has still not been answered, but I will try again! Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether or not the RCMP has concluded its investigation into the allegations made by Mr. Lanthier, the Member for LaSalle, concerning the crumbs that fall from the table, the funds used for just what purpose we do not know; has the RCMP completed its investigation into these very serious allegations and if so, what was the result of this investigation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the RCMP interviewed Mr. Lanthier regarding his allegations and that he had no information of any activity which would justify the RCMP initiating an investigation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence and concerns the Iran-Iraq conflict.
We know that for about ten days now, Canadian troops have been on the Iran-Iraq border to help bring about a more lasting peace.
Does the Minister believe it might be appropriate to inform Canadians on developments in this matter?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that Canada has responded to the request of the United Nations. We are the only country which has provided two groups, first, the 15 observers who were the first of any of the 24 countries to be in the observer position and, second, we have provided 495 communications experts and 148 vehicles which are being shuffled in by 10 Hercules Transports. That is now in the process of being completed and they are now taking up their positions.

August 24, 1988
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns his job as the Minister responsible for ethics in government. On August 19 the Deputy Prime Minister said in this House: "The Government of Canada under the leadership of the Prime Minister has moved very quickly with respect to various charges of wrongdoing".
Given that I have in hand an article by Pierre O'Neil of Le Devoir of February 6, 1988, in which the Conservative Member of Parliament for Rosemont said she met the Prime Minister on September 21, 1987, to make similar charges to the ones she made last week, if it was warranted this week to investigate those allegations, why was it not warranted when the Prime Minister found out on September 21, 1987, or when it was reported on February 6, 1988? Was it not because Members of Parliament asked questions in this House that the issue was brought to the attention of the RCMP as opposed to the interest of correcting what was wrong?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the meeting to which the Hon. Member refers, but I suspect that, if she was unable to provide any evidence today as a result of the interview the police had with her, no specific charges-no names, no dates, no places-nor is she willing to be a witness or tell her story to a Royal Commission, if she is not able to provide any evidence today I can only assume she was not able to provide evidence then.


PATRONAGE ALLEGATIONS-REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister told us in the House last week that the accusations were so serious that they required RCMP intervention.
What I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister, since the same allegations were made a year ago, is why he did not choose to refer the matter to the RCMP at that time. Furthermore, why did the Government not mandate a royal commission of inquiry, as I asked it to do five times in the past, during this Parliament, and as the Hon. Member for Rosemont asked twice, on September 21, 1987 and again last week? Why did they not do what was asked and why did they act only after the matter was raised in the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think, if I recall correctly, she said, as recorded in the newspaper, that she had personal knowledge of a system of kickbacks for contracts in government. She also said that it involved interactions among-


Sheila Maureen Copps: She said that last year to the Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: Come on, Sheila.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: She also said it involved interactions among government representatives, of public sector, lobbyists, politicians and other people close to decision-making processes. When she was asked to substantiate or give evidence, she was unable to do so.


Don Boudria: That's what I am asking.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, what he was asking, Mr. Speaker, is simply the same question in French as he asked in English and it is the same answer.


Don Boudria: You replied to neither.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Deputy Prime Minister or the Associate Minister of National Defence. The Minister will be aware that a study released at the University of Southampton in England has added another voice to those who think that this Government's scheme to spend $8 billion plus on nuclear submarines is a threat to nuclear non-proliferation. Will the Government investigate all the consequences of opening a loophole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty before deciding on the final design for its submarines?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a group in the United Kingdom known as the British Base Program for Promoting Nuclear Non-Proliferation, which has come out with such a statement. We have looked at and know that the non-proliferation treaty deals with munitions and explosives. For engines there is no requirement in the non-proliferation treaty, although there is a requirement in the International Atomic Energy Agency and we have indicated we are setting up a system with the International Atomic Energy Agency to comply, and it will monitor how we receive and dispose of the nuclear waste that would result from the engines used in nuclear powered submarines.


INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Associate Minister of Defence knows that what the Government is proposing in buying these submarines flies in the face of the spirit and regimen of the non-proliferation treaty. It is because of this loophole we are placing that treaty in jeopardy. Canada is already lumped in with India and Brazil as threats to nuclear non-proliferation. How many other countries will have
August 24, 1988

to use this Canadian loophole, as it is now called, in the nonproliferation treaty before this Government realizes that its nuclear submarine program poses a real threat to international control of nuclear material?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brant is a reasonably responsible Member and always has been, but right now he is trying to be rather sensational. We do have a number of nuclear power plants in this country and around the world. We do have to dispose of that waste. We are not breaking the nonproliferation treaty which deals with explosives and ammunition.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: For military purposes.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We are talking about dealing with an engine-


John Edward Broadbent: For military purposes.


Paul Wyatt Dick: -something that powers a boat. It could be an engine that powers a truck or an aircraft, if they had invented those yet.
Mr. Blackburn (Brant: You are not turning on a light bulb.


Paul Wyatt Dick: This is 30-year old technology and it is known as the "submarine clause" in the non-proliferation treaty.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, you're right, a submarine clause. It's a loophole!


Paul Wyatt Dick: We will be complying with the International Atomic Energy Program and we have already stated that. There is nothing we are doing that is not allowed by law.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in the 1984-85 Estimates, money was allocated for the construction of a federal penitentiary in Buchans, Newfoundland. Buchans was announced as the site by the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada.
I want to ask whatever Minister has the courage to answer this question why did the Government of Canada at nine o'clock this morning at a press conference in the largest hotel in St. John's, Newfoundland, announce a $30 million penitentiary, not for Buchans, Newfoundland, but for a riding presently held by a Tory Member, close to St. John's-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


George Baker: -with no site acquired, in fact, no land acquired, no site even decided exactly? Why has the Government of Canada defied the Government of Newfoundland and betrayed the people of Buchans?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly easy to see why the Hon. Member has a new found interest in Buchans. I understand that is the area in which he plans to run in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: That's it, George, you fight for your constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure we are all sympathetic with the Hon. Member's desire to serve the country.


Murray Cardiff: The people of Newfoundland are very happy to have a federal prison. We have waited many, many years-


Mr. Foster:: Yes, for four years.


Murray Cardiff: -with previous Governments. Since 1949 we wanted to have a prison institution in that province. It has not happened. It is now going to happen and the people of that province are ecstatic about having that location there.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, both Governments decided in 1984 to put that prison in Buchans, and even this afternoon, following the announcement by this Government, the provincial Government said it wanted the prison to go in Buchans. The people there, some of them, stayed there following the closure of the mines, on the commitment of both Governments, waiting for construction to start.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Government does not realize that this is a very poor way to treat the peoples' lives and the future of a community, and will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that this announcement today is just a patent political ploy for votes? It is blatant politics and it is an insult to all fair-minded Newfoundlanders.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I cannot always answer with the eloquence of some of the Member's colleagues from that province but I will do my best. I would like read a quote of what was said by his Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party: "I am not going to take sides as to where it ought to be put. I think I will leave that to the local Members of Parliament", which I think was an excellent statement to make.

August 24, 1988
Oral Questions


ECONOMIC NEEDS OF COMMUNITIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the Government's decision to build a federal penitentiary in Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. I contrast it with the earlier decision to build a penitentiary in Port Cartier, Quebec, in the riding of the Prime Minister.
Why are the economic needs of communities an overriding consideration in the Prime Minister's riding despite the objections of the Correctional Service and yet in Newfoundland the desperate economic needs of a community such as Belle Isle, with over 60 per cent unemployment are ignored even though it meets all the requirements of the Correctional Service?
Why is there one rule in the Prime Minister's riding and one other rule in Newfoundland?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, it does not matter where that institution is built whether it be in Port Cartier, Harbour Grace, or any other location. It is necessary for the development of those regions. That is the basis for institutions being built in those places.


QUERY ON ACCESSIBILITY OF LOCATION
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The only concern expressed by the Correctional Service regarding Belle Isle was accessibility due to a ferry service. The Newfoundland Government is building two new ferries to provide more efficient service and Belle Island is closer to needed services than Harbour Grace.
If commuting daily between Belle Island and St. John's is good enough for Belle Islanders, why is it not good enough for correctional workers, inmates, or visitors to that institution?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard to equalize all opportunities for all Canadians. We feel that the location of Harbour Grace Penitentiary in the vicinity of Harbour Grace is the proper location.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question for the Hon. Member for Abitibi, followed by the Hon. Member for Trinity.


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. After the incidents in La Tabatiere, Quebec and Smithville, Ontario, here we have another PCB alert. Last night, a serious fire in a PCB storage facility forced the evacuation of more than 3,000 residents of Saint-Basile-le-Grand. My question is: Can the Minister tell us whether governmental safety standards for PCB storage require surveillance 24 hours a day at existing PCB storage sites, because there is no reason why, in 1988, people's health should be threatened?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think the representation made by the Hon. Member is a solid one. It is worthy of consideration both by myself and by other Ministers of the Environment across the country at the provincial level.
The Hon. Member will know that PCB storage is first and foremost the responsibility of the provinces, but because of the legitimate national interest in this question, there has been much co-operation between the two levels of government. In that connection, I will raise the Hon. Member's suggestion at an early opportunity through the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers and ensure it is given the careful attention it richly deserves.


TAX REFORM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On July 5 the Minister announced that he would be introducing changes to the sales tax effective in November. Now he has put the date of implementation back to April, 1989, and he has not yet said exactly what these changes will be.
When will the Minister make a clear statement of his intentions?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, before responding to the Hon. Member's question, might I, on behalf of my colleague from St. Paul's, congratulate the Hon. Member on her victory last evening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I understand it was by a
reasonable margin. I do hope that all the energy she put into
August 24, 1988

that campaign will not get her exhausted for things that might be happening in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member is asking a question on the change to the manufacturers' sales tax. We have had considerable discussions with the private sector. We have had discussions with members of the committee during the course of the committee hearings and it was felt, because the changes that we feel are important to amend the proposal as it now stands are reasonably extensive, that we should delay the implementation.
As to when we will be reintroducing this I cannot give the Member a precise date now, but some time in the not too distant future we will be able to come back with a revised proposal.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his concern about my energy and, in the same spirit, may I point out that Canadian consumers and manufacturers really do need to know what the Conservative Government has in store for them.
Will the Minister reveal exactly what he is planning in the sales tax before the election?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question to which to respond. I have a timetable as to when I might want to reveal my thoughts on that particular subject, but someone else has a better idea as to what his ideas might be on the timing of his thoughts on that second subject.
We understand the concern which the Hon. Member is expressing. We want to move ahead as quickly as we can and make our views known.


