1989-05-19

Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to have noted that while there are many things that a Member may on occasion in this place wish to question, there can be no question about the integrity of the Office of the Speaker and the mandate the Speaker is empowered to cany out, indeed, the institution that the Speaker is empowered and mandated to protect.
In compliance with your request yesterday, and out of great respect for the Speaker, I withdraw words that Mr. Speaker deemed to be inappropriate and unparliamentary during Question Period yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member. I should comment also that his withdrawal has been in the finest tradition of this place. He has been, throughout the many years that I have known him, a very dedicated Member of this House and has always given me appropriate support as Speaker, for which I thank him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On Tuesday, April 4, 1989, the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southeast (Mr. Kilgour) raised a question of privilege and, in addition, provided the Chair with certain related material.
The facts are as follows:

On March 14, 1989, a subpoena signed by a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Province of British Columbia was served upon the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southeast (Mr. Kilgour) in his Centre Block office. Your Speaker's permission was neither sought nor obtained for this service. Shortly after being served, the Hon. Member contacted Mr. Marcel Pelletier, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of this House who wrote to the counsel for the plaintiffs in this civil action explaining that a sitting Member of Parliament enjoys the privilege of exemption from attending as a witness in a court of law and concluded in pointing out that: "This privilege is based on the paramount right of Parliament to the attendance and service of its Members."

Although Parliament was prorogued from February 28 to April 3, there can be no doubt that the Member's immunity persisted throughout this period. In this connection, I refer Hon. Members to May's 20th edition, page 107, and to Bourinot, 4th edition, pages 45 and 46.

In further correspondance via facsimile machine between the Hon. Member and counsel for the plaintiff, the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southeast (Mr. Kilgour) wrote that he would, as a former member of the Bar of British Colombia, appear if the Judge insisted. The counsel for the plaintiff replied that indeed the Judge insted, relying on the Member's previous statement, and ordered him to appear on March 31st or to have counsel appear on his behalf on March 30th. The Hon. Member responded to this last by appearing before the court on March 31st.

On April 4 he explained to the House what happened in the statement found at page 39 of Hansard:
Appearing in court as ordered, I attempted to convince Her Lordship that an irresistible force was colliding with an immovable object. The court eventually ordered me to be sworn, and thereafter in effect directed me to reply to a question to identify a number of individuals who had come to my constituency office in April of 1986.

May 19, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
The court adjourned for lunch when I declined to identify those persons. On reconvening, Her Lordship again indicated I should identify my visitors, but counsel for the plaintiff withdrew the subpoena,-just before the court ruled on the contempt citation. Her Lordship later said that she had intended to cite me for contempt.
I have just quoted what the Hon. Member said in argument before me.

From this sequence of events, the Hon. Member claims that his privileges have been infringed.
There are two issues I wish to deal with before turning to the question raised by the Hon. Member.

First, I feel that the service of the subpoena within the precincts of the House of Commons was improper without the permission of the Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The precedents supporting this view are quite numerous, and it is unnecessary for me to cite them. Hon. Members should not, on their own accord, decide to accept service within the precincts. Nevertheless, if they wish to waive their parliamentary immunity, they can do so by leaving the precincts and accepting the service elsewhere. To do otherwise is to put at risk our ancient privileges, which are more than simply tradition. They are part of the law of Canada.
The Chair is concerned that erosion over time of those privileges would not serve this institution's interests. I could add, nor would it serve the public interest. Our privileges exist to enable Members to perform their duties without let or hindrance and, by extension, to protect the rights of the public they serve and represent.

Second, I would warn and caution those who attempt to further improper service of subpoenae, that they may be acting in a manner that is in contempt of the House. In this respect, I refer Hon. Members to the first issue of the "Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members" presented to this House on July 12, 1976, where at page 1:19, Members will note that a Committee of the British House found it a contempt of Parliament to do something that has the object "-of furthering legal proceedings-" which are improper ab initio.