POINT OF ORDER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the events that took place in this House last night at the conclusion of second reading debate on the child care legislation.
Following the speech of the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell), he moved a motion concerning an extension of the hours of the House for sitting, which motion was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker following an examination of the motion.
Immediately following the placing of this motion before the House by the Hon. Member for Perth, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) stood in his place seeking to be
Point of Order-Mr. Robinson
recognized for purposes of debate. He stood in his place immediately and for some time was the only Member who rose in the House seeking to be recognized for the purposes of debate. Following the decision of the Deputy Speaker to rule out of order the motion by the Hon. Member for Perth, the Government House Leader proceeded to the front of this Chamber in a manner that I certainly found quite offensive, apparently to lecture the Officers at the Table with respect to the rules of the House. In my view that does no credit whatever to this House or to the Member involved.
I hope there will be some recognition of the importance of Members on all sides of this House recognizing the role and the responsibility of the Officers at the Table and of not proceeding to lecture, harangue and harass them after a ruling has been made by the Deputy Speaker in good faith following consultation with those same officers.
I raised a point of order at that time and said:
I rise on the same point of order. Surely to goodness it is appropriate that the Speaker recognize the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who wishes to speak without the intervention of the Government Minister attempting to tell the Table what to do.
At that point the Deputy Speaker then turned and recognized a Member of the Government side. Had both the Member for Regina East and the Member from the Government side been standing at the same time, there would have been no difficulty with that whatever because a number of Opposition speakers had spoken to that point in the debate.
In this case, the Member for Regina East was standing. He was the only member who sought to be recognized for some considerable time. It was only after the ruling by the Deputy Speaker that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso (Mr. O'Neil) then stood, motion in hand, and without making any speech, moved to extend the hours of the House.
In my view that very clearly constitutes a breach of the orders and practices of this House. I would have hoped that the Hon. Member for Regina East would have been recognized as he was standing for some time, not to raise a point of order, but for purposes of debate. I hope that we might get some guidance from the Chair with respect to the question of conduct, particularly of Government Ministers and particularly the Minister responsible for government business as to their dealings with the Officers at the Table.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was here as well last night.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State, who is the subject of the comment of the Hon. Member for Burnaby has risen to be recognized. Perhaps, in fairness, I ought to recognize him at this time. The Hon. Minister of State indicates that he would courteously ask the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell to continue.

August 24, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Robinson


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was here as well last night in my capacity as acting opposition whip for the next few weeks or so. I was in my chair at the time of the incident in question. It is true to say that with Parliament sitting long hours we sometimes all get a little hot under the collar and impatient. That probably happens not just to the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis), as it obviously did, but to a number of us.
In defence of the position taken by the Deputy Speaker last night, it should be noted that no government Member had spoken for approximately an hour before. Obviously, the Deputy Speaker is quite in order to recognize whomever he wishes because, of course, it is his prerogative at any time.
Given the fact that no government Member had spoken for quite some time before that, he could have recognized another Member. It must also be appreciated by the Chair that in the cut and thrust of the activities at the time Members were rising on points of order and so on, which is distracting to the Chair at the best of times, as I am sure that you, Sir, will know.
The point that I am making, to assist the Chair, is that it could be said, of course, that the Deputy Government House Leader was upset with a ruling which was not in his favour. However, it would not be correct to say that the Deputy Speaker did not act properly by recognizing an Hon. Member from the Conservative Party because, of course, one had not been recognized for some time before that.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that I probably ought to hear the Hon. Minister of State.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that at the time that the question of the acceptability of a motion under Standing Order 9(4)(a) arose in the Chamber, I found myself in the awkward position of not being in my seat. I addressed some remarks to the Chair and to the Table, indicating that I had a great deal of difficulty understanding the difference between the words "consideration" and "completion".
The Chair will know that Standing Order 9(4)(a) uses the word "consideration", and I took the position that since there was a motion to put the question on the floor, the only interpretation that could be taken from the wording was that the words "completion" and "consideration" were the same. I submit and I have always felt that the essence of Standing Order 9(4) (a) is: "Do you have 15 Members to prevent completion of that stage?" That is the point that I was trying to make at the time.
I was making it informally and I was making it reasonably directly. I want to say that I took the precaution of checking Hansard to see if there was anything offensive recorded that I might wish, in the cool, hard light of the dawn, I had not said in the heat of the evening. In any event, if there was anything said by myself which was out of order, whether recorded in
Hansard or not recorded in Hansard, I would regret that very much and I would apologize to any person who took offence to what was said. There was certainly no offence intended, because we were well served by the Chair and by the Table. I have had previous correspondence over Standing Order 9(4)(a), and one of these days I will get it worded to the satisfaction of my impatience and perhaps the whole House.


Mr. Speaker:: With great regard to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, I would intimate to him that I think the Chair has probably heard enough to deal with the matter. However, if it is very important, I will hear him. It does not always happen.
The matter that has been raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) of course troubled me last night. As Hon. Members will know, our very excellent Deputy Speaker was in the chair. He is skilful, experienced and is an absolutely superb servant of this place. I know that all Hon. Members would agree with me on that. As is the obligation upon me, of course, I was here and when this matter was brought to my attention, I immediately came into the Chamber. There was no need for me to take the chair because the Deputy Speaker was completely in control of the House. I would point out it was with the co-operation of Hon. Members that he was completely in control of the House. However, I knew some Hon. Members were upset. I want Hon. Members to know that that concerns me, as I think it should. I was here for some minutes in the House during part of what has been alluded to. I was not in the chair, as I say. My hon. colleague was in the chair, but I was here.
I have reviewed the tapes very carefully. I might say to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), and I say this in a sympathetic way, that I listened most carefully this morning to the video tape of the Hon. Member's speech, and I say to him that I understand his feelings that were expressed last night. I say this because 1 think the Hon. Member should know that I understand those feelings.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby has raised a matter, and there are two parts to that matter. First, what happened here is that an Hon. Member from the government side rose on a motion. I will not go into the numbers, but I will try to simplify this for Hon. Members and for the public. Under the rules, within one hour of the time of adjournment an Hon. Member on either side can rise and move that the debate continue-if I can put it in colloquial terms-not that the debate be terminated or that it be completed. If there are 15 Members rising in opposition to that motion, that motion will not be accepted and the debate will end at the appointed hour, which was ten o'clock last night.
An Hon. Member from the government side rose and did not correctly put the motion. As I understand it, the Hon. Member did not carefully repeat the words of the Order and said that the matter be completed, which would mean, if one took those words seriously-and I am sure that it was an error on the part of the Hon. Member, and quite an innocent one- that all matters would have to be completed. That kind of
August 24, 1988

closure is not anticipated by the rules of time allocation or closure that we have.


Mr. Prud'homme:: But the Deputy House Leader did not-


Mr. Speaker:: The Deputy House Leader, as the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is pointing out to me, and I always, as Hon. Members well know, defer with great respect to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis because, quite frankly, he has been a great amount of strength to me as Speaker and he usually has something of good sense to say, not just to the House but also to the Speaker, and he correctly points out that the Deputy Speaker quite correctly rejected the motion that was put by the Member from the government side because it was incorrect. What followed then was that a number of Members rose to be recognized, including the Hon. Member for Regina East. I am instructed, because I inquired, that there had been seven opposition Members in a row speaking on debate. The Hon. Deputy Speaker, having rejected the motion that came from the government side, then went to the Government and recognized a Member on debate. I know that this has upset some Hon. Members and that is why I am referring to it.
1 have to ask Hon. Members to exercise some sympathy for the position of the Speaker. The Speaker is not supposed to be able to divine what will be in the mouth of the Hon. Member that he in fact recognized. The Hon. Member may very well have been rising to continue debate, and it is quite true that the Hon. Member for Regina East and I think others were on their feet. The difficulty the Speaker has is that one has to select someone. In this event, the Hon. Deputy Speaker, for whom everyone in the House has great respect, recognized a Member from the government side. This time, the Government got it right and put the motion to extend debate. It is not for me to say one way or the other as to why these things happen, but I suppose it is not altogether untoward for the Chair to comment that this time, the Government got it right and put the motion that the debate be continued.
First, we have a very strong tradition here that the Speaker does not overrule the Deputy Speaker. Under the circumstances, I think Hon. Members would agree with me that fault cannot be found with the Deputy Speaker. As it happened, debate did continue for a little while and then it concluded.
There is another matter, and that refers to what happened with the Deputy House Leader, as happens with Whips of all Parties and perhaps occasionally some other House Leaders. The responsibility of a House Leader is extraordinary at times, and the public should know this. This place does not function without responsible people in all three Parties working long, long hours to take responsibility for what their own Parties do and for the arrangements that are made intra-Party continually. We have been sitting a long time, and I am not getting into a discussion as to whether we should have or should not have. I am just saying that we have been sitting for a long time. The
Point of Order-Mr. Robinson
Hon. Minister of State has admitted that he made statements which the Hon. Member for Burnaby properly brought to the attention of the Chair and the House, statements which he admits he should not have made.
I do not think that I can take it any further except to say that most of the time, most of us, and some of you upon occasion recently have been assisting me, the Deputy Speaker and Acting Speakers, by taking the chair because we have had to call on some help, know that it is a great comfort to the Chair if Hon. Members will refrain from making comments except when they are in their places and they are recognized to be heard. The Hon. Member for Regina East can say that last night he was rising to be heard as were others, and sometimes when there is a lot of people up, it is very difficult for the Speaker to choose. I think the Hon. Minister of State has quite gallantly and quite properly expressed to the House his regret. The Hon. Member for Burnaby, I have to say, had every right to raise the matter and I thank him for the moderation with which he expressed it.

The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) made some very interesting comments to the Chair, but he has preferred to remain silent.. . However, I see that may not be the case. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on a slightly different point of order. I would not like to challenge Your Honour's ruling in any way, shape or form. It is an excellent ruling, of course, as usual. However, I would like to put something to you. Sir, for reflection, and we may get an answer on some other day. I would be afraid that comments arising from what you have just said to us could lead us to some dangerous precedents. I would like to put this to you, and then I too will reflect on it, but I would not like to finish the day without putting it to you openly.
Perhaps in the future, the Government or any political Party might decide not to put up any speakers for a long time and therefore whoever is in the chair would recognize those who rise and would try to alternate between two of the three political Parties. I hope that I will not conclude, after what you said, that in the future, if such were to be the case again, if the Government or political Party would suddenly decide to put up speakers for debate, the Chair would decide that because the Government has not participated and that there were seven Members in a row from a political Party participating, the Chair would recognize six or seven Members of the Government in a row. That is a bit like what happened last night when two government Members in a row spoke because they had not participated for quite a while before. I would hope that we could try to clear that up, not today, but I would not like it to be a precedent because it could be a very dangerous precedent for future tactics for any of the three political Parties.

August 24, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his remarks. Of course I have no intention of letting a precedent be created as a result of the situation we had last night. I also would like to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis for his comments, and I can assure the Hon. Member that his remarks will of course be given careful consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after three o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 13 (4) (a) the House will now proceed to the deferred division on the motion of Mrs. Martin.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the comments made last evening, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) said that a Parliamentary Secretary was approaching the Table to tell the Table what to do. He indicated that the Parliamentary Secretary should remain in his chair if he wants to say something. I just want the Chamber to understand that upon the ruling, I was going to the Table to seek information on the ruling. I was not approaching the Chair and I was not intending to tell the Chair what to do. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) did try to tell the Chair what to do publicly, but that was not my intention.
I would remind Hon. Members that in the first 15 minutes of proceedings today during Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21, there was a bit of a mix-up and two opposition Members in a row were recognized and then later on, two government Members in a row were recognized as a consequence of that. That is a very familiar pattern in this Chamber. The idea is that we do alternate in a general way, but recognizing two speakers in a row from the Opposition or from the Government is not a practice that is discrepant with past practice.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis was just expressing the wish of all of us, and this is not always an easy place to conduct our affairs, that decisions must be made, trying as hard as possible to be fair and to do things in an appropriate way.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, August 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Martin:
That this question be now put.
(Division No. 561)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Belsher
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Bourgault
Bradley
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Cochrane Collins Cook Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Daubney de Cotret Domm Edwards Ferland Fontaine Fraleigh Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-dela-Madeleine)
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jourdenais
King
Ladouceur
Landry
Layton
Malone
Martin
Mazankowski
McCrossan
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
Mclnnes
McKinnon
Minaker
Moore
Nowlan
Peterson
Pietz
++NAYS
Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) Scowen Siddon Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle Vezina Vincent Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Wise-84
Members
Angus	Foster	ParryBenjamin	Harris	PepinBlackburn	Heap	Prud'homme(Brant)	Isabelle	RobichaudBoudria	Kaplan	RobinsonBroadbent	Keeper	Waddell-27Caccia	Lapierre	Cassidy	McLaughlin	Copps	Mitchell	de Corneille	Nunziata	de Jong	Orlikow
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is as follows: Mr. Epp (Provencher)
seconded by Mr. Wise, moved that Bill C-144, an Act to
August 24, 1988

authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you were to ask for unanimous consent, I think you would find that the House would be favourably disposed to having the result of the previous vote applied to this vote.


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Speaker, could I have my name added to the Government vote? I was absent for the first vote.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that I was present and did not vote.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate to the House that I abstained on these two votes simply because the Speaker has asked me to serve as chairman of the legislative committee which will examine clause-by-clause study of Bill C-144, and I have agreed to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to apply the result of the first vote to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Andre
Beatty
Belsher
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Blouin
(Division No. 562)
++YEAS
Members
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Bourgault
Bradley
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Cochrane Collins



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration on A Review of the Canadian Job Strategy.

August 24, 1988
Committee Reports


PETITIONS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-5173 to 332-5183 inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventeenth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages.
In accordance with Standing Order 36(l)(a), your committee recommends that the following items of Private Members' Business be designated as votable items: Motion No. 113 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Post Corporation Act so as to make Canada Post an essential public service which would render illegal any strikes affecting postal delivery.
The second item is Motion No. 151 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution of Canada so as to require the government to submit a balanced budget except:
(a)	in times of a declared national emergency or disaster, or
(b)	if the deficit receives parliamentary approval by a two-thirds majority.
I note that pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b), this seventeenth report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.


PETITIONS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the privilege to present a petition signed by a number of citizens from the Ottawa-Hull area who call upon Parliament to withdraw the Child Care Act forthwith because the Bill contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements, and will not ensure that
families have access to high quality child care. The child care Bill is not in the best interests of young children, women or families in Canada.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present three petitions under Standing Order 106 on different subjects. The first petition is signed by a number of residents of Toronto and concerns immigration. It refers to the need to allow unmarried sons and daughters of all ages to enter as family class and specifically points out that in 1986 the then Minister of Justice promised that the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more would be eliminated so that both groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age, and that this promise has not yet been fulfilled. The petitioners call upon this House to ensure that the Government will fulfil that promise.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: My next petition is again signed by a number of residents of Toronto and other cities in Ontario. The petitioners point out that whereas Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugees out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugees are given protection, therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government will withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, as well as universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my last petition is signed by a number of residents of Ontario who point out that the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal which was not mandated in the last election and would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs we need, and would integrate us further into the North American defence industrial base. The petitioners therefore urge that Parliament ensure that a national debate takes place on this Mulroney-Reagan trade deal before such an agreement is finalized.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by some 40 residents of the communities of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Kenora, Dryden and Redditt, Ontario. This petition calls upon Parliament to enact legislation and regulations to ensure the thorough and comprehensive labelling of foods served in
August 24, 1988

restaurants and take-out shops in order to ensure that those who suffer from severe allergies, which indeed can be life threatening, have the information available to protect themselves.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this afternoon. The first petition is signed by residents of Thunder Bay. It concerns the very serious problem of the illness, schizophrenia, which affects about 1 per cent of the population causing severe mental anguish and suffering to the patients and their relatives and costing Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and other support costs.
The petitioners note that recent research findings, including those obtained in Canada, show the illness to be a biochemical brain disorder in part caused by genetic malfunction. They are concerned that there is not enough research being done in Canada to determine what possibilities there are of treatment. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will in future be commensurate with the very serious impact of this illness in Canada.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also signed by residents in northwestern Ontario and persons in Thunder Bay and outlying parts of the constituency of Thunder Bay-Nipigon. These are persons who note that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, but the petitioners assert that the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians, and equalize opportunities between the regions.
Since Canada would be denied this policy freedom by the agreement, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.
Peacekeeping


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the Day.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper today there is a motion that stands in the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty). There have been consultations among the three Parties and I understand there is unanimous consent for the Government to move to that motion today even though the normal period for notice is not quite up to what it might have been.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence) moved:: That this House supports Canadian participation in the United Nations Iran/Iraq Military Observers Group (UNIIMOG) to observe the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and hopes that Canada's contribution to this international initiative will result in an end to hostilities and a lasting peace.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago I stood with the Chief of Defence Staff on the tarmac of the Canadian Forces Base, Trenton, to wish Godspeed to the first of our troops who were leaving for Iran and Iraq as part of the United Nations force in that region. I wish every Canadian could have been with us. The range of emotions present at that time is not surprising.

August 24, 1988
Peacekeeping
There was pride because Canada was trying to help to end a war that has cost a million lives. There was sadness at leaving families and friends behind for a foreign tour of duty which could last up to six months or longer. There was apprehension because Canadians know from bitter experience that trying to keep the peace could be hazardous. There was enthusiasm because all of the soldier's training was suddenly made relevant at that moment. And there was hope because it appeared that peace, although far from certain, was now more possible than ever before in a bloody eight-year conflict.
No one should underestimate the sacrifices these troops and their families have been asked to make. Some of them have had to postpone weddings or interrupt honeymoons as the soldiers do their duty outside of Canada. Others will have children born while they are away or will have family crises arise and they will not be able to be there to attend to them. For their families, the burden of a lengthy separation will be compounded by a concern for the safety of the troops. For each of these soldiers, these were sacrifices they were prepared to make to serve Canada and to promote peace. As they take on their heavy new responsibilities, the hopes and prayers of every Canadian go with them.
I have placed this motion before the Flouse today, not to fulfil a legal obligation but because I believe that when such a major new undertaking is given, I have a moral responsibility to report to the peoples' representatives to ask for their support. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the consent of our colleagues, I would like to table in both official languages, the Orders in Council authorizing our troops to be sent in support of the United Nations Forces. If there would be unanimous consent, perhaps I could table those Orders in Council at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
What is at issue here? Why did Canada agree to send troops on this mission? Let me, first, report on how events have developed.
On July 21, an informal approach was made to Canada by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Perez de Cuellar. He wanted to determine our willingness to participate in a peacekeeping operation, if it was possible to negotiate a cease- fire. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and I responded that, if Canada were approached formally, we hoped that a positive response could be made.
On August 9, during the recent parliamentary recess, following the most commendable and successful efforts of the Secretary General, we were indeed approached formally. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I responded on behalf of the Government that, in keeping with Canada's long established traditions, we would participate in the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group, or UNIIMOG, and provide, on a temporary basis, sufficient military signals personnel to satisfy the total requirement of the United
Nations force. These signals experts will take up the total signals responsibilities along a 1,200 kilometre frontier. It is a heavy responsibility, but it is one that will be done exceptionally well.
Last Saturday the Iranian and Iraqi armed forces implemented a cease-fire ending eight years of bloody fighting between those two countries. Great losses were sustained, not only among the opposing forces, but also among the civilian population. Our best estimate is that over one million people have been killed in what must surely have been one of the longest and bloodiest conflicts of this century. In the course of this war, peaceful navigation and trade were disrupted in the Persian Gulf, leading to the intervention of western naval forces. This, in turn, gave rise to fears of a possible superpower conflict. Now finally an opportunity exists to resolve this conflict by peaceful means.
Between those two hostile armies, in what was only recently a battlefield, the unarmed United Nations observers will interpose themselves and monitor the pullback operations and the cease-fire. Negotiation of a comprehensive settlement of the underlying issues in the conflict will begin in Geneva tomorrow.
In response to the United Nations request we immediately selected 15 Canadian Forces officers to join a total observation force of 330 from 24 countries, including NATO, Warsaw Pact, neutral, and non-aligned states. The Security Council approved the mandate of the observer group for a six-month period with the option of renewal. If observers are still required beyond that time, a further request would have to be made to the participating countries.
Because of Canada's recognized experience and expertise in supplying communications support to peacekeeping operations, we have sent 500 officers and men, in addition to our 15 observers, to take up positions in both Iran and Iraq. The United Nations has committed itself to replacing our signallers and their equipment with United Nations civilians as soon as an appropriate force can be raised and trained. We expect that the civilianization of the communications elements can be accomplished well within the next year. We will press for the replacement of these troops, who form by far the largest portion of our contingent, at the earliest possible moment, so that they can return to their regular duties.
I am proud to tell the House that our contingent includes Reservists who will be working alongside the regular force members. Indeed, it is the first time that Reservists have been sent into a peacekeeping operation as part of the first wave. The House will know that last year I authorized the posting of an additional 60 Reservists to our peacekeeping forces in Cyprus, and they have acquitted themselves exceptionally well in this theatre. Our increasing use of Reservists in the mainstream activities of the Canadian Forces underscores the vital role they play, and demonstrates that the total force concept, which will give us a fully-integrated military, is proceeding well.
August 24, 1988

We recognize that this deployment entails risks for members of the Canadian Forces. We have carefully weighed those risks. Our soldiers who have accepted this challenge understand the danger. We believe, as do our military authorities, that they are acceptable in light of what is at stake. As I have already stated, the cease-fire is holding. Should hostilities recommence, however, our troops will be withdrawn at the earliest opportunity.

According to United Nations guidelines, officers acting as observers are unarmed. However, for the purposes of selfprotection, the signals experts are provided with the new Canadian rifle. To avoid hazardous situations, such as land mines, our troops will take the usual precautions and, as far as possible, travel only on the main roads. When they do not, they will be guided by a vehicle from the host country. As a rule, the Canadian signals experts will be posted behind the front lines, and only officers acting as observers will patrol the front. The host countries will provide liaison officers and will look after the safety of our troops.