The basis of the Hon. Member's submission is that where civil actions are concerned, Canadians should know that they can speak to Members of Parliament in confidence without fear of later disclosure in a court of law. While appreciating the Hon. Member's point, I have had difficulty in finding a precedent to support the view that communications between an MP and his or her constituents or, indeed, the public in general, are privileged in the same way as those between lawyer and client.
Speaker Lamoureux in a ruling of April 29, 1971, had this to say:
Privilege is that which sets Hon. Members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public do not possess. I suggest we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the centuries as belonging to the House of Commons. In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House as a Member of the House of Commons.
This view was reinforced on February 20, 1975, by Speaker Jerome, who made the following comment:
The consequences of extending that definition (of parliamentary privilege) to innumerable areas outside this Chamber into which the work of an MP might carry him, and particularly to the great number of grievances he might encounter in the course of that work, would run contrary to the basic concept of privilege.

On this last point I would also refer Hon. Members to my ruling on November 17, 1987 where I explained that the House cannot, in fact, create new privileges.

Perhaps an argument could be made that to be forced to testify in a court of law on a matter concerning confidential communications with constituents amounts to an undue influence, thus hindering the Member in the proper fulfilment of his duties. This argument might be easier to sustain if the Hon. Member had availed himself of the remedy available to him. He could have declined to appear as a witness, as he was entitled to do by virtue of his privilege as a Member of Parliament. By waiving his privilege, appearing, being sworn and answering some questions, he appears to have voluntarily sub-
May 19, 1989

mitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Once this privilege is waived, the Member surrenders the protection implicit in it.

Consequently, I am unable to find from these previous declarations or in the facts as set out in this present situation anything that would allow for the extension of parliamentary privilege to communications between Members of Parliament and members of the public.

There is another aspect of this matter which disturbs me very much. In the supporting documentation supplied to me by the Hon. Member it is clear that counsel for the plaintiffs in this case questioned the right of the Hon. Member to claim his parliamentary immunity, alleging that this was a matter for the court to decide. This claim was made in total disregard of what was established and easily verifiable parliamentary law, clearly and explicitly explained by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in his letter of March 15.
Let me state for the record that the right of a Member of Parliament to refuse to attend court as a witness during a parliamentary session and during the 40 days preceding and following a parliamentary session is an undoubted and inalienable right supported by a host of precedents.

The Hon. Member did not base his complaint on the contents of the letter written by counsel for the plaintiffs in the case concerned. Had he done so, I would certainly have had to determine whether or not there was a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament, of undue pressure being brought to bear upon the Member for the purpose of questioning his right to claim parliamentary immunity. Fortunately, counsel for the plaintiffs withdrew the subpoena, and the matter did not proceed further.

To sum up, on these facts I am unable to find that the protection of parliamentary privilege extends to communications between Members of Parliament and the public. I must also warn Hon. Members that waiving of a privilege deprives them of the protection they would otherwise enjoy, not simply partially, but totally. I am gravely concerned that the subpoena was served on a
Supply
Member of this House within parliamentary precincts. I would appeal to my colleagues, should this occur in the future, to refuse to accept any writ of summons within the precincts and to report to the Speaker should such an attempt be made.
Finally, I take a serious view of the action of a member of the legal profession in questioning the right of a Member of Parliament to claim immunity from appearing as a witness and alleging that a court, and not Parliament, had the power to make a determination in such a case.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southeast (Mr. Kilgour) for his patience in allowing the Chair time to reflect at length on the important issues he raised in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle) moved:: That this House condemn the Government's involvement in the arms bazaar ARMX'89, and calls upon the government:
(1)	to cease all involvement in the expansion of the international market for military and policing equipment; and
(2)	to take action to ensure that countries which violate human rights are prohibited from directly or indirectly arranging purchases of military and policing equipment in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise this morning to move this motion on behalf of the New Democratic Party and to be the lead-off speaker on a most pressing and important matter.
Next week in Ottawa, at Lansdowne Park, an exposition will be held of military hardware from around the world, particularly from Canadian arms manufacturers. It will have between 200 and 300 exhibitors attracting between 10,000 and 15,000 people who will be there to shop around for materials and goods related to the arms race. There will be people from many different countries. In fact, every country other than those from behind