I want to turn to an issue that often arises when we undertake peacekeeping activities. The Department of National Defence is proud of its policy against discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, colour, creed, and sex. This has been clearly demonstrated by the Government's policy toward women in the Canadian forces. Since I have been Minister, I have expanded employment opportunities for women both in the variety of occupations and in the type of units in which they may work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: At this time we have female Canadian Armed Forces members serving in the Sinai in Cyprus. However, we face a difficult choice when agreeing to participate in a peacekeeping operation such as the one in Iran and Iraq. The acceptability of Canada, together with the 23 other nations, to the peacekeeping mission is contingent upon being seen as completely impartial, and as being seen as not in contradiction with local customs.
United Nations practice is to respect the traditions, customs, and religious practices and beliefs of host countries where United Nations peacekeeping forces are deployed.
The U.N. expects countries participating in its operations to respect this position. While we will abide by United Nations practice, we will also make it clear that Canadian policy is to ensure that our Canadian Armed Forces reflect the social fabric of Canada. The goal of Canadian observers is to assist in any way possible to end the senseless killing and to help to promote peace. Our choice in this case is very simple. It is either to respect the host country's views regarding the makeup of the peacekeeping forces or refuse to participate and allow the killing to continue. I stressed this fact when the United Nations first approached us, particularly with regard
Peacekeeping
to our signals experts. The United Nations said that Canada was the only country it knew of capable of fulfilling this function. Had we not been prepared to send our troops we might very well have seen hostilities continue. We believe that, if we can help to end a war that has taken a million lives, that must be our priority.
I want to mention another issue that is of great importance to us. You will recall that the Department of National Defence has recently been criticized for its work to improve devices used by our forces to protect themselves against chemical and biological warfare. That work is strictly defensive in nature, and we continue to press for a complete ban world-wide on chemical and biological weapons. But, until that day arrives, sending Canadian peacekeepers into an area where chemical agents have been used underscores the need for the Canadian Forces to be prepared to work in a chemical warfare environment and, in particular, it underscores the need for our research establishments to develop even more effective devices to protect our personnel.
Putting this in the simplest possible terms, if we did not have adequate training for our Canadian Forces personnel, and if we did not have adequate equipment of a defensive nature for our Canadian Forces personnel, we would not have been able to deploy our troops to this region where chemical agents have been used. It would not further the cause of peace to have us unable to send Canadian troops to this region. That is why this work is so important for Canada. I can report to the House that we have issued chemical detection devices, gas masks, and protective clothing to our troops.

As announced, the deployment of our forces was without incident. Occasionally deployment in the border zone raised some problems, for instance with respect to the carrying of weapons, and all military peace-keeping personnel were required to carry passports issued by their country of origin. These problems have now been dealt with, and we expect our peace-keeping forces will soon be in place throughout the region. Between now and August 28, we expect all our troops to be at their post, as planned.

Let me underscore this fact for the House. We expect that in any case where peacekeeping troops are being asked to move into a region on very short notice there will obviously be transitional difficulties. I am informed by the Chief of the Defence Staff that our ability to get our troops and equipment in place and operating effectively has been as good in this instance as ever before in any Canadian peacekeeping operation that we have participated in. It is a credit to the Canadian troops and to all of those in the United Nations and to the host countries, that such success has been realized.
Our target of our troops in place and operational is August 28. We expect that our troops will be in place and that the vast

August 24, 1988
Peacekeeping
bulk of our equipment will be there and functioning at that time.
I might also indicate that while there have been problems- and I have indicated that earlier-we expected that there would be problems from time to time as such an operation took place.
We see a willingness on the part of both Iran and Iraq to see the cease-fire work. We have received co-operation from both sides, which has facilitated our work, and we are grateful for that.

Mr. Speaker, those were the salient points. As such, they do not give us a very accurate picture of the magnitude and importance of the enterprise in which we have become engaged.

Why is it important that Canadian troops participate? Why do we send Canadians abroad for extended periods to serve in situations which clearly entail some risk? In the White Paper which I tabled in this House a little over a year ago, I pointed out that regional instability and conflict have caused enormous human suffering and posed serious risks to the world community.
What better example could we find in the conflict that is raised between Iran and Iraq for over eight years at a cost of more than a million dead?
Could we ever find a better example of a conflict crying out for peacekeeping and resolving disputes by peaceful means?
There are, I know, those who do not share this view. Iran and Iraq have been dismissed as "lunatic countries" and it has been suggested that we should be staying at home, safe and sound, far from danger. I do not share that view and I believe that neither this House nor the Canadian people as a whole would have us shrink from a challenge so worth accepting. We in Canada are not among those who would write off peoples and nations less favoured than ourselves.
The House will recall that White Paper identified the peaceful settlement of disputes as one of the three pillars of Canadian security policy. We described peacekeeping as the vehicle by which the Canadian Forces contribute to that objective. It is an area in which Canada is uniquely positioned to make a contribution. We are not a superpower, but we operate sophisticated military equipment and our forces are highly professional. We are not a colonial power and are, therefore, acceptable throughout the world. We have no vested interest. Our goal is simply to save lives and end human suffering.
This Government is intent on rebuilding the Canadians Forces. We are resolved, and it bears repeating here today, to increase our contribution to peacekeeping.
Last October, for example, we increased our contingent in Cyprus to offset the withdrawal of Swedish troops. More recently, we agreed to take part in the Observer Group in Afghanistan and Pakistan and increased the personnel assigned to the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. With the commitment which we are discussing today, we are at a high-water mark in the history of Canadian peacekeeping. Only once before, in Korea, did we do more.
These efforts in UN peacekeeping are in addition to a wide range of Canadian Forces humanitarian activities which take us throughout the world. Whether it is delivering school supplies, clothing or food aid, in the Caribbean or elsewhere, or the airlift that is currently under way by Canadian Forces Hercules aircraft in Ethiopia, the Canadian Forces have dedicated their equipment and skills and training in their efforts to eliminate human suffering. It is a contribution for which all Canadians should be tremendously proud.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Moving over 500 men, their vehicles and other related equipment across the world into what was only recently a battlefield is certainly no easy task. It is being carried out with the skill and professionalism that we take for granted in the Canadian Forces. We can but admire the way this operation has been conducted.
I am confident that the members of the Canadian Forces that we have committed to this endeavour will acquit themselves with credit, as they have done so often before in other peacekeeping operations. I am also certain that they will contribute greatly to the peace process which began in Iran and Iraq with the cease-fire of August 20.
As I mentioned earlier, there is another important group that is also making sacrifices for the success of this mission. I refer, of course, to the families and loved ones of our peacekeepers. I know that sacrifices have already been made and many more will be made by service families. To them I promise three things: first, we will do everything that we can to ensure the safety of the troops. Second, we will work to bring them home as soon as possible, and, third, we will do everything that we can to assist the families of those serving abroad.
I have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to join us today, both to represent the determination of all of the members of the Canadian Forces to see this mission through and also so that he can relay to our troops the wholehearted support and the best wishes of the House as they meet that challenge.
There is no higher calling that any soldier can receive than to be asked to promote peace and to end the suffering of those who have suffered for far too long. Our troops have answered the call, and Canadians stand united in offering them our admiration and respect in sending them our prayers for a safe return from a successful mission.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we in the
Official Opposition support the Canadian participation in this
August 24, 1988

fine initiative on the part of the United Nations. Reaching back to former Prime Minister Lester Pearson, we find ample evidence that Canadians believe in the United Nations, support initiatives in the defence of peace and are proud of Canada's involvement.
We welcome also the efforts and the continuation of Canada's effort in pressing hard for a ban on chemical warfare, a front on which Canada has been active for several decades.
In the case of the Iran-Iraq mission, our Canadian contingent consists of 498 individuals, including 370 communications personnel, 113 support personnel and 15 observers who will serve on the front. Considering the fact that the United Nations mission is of 850 people, drawn from 24 nations, Canada's contribution represents almost two-thirds of the total force.
This is Canada's sixteenth participation in a United Nations peacekeeping mission, and the task is to patrol a frontier 1,200 kilometres long and to observe that the two parties maintain the cease-fire agreed upon on August 8.
The Minister made reference to the one million casualties on both sides, and he also made reference to the disruption in the movement of ships and air traffic in the Persian Gulf. We regret, on this side of the House, that he made no reference to the recent and very tragic event of the U.S. navy shooting down a civilian passenger plane carrying the Iranian flag, which somehow represented a turning point for international global outrage as to what was happening in this area, and perhaps it was significant in bringing about the negotiations at the United Nations.
If we look to the past, we see that over the past 39 years Canada has participated in 15 peacekeeping missions involving 77,000 military personnel. Over the past 39 years, Canadian personnel went to Kashmir, Korea, Jerusalem, Lebanon, Zaire, New Guinea, Yemen, India, Pakistan, Egypt, the Dominican Republic, Cyprus, the Golan Heights and Afghanistan.
It is important to remember that in the performance of our international peacekeeping duty 78 Canadians have lost their lives and, in addition to that, 312 died in Korea. That represents our contribution until now. As to the future, it is anticipated that as many as 1,000 Canadian troops may be requested next year to oversee the cease-fire in Namibia. Other requests may follow, possibly to serve in Nicaragua, Kampuchea and in the western Sahara.
The Minister made a reference to the White Paper which, if looked at close range, merely affirms Canada's current commitment to international peacekeeping. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) proposes that future peacekeeping requests be judged on a case by case basis. While doing that he confirms the mechanics of peacekeeping but does not address the policy of peacekeeping. The White Paper, in
Peacekeeping
other words, fails to recognize the need for developing a more coherent and effective framework for United Nations intervention in regional conflicts so that peacekeeping forces are utilized effectively but not as an indefinite substitute to negotiated peace.
It is interesting to note as an over-all assessment to the White Paper what Professor Keating of the University of Alberta wrote through his following observation:
The Conservative Government's White Paper is guided by a cold war image of the Soviet threat, a concentration on the instruments of warfare and a rather benign view of American military interests in the Arctic.
What is the Liberal approach? We believe that peacekeeping must be discussed in relation to peacemaking. Canada in this process, of course, could play a pivotal role as a founding member of the United Nations and a leading force behind the creation of the peacekeeping idea. From the very beginning and under the constant and passionate leadership of Canadians in our foreign service and subsequently that of former Prime Minister Lester Pearson, Canada has a special responsibility to reflect on this role and how it could be improved. A Liberal Government would play an active role in encouraging the United Nations to review its peacekeeping strategies with the objective of making them more effective, aware of the change also in the position taken recently by the Soviet Union which is now actively willing to support United Nations peacekeeping activities for the first time.
The Liberal Party has called for Canada to seek re-election to a seat on the Security Council in part as a means to facilitate this initiative. In addition, a Liberal Government will review its own peacekeeping policies in order to give them a better framework of principles and goals which are sensitive to current and emerging trends in regional conflict and the possibilities for resolving them.
Some 20 years ago in his book Peace in the Family of Man former Prime Minister Pearson concluded in a manner still relevant today:
We must apply the science and art of politics to the affairs of the international community with the intensity of personal involvement that we give to domestic affairs.
That is an interesting linkage. He continued:
In the past, conflicts have led to wars within national boundaries. But normally we don't go to war over such disputes. If we do, we call it civil war. We must reach the point where we consider war between countries as civil war.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Pearson was right then as he is right today because we are just beginning to consider war between two countries as a form of civil war affecting the global community, the entire international community.
This debate, which we welcome today, would be incomplete without looking at the United Nations in perspective. The late John Holmes, the former Under Secretary for External Affairs, in his lucid and incisive analysis of the United Nations entitled The United Nations in Perspective and published in

August 24, 1988
Peacekeeping
the series Behind the Headlines wrote the following interesting thoughts:
A new United Nations, if we could possibly build one, could not be very different in shape from the present one. In the meantime, however, the alternative would be anarchy, the naked clash of national wills, without institutions or rules in place to avert conflict. That was the situation that the great Hague peace conferences at the beginning of the century were intended to correct. The efforts at The Hague came too late to prevent the disaster of 1914, but the lesson was learned.
Out of the First World War came the First try. Although the League was regarded as a failure, it was taken for granted throughout the Second World War that we would try again. The second effort is broader and deeper and has already lasted twice as long. There is no fast track to peace; it requires constant vigilance and invention.
In conclusion, we in the Liberal Party support Canadian participation in the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observers Group to observe the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and hope that Canada's contribution to this international initiative will result in an end to hostilities and a lasting peace. This motion is consistent with the tradition and the history of the Liberal Party of Canada.
We wish our military group well and we hope that their mission will be crowned with success.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate with rather mixed emotions. On the one hand I and my Party are totally in agreement with the move the Government has made with respect to sending peacekeepers to that war-torn area of the world, Iran and Iraq. We support the Government's initiative and we also send our best wishes for a safe and speedy return to the Canadian soldiers serving there. We know they will acquit themselves with both confidence and distinction, but that goes without saying. That is the motherhood aspect of this motion today.
What confuses me or makes me somewhat angry is that we are here today debating a motion with which all three Parties are in agreement. There is no need really for a vote later on today and probably there will not be one when this same Government-I am not directing my anger at the Minister in this case but at the Government itself-closed down debate on the free trade Bill yesterday at report stage by using closure. It has on its plate right now the child care Bill, the broadcasting Bill and tax reform, all very major, contentious issues. All we hear on radio and television and read in the media these days is that the Opposition is somehow dragging out this session and preventing the Government from getting on with its legislative timetable. Yet, here this afternoon, the Government has seen fit to spend several hours, or what was supposed to have been several hours had we gotten started at three o'clock, debating this issue that is not contentious.
I think quite strongly that there is a deep reason for debating this matter this afternoon and that is to deflect public attention away from the very contentious issues in the Government's White Paper, the cold war rhetoric contained in it which relates more to the early 1950s than the to the 1980s
and 1990s, and instead bring on a new, refreshing emphasis on the peace aspects of defence.
I agree with the Minister and with the spokesperson for the Liberal Party that Canada has indeed an enviable record in peacekeeping. I also want to stress that the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, were very staunch supporters of peacekeeping long, long before Suez, going back to the late 1940s and the early 1950s. That is another reason why we do not quarrel at all with this initiative on the part of the Government.
We know that it would have been a terrible waste had we decided not to send our troops to the Iran-Iraq area, considering how well trained they are, considering the fact that they are experts in communications, and considering the fact that Canadian troops and Canada are highly regarded throughout the world. I will not say it is refreshing, because no one really likes the idea of sending troops to a potentially dangerous area of the world, although we know it is a duty and a responsibility to do so, but I think it is particularly gratifying that Canada was called upon and that Canada has responded in a positive fashion. Had we not, we would have been letting down not only ourselves but, more important, the United Nations.
It is nice to see a revitalization, and I hope it is a genuine one, in respect for the United Nations, respect which has been sadly lacking for the last 10 or 15 years during which superpower politics have dominated the world stage. Here is a golden opportunity for middle powers such as Canada, with the United Nations, to re-enter the international field and to declare to the world that the future of mankind does not and should not depend on decisions taken in Moscow and Washington alone but that we are all members of the world community and we all have a contribution to make toward world peace and keeping world peace.
I mentioned a moment ago that I suspect very strongly that the real impetus behind debating this motion today was to deflect public opinion away from the more controversial aspect of the government White Paper. For a long time now, the nuclear-powered submarine program has been at the forefront of criticism. There are those who are very strongly for it, such as government Members, and there are those who are very strongly opposed to it, such as members of the two opposition Parties, and there is also a split in the academic community and in the general community.
I have another regret. Today we are discussing a motherhood issue dealing with the Canadian military and its capabilities, but we have never had an opportunity to debate fully in the House the government White Paper. That White Paper was introduced some 14 months ago and we have yet to have a full-fledged debate on a Canadian defence policy. I think that is regrettable. I suspect one of the reasons we have not debated it is that, in addition to the nuclear-powered submarine issue, there is another major issue in the White Paper, namely, the total force concept or total force approach to increasing and expanding the Canadian Armed Forces.
August 24, 1988

Very few people in Canada fully appreciate that according to some experts who have done some arithmetic, it would cost the Canadian taxpayers, to complete that total force concept and put it into practice, not $8 billion as the Government alleges the nuclear-powered submarines will cost, but $27 billion over 15 years. I would hope that the Minister would someday give us an opportunity to debate in full the government White Paper so that the people of Canada will have an opportunity to know what the three Parties think about that White Paper.
The motion before us reads:
That this House supports Canadian participation in the United Nations Iran/Iraq Military Observers Group (UNIIMOG) to observe the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and hopes that Canada's contribution to this international initiative will result in an end to hostilities and a lasting peace.
I have already risen in the House briefly to put on the record my Party's thoughts on this issue, so today we are just a little bit late in debating the peacekeeping force. I want to reiterate right now what I said the other day to put in context my remarks of this afternoon. A few days ago, I said:
Mr. Speaker, this party has always been a strong advocate of the United Nations and its peacekeeping role. That's why I'm very happy that Canada is taking part in the peacekeeping force that's on its way to the Persian Gulf. And I'd like to offer my party's official support for this action. We can only enhance Canada's international reputation as a peaceful nation by helping to supervise the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq. We all hope this will also contribute to the final resolution of this conflict. It might even show other troubled nations that there is a way to resolve their differences peacefully. And it will surely strengthen the role of the United Nations in resolving international disputes.
I wish our troops well. May they have a safe trip and, more importantly, a speedy return. Of course, that depends on Iran and Iraq. They must show the world that they are willing to resolve their differences peacefully. A ceasefire is better than war. But it's not enough. The world needs a lasting peace in this troubled region.
There is no doubt, as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, that the move made by the Minister and the Government is completely acceptable to us. I suppose I could add one proviso, and that is that I sincerely hope that our presence there will not, if it is extended too long, become a part of the problem rather than the resolution of the problem. That is always a danger involved in peacekeeping, although I am not blaming anyone at this point.
For example, I firmly believe that we should remain in Cyprus. It is an extremely volatile island. I do not know if they will ever resolve their problems, quite frankly. However, it would appear that our presence there along with that of the other U.N. units has, over the years, become part of the problem. We have been responsible, unwittingly, for extending the problem without really having an opportunity to put pressure on the two sides to come to a resolution. As long as we are there, the two sides in Cyprus can say: "Well, at least we are safe, we are not shooting at each other, so let us continue, disunited, and at each other's throats figuratively speaking".
I might add that I was the only representative of the three Parties in the House to make the statement that I just quoted that day. One wonders why, if the Government thought the
Peacekeeping
matter was so important, we did not have this debate two weeks ago when the peacekeeping force was being put into place.
We should also consider what happened yesterday in the House, and I have already alluded to that. The Government just rammed its omnibus trade Bill through report stage. In fact, it used time allocation, commonly referred to as closure, to limit debate. It plans to give us just two more days to speak on the most controversial issue facing Canadians. By the Prime Minister's own admission, it is the most important single piece of legislation ever to come before any Canadian Parliament. The Government says it cannot afford to give us any more time. Yet it has a whole day to devote to this motion. One has to ask why, although I think in my opening remarks I addressed that issue, or at least gave my opinion on it. I also mentioned child care and other Bills such as the Broadcasting Act and so on which are being held up and which I think deserve immediate attention.
For days in advance everyone knew Canada was going to participate in the Iran-Iraq peacekeeping force. It was on every news broadcast and in every newspaper in the country. Yet the Minister had to schedule a big press conference to get his face on television. In fact, he interrupted his vacation to fly back and get in on the act. He even arranged to fly the press corps to Petawawa to get the right visual backdrop for the TV cameras. However, he did not count on the weather. That cancelled his flying circus. Instead of just releasing the details, he rescheduled the whole event in Ottawa and kept his officials and the media waiting until he arrived. Then he told everyone what they already knew: Mission accomplished. It sounds like a Keystone Cops farce but it shows how desperate the Government is becoming.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Do you never take the high road?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: As politicians in this House we like to get on television as much as anyone.


Charles James Mayer: We are looking at the farce right now standing up in the House.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: On an issue like this could it not have been left up to the military to handle the public relations?


John Napier Turner: You are a joke.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Would it not have been acceptable to the people of Canada to have senior military personnel make the announcement and officially wish the troops good luck and Godspeed without making a big television extravaganza out of the whole thing?
The Government is desperate to get out of the hole it dug
with its White Paper on national defence. Canadians were
embarrassed by the White Paper's cold war rhetoric and