May 19, 1989
Supply
the Iron Curtain and Libya have been invited. This means that we will have people from certain Latin American countries, Central American countries, African and Asian countries, countries which have long histories of human rights abuses. It means we will have people in attendance who are at present actively engaged in regional wars. In other words, through this exposition we will be allowing countries whose domestic and foreign policies are opposed by the Canadian Government to look at and be able to place orders for military hardware. This hardware, in turn, will be used to suppress their own population and, in other cases, to be used to conduct the wars they are involved in.
The ARMX Conference was originally organized by the Liberals in 1983 and has been an ongoing biennial fair. This is the second time that it has now been contracted out. It has been contracted out to the division of Baxter Publication of Toronto which produces the trade journal of the Armed Forces, The Canadian Defence Quarterly, Defence Publications Limited.
To suggest as the Government has done, particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in a letter to my colleague from Brant (Mr. Blackburn), that the Canadian Government is not directly involved in ARMX is to side-step the issue. Let there be no doubt that if the Canadian Armed Forces were not there as participants, as buyers, ARMX would not exist this year. ARMX in the past would not have existed. Without the support of the Canadian Armed Forces, this arms exposition would be a non-starter.
This Government, as previous Liberal governments, has supported the arms industry through its DIPP program, the Defence Industry Productivity Program, through which arms producers and manufacturers receive certain subsidies. There are those arms manufacturers who are now paying Baxter Publication for the right to exhibit their wares.
The Canadian Government is indeed involved in helping to finance ARMX through the participation of the Canadian Defence Department, as well as through
grants and subsidies to the defence industry through the DIPP program.
We have seen this Government concentrate on the defence industry as a means of its industrial strategy. I want to speak for a few minutes on the folly of that strategy.
Several countries have been seduced by cheap profits and quick industrial development by attempting to grab a bigger share of the world's military budget.
We know that dependence on the military, especially for a medium power like Canada, is wrought with danger. We will mainly manufacture for the American defence market. The Americans will be and are our major customer. As such, we are dependent upon the Americans, which in turn undermines our ability to formulate an independent Canadian foreign policy. Because of our dependence on a single market, we lose our ability to formulate a more independent stance. We lose our sovereignty.
Second, one must question the morality of encouraging the production, the creation of jobs and the productivity in the country of instruments that are essentially made to kill people. Surely, there is something immoral about devising an economic strategy based on instruments of death. For this Government, as it has done over the last number of years, to encourage this sector of the economy, when there is such tremendous need for goods and services that help people rather than kill people, I maintain is immoral.
For example, in this year some $250 million will be going in DIPP Grants. This is compared with the 1984-85 Budget of $153 million, when this Government was first elected. In other words, over a short period of time this Budget has increased by over $100 million per year. At the same time, we see cut-backs to regional development programs, to funding in health, education and social programs, right down the road. All the human programs are being cut back in the name of fighting the deficit, while there are programs to create instruments of death and the funding for those programs have increased. We find that immoral, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we condemn.
The other point I wish to raise is our history in terms of selling to those countries that abuse human rights. We have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs

(Mr. Clark) give us the assurance in this House that no armaments made and produced in Canada are ending up in South Africa, in El Salvador and in those countries that have a strong history of abuse of human rights.
We all know that the international arms industry is not quite so neat. Canadian products can be sold to Great Britain who in turn sells them to a West German arms dealer, who sells them to the Saudis, who in turn sells them to the South Africans. We have been pressing that to help tighten up the regulations that an end use must be declared before we allow arms products manufactured on our shores to leave our shores. Unfortunately, this Government has still not accepted that position.
I wish to now address the more global question of the arms race and the economic costs of the arms race. Well over $1 trillion a year is now spent on the production of arms. Of course, the two major superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, spend the most. Then I am sure after that we have the Europeans, the Chinese, India and somewhere down the list is Canada as well.
When we take this total global expenditure of $1 trillion a year, we come to the conclusion that we cannot take $1 trillion out of the world economy without everybody in the world suffering from a reduced standard of living. We all pay for it. Mr. Speaker, you and I pay for it.
Let me give you one example. Because of the tremendous U.S. deficit some economists claim that almost 90 per cent of the total of what every individual and company in the United States saves is needed to pay the interest on their deficit. The Americans need to borrow huge sums of money from offshore in order to pay the interest on the deficit. The only way they can do this of course is to offer high interest rates.
As our economy is so closely tied in with the American economy, we of course have to raise our interest rates. Let us remember that the normal historic relationship between interest rates and inflation is that interest rates normally are two to three points above inflation. That means that the interest rates really should be around 6 per cent or 7 per cent. With a 6 per cent or 7 per cent interest rate, the Government deficit becomes manageable. For young families attempting to pay for a mortgage a 6 per cent or 7 per cent interest rate becomes
Supply
manageable. If the farmers in my constituency only had to pay a 6 per cent or 7 per cent interest rate on the farm debt, that would become manageable. The fact of the matter is that we have a 12 per cent or 13 per cent interest rate, in large part because of the arms race and because of the deficits that this has produced on a world scale and the scarcity and demand it has created for capital. Yes, we are all paying for the arms race.
We are living in a day and age where we should have an abundance of resources and services. We are surely living in a golden age where our ability to produce in terms of human needs should be unlimited in terms of human history. Yet, we are living in an age of scarcity. There is not enough money to pay for our hospitals, roads and proper schools. There is a shortage of proper and decent housing.
Surely we can only conclude that if we did not have this tremendous expenditure in arms, we would have the resources to ensure that there are adequate houses and homes and that our streets, bridges and sewage systems would be in a proper state of repair. We should be able to afford all those human needs but, instead, we have been spending the best sums of money on instruments of death and destruction.
The hopeful sign, perhaps, in all this is that both the Soviet Union and the United States have come to their limits in the arms race and those limits are financial ones because of the tremendous deficits in the United States which I would tend to think are even greater in the Soviet Union. The superpowers are just beginning to discover that they cannot continue to afford the escalation of the arms race. They must begin to establish some understanding and some mutual disarmament process in order to start controlling expenditures. In fact, instead of sending ambassadors and generals to the disarmament conferences, we should start sending people from Treasury Board and the Department of Finance because they are the only people who realistically understand what this arms race is all about.
When, as a country, we begin to participate and sponsor programs like ARMX we are contributing to the world problem. We are contributing not only to the world economic problem, the economic problem of too

May 19, 1989
Supply
much money being spent on useless production of death machines, but we are also contributing to the moral problem. Large expenditures of money are going to arms production instead of to the production of human services. Countries with long records of human rights abuse are very often the major purchasers of the arms that we are either manufacturing or engaged in manufacturing. This means that we become immoral ourselves. As we participate in this obnoxious international arms trade, we ourselves become immoral.
I think Canadians generally view Canada as a country with a good record of human rights, supporting other countries of human rights, standing up in our place and condemning those countries that do not have such human rights records. I think Canadians are surprised when they discover the extent to which Canada is involved in the production of arms, the shipment of arms and the export of arms. I think Canadians do not view our country as a major arms producer and exporter. That is why it is important to us, as the New Democratic Party, to have this topic as an Opposition day motion to make Canadians aware of what the Government has been doing and the extent to which Canada has become involved in the arms race as a supplier of armaments.
Hopefully through this awareness Canadians will protest, as many will be protesting next week at Lansdowne Park, in silent vigils and marches against the Government's policy.
While we live in a world of tremendous dangers brought about, of course, by the introduction of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weaponry as well as biochemical and the biological weapons of mass destruction there are hopeful signs. I had an opportunity, along with with some of my colleagues, earlier this year to visit and talk with some of the Canadians involved in the Vienna discussions. They were optimistic and reported to us that for the first time in their memory and experience as arms negotiators they were beginning to find a receptivity to new ideas. The other day West Germany's Minister of Defence proclaimed that the cold war was over. We have heard other Governments, western Governments as well as some of the eastern Governments, proclaim or suggest that there is an atmosphere in the world in part brought about by economic necessity, that we have to step away from the escalation of the arms race and begin the process of
de-escalation. There is in this a tremendous hope for humankind.
The possibility exists today that we can walk away from the brink of total human destruction and walk toward some form of sanity. It is not just a backing away from a tremendous evil of global destruction, but going forward with something promising. If we can begin to harness that trillion dollars in world expenditure on arms every year and put it toward the building of hospitals, to the provision of basic human needs and services on a global scale, we can then dare to begin to think and dream of a much more beautiful world. We could then dream of a world where those basic human needs will become the priority and we would have the ability and the capacity to meet those human needs so that the ancient scourges of hunger, disease, poverty and ignorance can be dealt with and wiped off the face of this earth. That is the tremendous potential that we have as a human race and that exists today.
We, in the New Democratic Party, call upon this Government to realize the potential we have. We call upon this Government to reverse the strategy it has been following since 1984, one of accelerating the cold war and of playing into it. We call upon this Government to realize that the world has changed and in fact, the world is trying to step away from escalation. We call upon this Government to take up the historic role which Canada has played, and continue taking a leadership role toward mutual understanding.
Even Conservative Governments like John Diefenbak-er's Government or previous Liberal Governments were the same in this one aspect. They were able to follow a more independent Canadian foreign policy. Mr. Diefen-baker did not go along with the Americans in the blockading of Havana. The Liberals under Pierre Trudeau and Lester Pearson and Louis St. Laurent also took independent foreign policy decisions. But this Government has been tripping over itself in its desire to please the Americans. In fact, it has become more American than the Americans themselves and, as such, the Government is doing a disservice to the Americans.
We are close friends of the Americans and as close friends we should be honest with the Americans. If you are not honest with your close friends, you are no longer close friends. The Americans require some friends to be honest with them. It is about time this Government became honest with the Americans and told them that there is room for disarmament, that there is room for
May 19, 1989

moving to a new world order based more on mutual trust. We can together explore these new areas. The Canadian Government should be in the forefront of that process rather than a drag, and it has become a drag.
It is with great pleasure that I stand in my place today to offer this motion. I am certain it is a motion on which many Members will want to speak and that we will have a most informed and interesting debate.


Mr. TVemblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to discuss this matter, even briefly. I must congratulate the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party for his brilliant contribution. I will simply tell him that I agree in principle with this kind of proposal insofor that everything meest be done to ensure that our planet no longer has a hot spot as far as war is concerned.
It is clear to me as Member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure everyone else shares this view, that we must make every effort, do everything in our power to preserve peace. Personally, looking at the Government policy that has been very well established by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I find it is quite acceptable even though it may not be perfect because, and I would like to hear the Hon. Members views on that, Canada is still a member of NATO and NORAD. It is a well known fact that the New Democratic Party some months ago supported Canada's withdrawal from NATO, but during the last elections, after looking at opinion polls, the New Democratic Party changed positions, the implication being they would remain within NATO for years to come.
Under these circumstances, after the Hon. Member adduced figures suggesting the Canadian Government would invest massively into the arms industry, will he recognize that the Canadian armament industry's main activity is not into manufacturing offensive weapons but strictly transport aircraft and communications equipment or is he not aware of that fact? I believe this is the essential part of our military industry's activities. Again, in view of the fact Canada is a member of NATO and
Supply
NORAD, it must ensure it is well supplied with that kind of equipment. Again, it is terrible to imply Canada is essentially into offensive weapons and war equipment, when the facts are quite different-essentially, we are manufacturing transport planes and communications equipment to supply our troupes and those of our allies.
I would therefore welcome the Hon. Member's comments on those investments generated in Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Hon. Member has basically asked me two questions. One is the nature of our defence investments. The Hon. Member claims that they are essentially defensive rather than offensive in nature. Second, he is interested in our position regarding NATO. Let me deal with the question about the nature of the weapons first.
In this day and age, it is very difficult, if it ever was possible, to differentiate between offensive and defensive. A number of years ago, I raised concerns in the House about Canada's involvement in the production of biochemical weaponry. At that time, the Liberal Minister of Defence assured me that they were all for defensive purposes. One can argue that these weapons are to be used to defend oneself or used as offensive weapons. A rifle can be used in both directions. I do not think it is fair to say that these weapons are only for defensive purposes. They can also be used for offensive purposes, and it has been shown that some of the countries we have been selling them to can use them for offensive purposes and have done so.
Let me now deal with the question concerning NATO. The position of the NDP, through its resolutions, has been that Canada should withdraw from NATO. That remains our position, and as such, I make no apologies for that.
Members of the New Democratic Party would like to see NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the alliances, eventually dismantled. That is our goal. We have recognized that the timing of such withdrawal requires some flexibility. In order to further our long-term goal of seeing that both NATO and the Warsaw Pact are disbanded, we need to play our card of moving out of NATO at the most appropriate time.