August 24, 1988
Peacekeeping
expensive schemes like the nuclear powered submarine program. It looks as though the subs have been put on the back-burner, at least for the time being, and maybe forever. We do not know. However, I want to take this opportunity to underline the Government's philosophy and show how far out of touch it is with the reality of the thinking in this country today.
The Conservative White Paper said "Canadian security policy must respond to an international environment dominated by the rivalry between East and West. These two groups of nations, each led by a superpower, are in conflict". It went on from there, but I will not quote at length. The Conservatives are still locked in the cold war. Meanwhile, Canadians have left the Conservatives behind in their thinking. They realize the world is constantly changing. For instance, a poll just released the other day shows that most Canadians see the conflict between the superpowers as the greatest threat to their security. The Conservative philosophy does not fit.
Neither does the Conservative cold war have any relevance to peacekeeping. I am tempted to ask: Which side of the cold war are we on in Iran and Iraq? The fact is that Canadians do not want their Government to choose sides and heighten international conflict. They want Canada to be the honest broker working for international peace. That clearly is not a priority with the Government. In fact, if you look at the Government's White Paper you will see that the Conservatives devoted just four paragraphs out of an 89-page document to peacekeeping. That shows you that support for the UN and peacekeeping really is not important to the Government, at least not at the time the White Paper was put together.
Canadians have rejected the Conservative cold war vision of the world, and the Minister knows it. Now he is on his own little media campaign to try to tie his Government's image to peacekeeping. Otherwise, why are we not debating the submarine program here in the House? Why are we not debating the total force structure program here in the House? Both of those issues are contentious. I am not saying the programs are totally wrong. I am not saying they are totally right. I am asking why we are not having a Commons debate so Members can stand up and express their views on these very contentious aspects of the Government's White Paper? Canadians are not going to buy this kind of smoke-screen. They know what the Government believes and this little debate is not going to change their minds.
I would like to point out that my Party has been consistent in its support for peacekeeping and the UN. I would like to contrast our position with that of the Conservative Party by quoting from our policy document Canada's Stake in Common Security. It reads: "Canada's primary responsibility in its own defence is to contribute to the development of a just international order. The role of the United Nations is central to this process".
It is in that spirit that I am proud to repeat my Party's support for Canada's participation in the observer force being
set up between Iran and Iraq. I would like to see this country doing more of this kind of operation. In fact, I have called for Canada to have forces which might be better structured to respond to international calls for assistance. Some people do not like that idea, but I think Canada's participation in this force shows there is an important role for it to play. There is a need for a highly mobile force which can quickly deploy to trouble spots around the world. It helps the cause of peace. It also strengthens the role of the United Nations. I firmly believe that if the world is ever going to pull back from the brink of destruction it will take a concerted international effort. That is a multinational effort, not just a superpower effort. The mechanism to co-ordinate this effort should be the UN.
I might add that all member nations of the UN, including Canada, are going to have to push for this development. They are going to have to get away from the bi-polar cold war mentality that the Government's White Paper exemplifies. In order to take on an expanded role, the UN is going to have to demonstrate that it can be effective in resolving conflicts between nations. Peacekeeping demonstrates effectiveness. That is why I am pleased to support this motion on its substance, not as a public relations exercise. My Party has supported peacekeeping in the past. It supports the effort in Iran and Iraq. I hope we will have the opportunity to support more of these types of contributions in the future if, when and where they are needed. Peacekeeping is really one of the most important contributions Canada can make in the world today.
I would much rather see our defence dollars spent in a much more cost effective way for peace rather than structuring this total force program which the Minister introduced through his White Paper. It will be extremely costly and it is not geared for peacekeeping. The total force concept is tied into our commitment, I think a very unwise commitment, to the central flank in Europe. That is what is driving the cost. If we were not committed to establishing and maintaining a miniaturized German army or French army or British army on the central flank in Europe, we would not need the vast expenditures for new armour to replace the Leopard I tanks, or for new or better or more motorized artillery and all the other big ticket items that go into the total package of $27 billion.
Why not redirect our energy and our resources, both human and material, toward highly specialized and very effective defensive postures such as peacekeeping and the northern flank and our connection to Norway? To me that is much more credible than what we are trying to do here. Under the White Paper we are trying, quite frankly, to take on too many commitments and spread ourselves too thin at a tremendous cost.
In conclusion, we wish the Canadian troops safety. We know
they will be effective. We know they will do us proud. We hope
they will be back home as soon as is practically possible.
August 24, 1988


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Hon. Member's strong support of the work of the peacekeeping force, have he and his Party reconsidered their decision to pull out of NATO?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see either the logic or the substantive relationship between NATO and peacekeeping. We are in Cyprus-


John Napier Turner: You don't understand one thing about defence.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Just cool it. We know you are in trouble in your constituency here in Ottawa, so just cool it.
We are in Cyprus and we are in the Middle East. As far as I know, the Golan Heights is not in NATO, and as far as I know, Syria and Israel are not part of NATO. We are there to keep the peace. What that has to do with being in or out of NATO boggles the imagination.
I thank the Member for drawing this point to my attention. If some day we could disengage from these secret military alliances and their tremendously heavy expenditures we could afford to do more peacekeeping, perhaps in southern Africa, Central America, and so on. We would be freer to act with dispatch. We would have the resources and would not be tied down to any secret entangling military alliance. I do not see the logical relationship in that question.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment. I have been in the House for nine years and have had occasion in the past to spend some time with the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). I have always regarded him as one of the better parliamentarians in the House. I listen to his speeches with a considerable amount of interest because I believe, as does everyone who has had an opportunity to listen to him in the past, that many of the things he has had to say are well thought out and contain a lot of reason and common sense.
I therefore find it very strange today that he uses such vindictive tones and is so mean-spirited in his comments in the House today. I find that totally out of character for the Hon. Member for Brant that I have come to know, especially on such a non-partisan issue. As he said in his speech, we all wish the very best for our troops. They are performing a function which is very desirable in the world and I find it very unfortunate that the Hon. Member should use such a nasty tone in his remarks and impute motives to the Government and the Minister which are totally out of the context of what we are discussing and, above all, out of context with the Hon. Member that I have come to know.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I am angry because we have been waiting for over a year to have a full-fledged debate on the Department of National Defence in the House- not in committee, but here in the House. We have been waiting for that for 14 months now. That White Paper is fraught with all kinds of contentious, argumentative issues.
Peacekeeping
After waiting 14 months, we have a motion before the House with which no one could disagree. We have a motherhood issue, as I have repeated many times, with which we are all in agreement. In fact, earlier today the Government wanted a vote on this motion in order to dress up its image. The Government suddenly realizes that peace is breaking out and it wants to bury the cold war jargon and rhetoric which was in that paper. The Members of the New Democratic Party are not going to let the people forget that. There is no question in my mind that that is the motive for this motion today. Why wouldn't I be angry?
Incidentally, I take the Minister's earlier statements to heart and I thank him for them. I will respond in kind. I have a great deal of respect for him. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty). I only wish that we could have a real debate in this House on the whole defence issue. We are coming close to an election and I think the people of Canada are entitled to that kind of debate.
Today is the only opportunity I have had with the Minister in the House, since the initial response to the introduction of the White Paper, to put some of these criticisms on the record. That is why I am hot under the collar. I am not very pleased with the way in which this motion has been brought forward as if it were the only defence policy on the Government's books at this time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to intervene on questions and comments, but I think that it may be appropriate that I do so briefly in order to explain again the motive of the Government in moving this motion.
The Government has committed some 500 troops to service outside of Canada, service which is potentially hazardous.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member says "so?".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Everybody agrees.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I think it is of interest to Members of Parliament when a commitment like that is made. Indeed, dating back to the time of Louis St. Laurent when a commitment was made to send troops, under the auspices of the United Nations, to Korea, an undertaking was given that when major commitments of this nature were made the House of Commons would be informed and would have a chance to give its approval.
Frankly, I am astonished that all Members of Parliament would not have welcomed an opportunity to be consulted with regard to an engagement such this which involves the commitment of Canadian troops abroad. I am also surprised that they have not approached this discussion on a level considerably higher than that which we have heard.
We have been accused by the hon. gentleman of being partisan. The only mean-spiritedness and partisanship which we have heard today has not come from this side of the House. I counsel other Hon. Members in their interventions today to

August 24, 1988
Peacekeeping
get back to the subject. We have a major new commitment which will enable us to promote peace in an area of the world which has been racked by war. We have an obligation as Members of Parliament to examine the commitment, to express ourselves fully and openly on this issue and to eschew partisanship for a change.
I do not find it disturbing that this is a partisan forum. However, there are some issues which should be above partisanship and above exploitation. I hope that all Members of this House who participate in this debate today will avail themselves of the opportunity to put their views on the record in a way which brings credit to this institution.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in debate the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) indicated that he was looking for a real debate on the White Paper. Yet, when asked by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), he refused to elaborate on his Party's position on NATO. I find that somewhat inconsistent with his statement that he wanted a full and complete debate. He was critical of the Government for not providing the opportunity to debate defence policy, yet when asked about his Party's own defence policy he seemed to shy away. Very simply, why is the Member so ashamed of his Party's position on defence?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I did answer the question, as a matter of fact, but I will respond again. It is the policy of my Party, which policy was introduced, debated, and passed by a series of conventions, not hatched in the back rooms as the policy of the Liberal Party is so often written, to eventually, if we form the Government, withdraw from NATO. No one has hidden that. In fact, we are very proud of that policy.
We have said that if we form the next Government we will not discuss or negotiate a withdrawal from NATO in the first Parliament. If we are re-elected in a subsequent-not the subsequent but a subsequent-Parliament-and that is right there in black and white, all one need do is read it, it's been out there since April in our policy paper-we would begin discussions and then negotiations for the ultimate withdrawal of Canada from NATO provided that at the time of the discussions we would not be upsetting the military balance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. We would hope that our example would encourage others. That is the one track.
The other track is that we would maintain a strong and viable defence. In fact, whenever it has the opportunity the Government accuses the NDP of promoting a defence policy that is more expensive than theirs, which is absolutely wrong.
We are not soft on defence. We are simply saying that eventually, in order to maintain peace in Europe, we will have to develop a better system than simply massive retaliation. That is why we call upon the nations of Europe to begin to work toward the implementation and application of a cooperative and common security.


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to support the motion now before the House. First of all, I would like to expand on what was said by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) regarding my Government's desire to unreservedly support this peace keeping mission, namely that this exercise is in line with the many recommendations contained in the White Paper on Defence published in 1987.
Mr. Speaker, according to the White Paper, we feel that the deployment of our armed forces under the auspices of the United Nations or other international organizations, for the purpose of peacekeeping or cease-fire surveillance, serves our own national interests as well as those of the world as a whole. I am sure that my colleagues share this view. That is why on October 1987, we agreed to reinforce our contingent in Cyprus to compensate for the withdrawal of Swedish troops. For the same reason we more recently agreed to join the group of military observers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And for that very same reason, we did not hesitate to accede to the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations that we participate in the UN Iran-Iraq operation.
We are certainly not rushing blindly into this undertaking. In fact, every operation is considered very objectively. Before the Government agrees to participate, it must establish that the operation is in line with the policies set forth in the White Paper. In this case as in others, the Government made its decision after considering to what extent the Iran-Iraq situation met the following criteria:
First of all, is there a clear and feasible mandate? It is obvious that the two warring factions agreed with the Secretary General on the UN's mandate, which is to supervise the cease-fire so that negotiations can be initiated with a view to a final settlement.
Second, will the principal adversaries, having agreed to a cease-fire, also agree to have Canada take part in the operation? Here again, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.
Third, is this operation likely to serve the cause of peace and to lead to a long-term political settlement? Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that violent, bitter and costly massacres and battles have ceased, and we hope for good. Furthermore, negotiations between the two countries are to start tomorrow, August 25, in Geneva. We cannot, of course, anticipate the outcome of these negotiations, but we can only hope that the outcome will be positive.
Fourth, we try to find out whether the size and international structure of the Force are appropriate to fulfil the mandate it has been given, and whether our participation in peacekeeping forces will in any way harm Canada's relations with other countries. Having heard what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) said on this subject, Mr. Speaker, the House will not doubt that this condition has also been met.
August 24, 1988