May 19, 1989
Supply
For example, if it becomes feasible through negotiations to do a step-by-step withdrawal, Canada may withdraw from NATO as Poland withdraws from the Warsaw Pact. If there is a step-by-step de-escalation, we would do that, we would play our card as though we are having a game of bridge. We would play our trump card at the appropriate time. We would not start the game by immediately laying down our card. It is done at the appropriate time.
That is the change to our policy. It has changed from one of immediately withdrawing from NATO to one of withdrawing at the appropriate time. However, our goal remains the same, to withdraw from NATO at the most opportune moment possible.


Mr. Desjardins:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member's speech and to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay). I should think that all my colleagues here are very pleased that an NDP spokesman has finally explained his Party's clear position with respect to NATO. We had been waiting for that for quite some time. The Hon. Member might be interested to know that two years ago some of my colleagues and I met with Lord Carrington in Brussels. At the time I asked Lord Carrington how Europe would fare should Canada ever decide to pull out of NATO. Lord Carrington's answer: It would be a catastrophe for both Europe and your own countiy.
So I have to ask the Hon. Member whether he agrees that Canada's withdrawal from the NATO contingent would be an unacceptable retreat, that Canadians would find themselves in an untenable position, altogether vulnerable from an economic standpoint and, in time, completely isolated, in short a withdrawal for which they would end up paying very dearly?
My second question concerns his Party's national defence policy. His own leader once said that a future hypothetical NDP administration-hopefully Canadians will never see that-would maintain the national defence budget as is but earmark the funds in a different way. I wish the Hon. Member would state his position concerning the kind of funding which should be allocated to national defence and, second, concerning the precarious situation Canada might be in should we as a countiy ever decide to part company with NATO.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. First, let me go back to the question of NATO. Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Minister of Defence, the Hon. Eric Nielsen, who went to Washington and then Europe floating the idea that perhaps Canadian troops should be brought out of Europe. It was a Conservative proposal. The American representative at that time, Mr. Weinberger, said, "Well, that is an interesting proposal. I think we would like to back you guys on that. Why don't you go and see what the Europeans have to say about that?"
Of course, Mr. Nielsen went to Europe and the Europeans said, "Horror of horrors, you can't do this to
We spend around $1 billion maintaining our troops in Europe, but strategically they are of no importance whatsoever. Let us get this clear. Canadian troops in Europe are of no strategic importance and of no consequence. When Mr. Nielsen was Minister of Defence, he recognized this. Everyone recognizes this. It is a political consideration. Why did the Europeans want Canadian troops in Europe? They wanted them because if Canadian troops were not in Europe, the Americans might decide to leave. The Europeans want the Americans in Europe because if there was an outbreak of hostilities, they know that the United States could immediately become involved in those hostilities. If American boys were not in Europe, then Americans conceivably might decide not to become involved. That is really the political rationale as to why Canadian troops should remain in Europe. It is a political consideration.
What we have found with this Government is that it is withdrawing from Canada by closing all of these bases in Canada that conduct air and sea operations and rescue operations and so forth. It is withdrawing from Canada, but it is leaving our troops in Europe. I suggest that if the Government is going to leave our troops in Europe, they at least should begin to charge a billion dollars or so to the Europeans. The Europeans can well afford then-defence situation. If if we are going to become merce-
May 19, 1989

naries, then at least we should start charging the Europeans some billion dollars or more a year to keep our troops there.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate today. I was a little surprised at the motion that was put forward by the NDP for this opposition day debate, but I welcome it. It gives us an opportunity to lay out the facts and dispel the fiction about ARMX, the Armed Forces Training Technology exhibition, which will take place in Ottawa next week. All we are hearing from the NDP are mistruths about this particular event.
I listened to the Hon. Member across the floor as he got into all sorts of other defence issues, I would certainly enjoy debating him on some of those. It is interesting to note that the NDP's position on NATO is still to withdraw from NATO but not necessarily withdraw until the time is right. Quite honestly, that kind of a foreign and defence policy certainly would not wash with our allies, as I am sure even the Liberals would admit.
It was interesting when the Hon. Member talked about arms control. I represented our Government in Vienna two months ago at the opening of the conventional arms talks, and it was positive meeting. There was a sense between our NATO allies and the Warsaw countries that this may be the time to make some real progress in the reduction of conventional arms. But this has only come about through our