Fifth, what we must keep in mind is whether our participation in a particular peacekeeping mission could hurt possible future commitments by Canada. Some of you may be wondering whether we would still be able to fulfil other commitments, given that such a large number of our communications specialists are taking part in this United Nations operation. The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we have made a very great effort and we also participate in other peacekeeping missions. However, these efforts might limit our ability to accede in the immediate future to a request for peacekeeping forces on the same scale.
Therefore, to meet additional requests, we will have to ensure that United Nations requests for our assistance are as varied as possible. Furthermore, the Government has been careful to make sure that our considerable effort for peace between Iran and Iraq will not prevent us from meeting our other peacetime commitments.
The sixth point that the Government considered before deciding to participate is whether there is an identifiable authority that can support the operation and influence the opponents. In this case, of course, the United Nations is such an authority and it has the support of the Security Council and almost all member countries.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must know whether our participation will be adequately and fairly funded and whether the necessary logistic support will be provided. I believe that I can tell the House that the United Nations is seriously attending to this. In addition, Canadian troops will have all the logistic support that my Government is able to provide them.
I believe that I have shown you, Mr. Speaker, that the support given by Members of this House to Canada's participation in this United Nations mission is justified. This participation is based on an objective analysis of the situation and of the results that will likely flow from our efforts.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution before the House and in urging Hon. Members to do the same without reservation.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Canadians that today we are dealing with a resolution which states:
That this House supports Canadian participation in the United Nations Iran/Iraq Military Observers Group (UNIIMOG) to observe the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and hopes that Canada's contribution to this international initiative will result in an end to hostilities and a lasting peace.
I am sure all Members of the House applaud that resolution and the fact that there are discussions taking place in that area of the world. I am sure all Members applaud the fact that Canada can play a constructive part in this endeavour.
One of the sad facts about being a member of the human race is that so much of the resources of nations go toward military activity when these resources are so badly needed for human development and greater justice between the poor nations of this world and the rich nations, of which we are one.
Peacekeeping
This peacekeeping activity on behalf of Canada is a sign of hope. It is a light in the darkness, showing that there is a possibility to transform the way in which we deal with conflicts in the world. Rather than having to deal with conflicts through violence, we can do it through diplomatic means. Soldiers, who are very necessary in the kind of world we live in today, can be changed into policemen so we can have a world in which people, metaphorically speaking, can walk the streets of this planet with a sense of safety.
I just want to indicate that I think we all should applaud the fact that we have an opportunity as a nation to put some of our resources into a peacekeeping function which can bring some hope that there is a better way of doing things. I must note at this time that it was at the initiative of a Canadian Government and a Canadian Prime Minister that the whole process of peacekeeping on this planet was started. That was, of course, the initiative of former Prime Minister Lester Pearson. He was a Liberal, and I must acknowledge that in the past the Liberal Party has done a number of good things, and that is one of them. I do not want to be partisan about this. I just want to say that this is a beacon of hope for mankind, for the human race. There was a conflict in which we could see no possibility of resolution, but now Canadians are playing their part to help bring about stability and peace to the area.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments of my colleague I might say that the general feeling is that the people of Canada, the Government and all Members of the House are proud of our country's peacekeeping role. Indeed, ever since our Government took office, we have been firmly committed to promote worldwide peace.
Of course the Hon. Member has indicated that we should also make a concerted effort to foster development. In that respect, as Minister responsible for CIDA I am proud of the commitments made by our Government to support the development of third-world nations. I would suggest that our positions have something in common, in the sense that we all seek to restore peace and stability throughout the world and come to the assistance of poorer nations.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the Minister indicated that not only would the troops be taken care of but that the families of the troops would be taken care of. I find that statement somewhat strange. On June 20 of this year six military personnel were killed in an accident at CFB Chilliwack. Members will recall there was a premature explosion of plastic explosives. One of those who were killed was Lieutenant Dennis Aucoin. His parents lived in New Brunswick and requested the military to pay their airfare so they could attend their son's funeral. The military refused to pay the airfare of the parents so that they could go to the funeral of their son. My constituent happens to be the sister of one of the deceased. So I find it somewhat odd that the Minister

August 24, 1988
Peacekeeping
could stand and say he would take care of the families of the troops when not so long ago-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The questions and comments, as the Hon. Member knows, must be on the speech of the Minister of External Relations (Mrs. Landry), not the first Minister who spoke.


John V. Nunziata: Can she explain why her Government refused to pay airfare for the parents to attend-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe that question is not in order. Resuming debate.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of pride as a Canadian, one who has always supported very sincerely the efforts of the Canadian Armed Forces, along with my own Party, in the useful role they play not only nationally but internationally. I think that quite often the image of the Armed Forces is misconstrued. When we talk about the Canadian military community, people have a tendency to think only of getting ready for a war or getting ready for combat of some kind in some part of the world. It is looked upon as having serious rules and regulations that do not always apply in other areas of society. However, that is the reality of any defence community.
Any armed forces must have the solid backing of the Government and the people of the country they serve. They must have strong backing on issues such as the peacekeeping role they are presently playing in Iraq and Iran. That should be in keeping with the role, I would think, of all political Parties in this country and every Canadian citizen.
Through our Armed Forces, we as a nation, are playing an important role in bringing about peace in a war-torn part of the world. Sometimes people ask why we should be involved over there, why not let them go to it? That is an old fashioned way of looking at wars today. Battles going on anywhere in the world must be subdued. Every attempt must be made to keep them under control. Indeed, this battle in Iraq and Iran has not been a small one, particularly in the eyes of the people involved, and it is very important that we do our utmost to bring peace to that war-torn part of the world. By doing so, we will be preventing any spread of that war through accident.
When we review the wars that have started over the years of world history, we can see that many, many accidents have occurred which have been the cause of world wars even though the combatants have been prepared for war. It takes one incident to trigger the whole event.
I would like to say a word about this motion today simply because this is one of many important roles the Canadian Armed Forces have played in peacekeeping around the world. As has already been stated in this debate, peacekeeping on the part of the Canadian Armed Forces was introduced by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and one of its greatest proponents in international affairs was the late Hon. Lester B.
Pearson who became a world renowned diplomat as a Canadian.
I must say something at this time in debate on behalf of the actual participants. I want to say that, living as I do three miles from the Canadian forces base gate at CFB Petawawa, I have a deep sense of pride in the way this whole operation has been put together. A number of dedicated officers formed a committee under a commanding officer and simply started putting certain roles into play. The Minister is in the House today and I am sure he would agree with me that an operation such as this is almost a miniature mobilization plan. A number of people came in from Calgary to join the group. There were approximately 350 personnel to start with at the base at Petawawa. Some 20 personnel came in from the Signals Corps at CFB Kingston. About 40 reserves came in from all across Canada, registered and were assimilated into the force.
There were others from many centres across Canada. In a matter of days these professional people in our Armed Forces put a number of troops together to be sent to a very important task in the Middle East, to observe the lines and the agreement that was laid down by the United Nations and signed by both Iraq and Iran. As observers and communications people on the scene, it is their job to report any infractions of the U.N. mandate as it has been laid down.
That says a great deal for the members of our Armed Forces and our communications role, that they should be chosen to communicate all those messages back to the U.N. and to coordinate the efforts of our Canadian peacekeeping troops as they go ahead in their role, working with other internationals. Only approximately 15 of our own Canadian troops are playing the role as observers. The rest are heavily involved in the communications side. Certainly, in an area of the world where communications are practically non-existent, it is an extremely important role for the Canadian Forces to take over.
When this whole operation was started, the manner in which those vehicles were put through a routine was almost like a major automobile company producing cars. A large number of trucks and jeeps were sent to the Middle East. Those vehicles were taken out of training action. They were put through a long building. In the first room they were screened and made ready for painting. They went into the next room to be painted, and when they came out at the far end of the building they were all painted white with the U.N. sign on them. It was a mass production job, and this was part of it.
Then there is the transportation of these vehicles. This does not only involve sending a number of people off to the Middle East. It involves other people here transporting those vehicles and putting them on to aircraft. In this case, many of the drivers went to the Middle East with the vehicle that they would be driving when they got there. All their papers had to be cleared and in order.
August 24, 1988

I want to say a word or two about publicity. Members of the Armed Forces were seen signing their wills before they left. I believe that that was very crass publicity. It was terrible, and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Quite often when the military community have soldiers leave on military schemes, the CO has the right at any time to ask them if their personal effects are in order. They can check their wills when they leave the country on active duty, and they can check their wills when they go for active duty on peacekeeping. It is a normal routine.
The fact that this was a special move on peacekeeping in the Middle East, that so many media personnel zeroed in on this issue, added to the fear and concern felt by the families of the Armed Forces personnel that those families did not need. The head of the household is going off for a peacekeeping mission for a six-month period and at the end of that period we will see what happens then because it is a very important mission. However, it is important that those families also receive support.
That is another thing that has been put together by the administration on the bases. Mothers who are left at home with families and who do not have a means of going to the grocery store are being looked after. I believe that that story should be told. It is normal procedure for a military community to support its own people. Any questions that are raised in an opportunistic manner about that should be discredited. Those people are not only doing a job for this nation, they are also doing a job for many peoples in the world in their role as peacekeepers.
Many people will talk about the Koreas, Cyprus, and Suez in 1956, which was another very successful venture. There was another operation in the Middle East in 1974 and 1975 when 1,037 peacekeeping troops were in the Middle East. Most of those troops were stationed in Egypt at the time, but many were scattered throughout the Middle East.
In May, 1975, I had the opportunity of travelling to the Middle East. I spent approximately six days with the commanding officer of our Middle East forces. One thing that struck me as we travelled throughout the Middle East at that time was the respect shown to the Canadian forces by people of all nations.
We must remember when members of the Canadian Forces are abroad, they are among the best diplomats that we have in our government service. The Armed Forces are not supposed to be political. However, when members of the Armed Forces go abroad they are totally capable of dealing with nationals on an equal basis, because they learn the system before they go. They are always well briefed. They are also diplomats because they know how to deal with people. They relate to those people. Why? Because they are well briefed on the local situation, and they are well briefed on members of the other nations of the world with whom they will be serving.
As a communications group in the Middle East at the present time, our forces are sending the messages back to the United Nations, back to the national Governments of Iraq and
Peacekeeping
Iran, and back to the commanding officers of the Iraqi and Iranian forces, on behalf of all the military personnel who are serving in the Middle East.
I have mentioned the roles of members of the Canadian Armed Forces politically, diplomatically. Their third role is as professional soldiers. Indeed, they are professional soldiers, and they can play their role well. They can make decisions when decisions have to be made. For this reason they are respected.
I observed our U.N. General go into peacekeeping headquarters in the Middle East. He was totally listened to and totally respected because he knew what he was doing and he knew his business. One morning when we were leaving Beirut at 4.30 a.m. to go to the airport we were stopped in the street by individuals who stuck a sub-machine gun in each car window. The general talked to the individuals, and they backed off and let us through. What a good relationship our troops have with other countries. It was as if nothing had happened; it was just part of their role and part of their duty.
On behalf of our people serving in the Middle East, and certainly on behalf of the people here at home who helped them get to the Middle East and who put this peacekeeping corps together, I want to say that our troops today are playing a traditional role for the Canadian nation that has been going on for several decades.
When we talk about the expenses of peacekeeping, there is one thing about which I am not clear. If the Minister is going to make a closing statement, maybe he could comment on it. I know that when we serviced our own troops in the beginning, we were not given credit for funds spent on the United Nations ledger. It is a good thing that we are serving our own troops in the Middle East because otherwise there would be too much bureaucracy, it would take too long to get the supplies to them, vehicles would be sitting there for weeks or months on end because supplies were not forthcoming as a result of the red tape they have to go through in the United Nations. However, I hope that Canada is receiving full credit in terms of the ledger books of the United Nations for the money spent on maintaining our force while it is there, because I think that is very important. That is really part of our realistic contribution as well.
I think that the key thing that we must all remember on an occasion such as this is that peacekeeping will cost us money. The United Nations will cost us money. But what is the price that the world may pay and that we may pay otherwise? We have been through several major wars in the world, and we know what price we had to pay. Peacekeeping is worth the price. As a nation that is looked upon as a middle power in the world, as one who has many friends all over the world, I do not think that there is a greater tribute that can be paid to our Canadian Armed Forces than for the Parliament of Canada to

August 24, 1988
Peacekeeping
say, "Thank you for your efforts and we wish you well", and to prove to them that we are solidly behind them in their mission.
Last week, I make a statement in this House, commenting on that very thing and saying that we all wish them well as they go about this very important task. Let us start looking at these people as being constructive. Let us look upon our Armed Forces not in the image of war or combat, but as having all the other qualities that they possess and put into practice.
Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party-and I am sure at this time, remembering the efforts of previous Governments of Louis St. Laurent, Lester B. Pearson and so on-let us remember our forces in the Middle East and wish them every success and Godspeed. We know that they will do a good job on behalf of Canada, on behalf of the United Nations and, indeed, be a tremendous tribute to the world.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to congratulate the Hon. Member who has just spoken and other Hon. Members. I want to begin my comment by saying that the Bible says, "Blessed is the peacemaker". I submit, and I think that this House would agree, that equally blessed is the peacekeeper.
I want to ask my hon. friend if he would care to comment, and I hope so will the next speaker, probably the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), on the continuing readiness of Canada in a peacekeeping and peacemaking role in our Armed Forces. I think there are 76 pages in the White Paper with four paragraphs about peacekeeping. It is a matter of the full-time maintenance of current equipment and the reequipping of our Armed Forces in the area of communications and transport capacity. I have heard no dispute from the Minister or anybody else about the accuracy of news reports, that our people did not have their equipment, did not even have licence plates, in Iraq or Baghdad.


An Hon. Member:: It has to be issued by the host country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope that the Minister gave each of our personnel a pocketful of change to use the public telephone system, which they had to use in order to report back in the first couple of days on what it was that they were fighting. That just tells me that if the Minister, instead of sitting in his bathtub playing with model toy nuclear submarines, had spent as much time and attention on transport capacity and reequipping our Armed Forces with the kind of communications expertise that we already have, those kinds of problems would not have occurred in the last few days. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he would care to comment on that and also on whether or not, as one who walked the green line in Nicosia in 1973, with Greek and Turkish people on each side 20 feet away with fully loaded automatic weapons, the Canadian Forces were fully trusted and respected because we were perceived to be impartial peacekeepers.
It is a role that we can play in a big way. It is not with nuclear submarines. It is the kind of role that Canada can play because of the first-class reputation that we have had. I am
proud of people like Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles, who, back in the 1950s and 1960s, supported those kinds of peacekeeping operations that we have been involved in.
It is overwhelming. Canadians have always supported our peacekeeping role. They do now and they will continue to do so. I would like my hon. friend to comment about our capacity in that role and whether or not it has been kept up. I would hope that my hon. friend from Victoria would comment on that as well.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I do not buy the idea that communications and UN vehicles and so on were never in place for the Canadian Forces. As I mentioned in my own speech-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We did not have them ourselves.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -the ones that were not in place were the ones being maintained by the United Nations, because it took them about nine months to get repairs. That is why they were not in place.
To answer the Hon. Member's question, as I say, I do not buy the idea that everything was bad in the Armed Forces before this Government took over.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who said that?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The modern communications system will allow the Canadian Armed Forces to communicate back home. They can communicate with the two Governments in Iraq and Iran. They can communicate with defence headquarters of those two countries. They can get back to the UN. That is why they are there, because they are good at communications and they can do the job.
As far as vehicles are concerned, I do not know whether it has been mentioned in this debate or not, but some of the vehicles that are going to be used could very well come from the Iraqian Armed Forces and some could come from the Iranian Armed Forces, because they were willing to give some of their vehicles over to the peacekeeping troops.
I think that says one solid thing. I would like to point this out to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. Benjamin). These two countries are fed up with war. They had to get out of this war by saving face on both sides.
Canadians, having the qualities that I have just described, are ideal to be sent there, because they have to be seen to be putting the same emphasis on Tehran as they are putting on Baghdad, they are supposed to be seen as putting the same emphasis on Iranian problems as they do on Iraqian problems,and this is part of the diplomatic role. I think that as far as peacekeeping in general is concerned we are not all perfect. I think that we as Canadians should support more transport facilities to assist our Armed Forces in their peacekeeping duties. We should not be too hesitant in accepting help from other nations. After all that helps us out in getting our forces there.
August 24, 1988


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I didn't ask that.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Hon. Member asked me about modern communications.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Getting the equipment we need to have.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: They have the equipment to operate, otherwise they would not be there. To me that is a very elementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member asks: "Should we upgrade our communications?" Any Canadian Government or any parliament of any country worth its salt would say that we should always be trying to keep our communications in the Armed Forces up to date. If we are going to be serious about peacekeeping, we should put some emphasis on transport to get them there. We should be learning from our mobilization plans and, as I mentioned in my speech, this is a miniature mobilization plan.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You don't buy submarines, you buy transport.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I think we all have a great deal to learn from this. Far be it from me to defend the Government in this case, but a Liberal Government would never be seen to be sending troops abroad and giving them a role to play if they did not have the communication system, the vehicles, with which to work.
With that I think I have answered the questions of my hon. friend. Things will fall into place as the Canadian Forces are there for a few days. Everything will be running smoothly. One must appreciate that it does take a little while to settle in and get things working the way they want them to work.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have available, first let me compliment the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) on his speech. It was in the proper form and stuck to the subject quite well.
As for the Member for whom I have always had a great deal of respect, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), the kindest thing I can say about his speech is that it was disappointing. If he feels so keenly that he wants a debate on the White Paper, then I would suggest he speak to the other Member who participated in this debate today and wanted to talk about the White Paper and use one of the opposition days for that purpose. Alternatively, they might have talked their House Leader out of spending five or six days of the time of the House in answering bells he insisted on ringing to ensure that Private Members' Bills which were unanimously supported by the House were voted on.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House Canada's long-standing tradition in peacekeeping. We have been an active and committed member of the United Nations since its inception. We have made an important contribution to world
Peacekeeping
stability by participating in virtually every one of these peacekeeping efforts. It is the manner in which the Canadian Forces have operated that has given Canada a reputation that is worldwide. We have really no competitors when it comes to our very good peacekeeping activities.
Peacekeeping should not be confused with peacemaking, but frequently people do confuse the two. Incidentally, while I enjoyed most of the speech of the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, a few remarks about his peacekeeping equipment brought back a memory of the time when I first visited Cyprus, which was 14 years ago. I went on from there to the Sinai Desert where we had another peacekeeping force. The Ghanains were next door to us on the line out in the middle of the Sinai Desert. I noticed that they were better equipped than the Canadian troops of that day, which makes you think that Idi Amin must have been better with his defence budgets than was the Liberal Government of the day.
We are no stranger to intervening between conflicting parties in this peacekeeping role of ours. I would like to mention particularly this one, which I consider to be a more delicate operation than most of the ones in which we have participated. The first thing that must happen about a peacekeeping mission is that both sides must wish to have peace. If one side only wants peace and the other side is still quarrelsome, Canada would run into the danger of being one of the antagonists in the operation, and we cannot afford to do that.
I was very pleased the Minister brought this motion to the House because I have always thought, as many parliamentarians do, that important resolutions such as this should be brought before us as quickly as possible and should always come before Parliament to get the feel of Members as to whether we should or should not participate in certain activities.
I would like to mention one operation in which we took part that was not under the aegis of the United Nations. I am speaking of the time we went into Vietnam in a peacekeeping role in 1973. The then Secretary of State for External Affairs had this to say:
-peace "depends upon the parties to the peace agreement and not upon the International Commission of Control and Supervision. It is only if the parties are co-operating in a strict observance of the agreement-that the Commission can perform its function with any hope of success".
We went in to Vietnam "to supervise a peace, not to umpire a war". The same thing must apply here. We went there for 60 days and then gave another 60 days' warning that we did not like the way things were going and that we might pull out, and we did.
I want to take just one more minute to relate something about the Middle East and why I consider it to be a more delicate situation than most. There is a story that Field Marshall Slim liked to tell about becoming Chief of the General Staff in the days when Britain had an empire of considerable magnitude. When they appointed a new Chief of

August 24, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
the General Staff they claimed there was a book of secret directions to which he should pay attention, a book he would get when he assumed the office. He finally assumed the office and went into the Chiefs office, found the secret box, opened it up and there was a piece of paper with two items on it. It said: "Number One: Never invade Mainland China. Number Two: Never take for granted anything that happens in the Middle East." I trust the Minister will do the same.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, certainly we absolutely and unequivocally support the motion that has come forward. I think our defence critic has articulated the reasons.
I want to speak very briefly on the issue of the composition because I believe the Minister for National Defence (Mr. Beatty) in his press conference left the erroneous impression that the decision to bar women and people of Jewish and Arabic background from serving was a directive from the United Nations. In fact, I was in touch through my office with the United Nations and no such directive had been issued. Unfortunately, it seems to be endemic of this Government that when delicate questions like this come up it tends to go ahead without any kind of UN directive. Frankly, there have been occasions in the past when previous Liberal Governments have been asked to send contingents which excluded people on the basis of religious extraction and they refused.
I would suggest that the Minister either listen to the wisdom on this issue from the United Nations and not parade the fact that it was the United Nations that prevented women, Arabs and Jews from participating in this peacekeeping force because that was a decision taken by the Minister directly and by the Government. We feel that, as an over-all strategy, the United Nations may make that decision, but it should not have been made by the Canadian Government. It is typical of the attitude shown toward Captain Woodley. We think discrimination is something that should be addressed. Unfortunately, the Minister lost the opportunity to do so in this particular case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to raise this question and I will be brief because I know it is now six o'clock.
This morning I attended at a panel session of the Canadian Bar Association in Montreal, Quebec. The panel included the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), Barbara Frumm and Michel Roy. There was a discussion on a variety of aspects of politics and the media and the private lives of members of the public.
During the course of that panel discussion this morning, I made references to certain actions of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) during the evening of Wednesday, July 27, and into the wee hours of the morning of Thursday, July 28. I understand that that Member has in fact taken offence to the references that I made to his conduct at that time, and in the circumstances, I certainly wish to take this first opportunity to retract in full and without hesitation the comments that I made with respect to the conduct of that Hon. Member, and further, to apologize to the Hon. Member for the offence he has taken.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, pursuant to order made Monday, June 20, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.04 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, August 25, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers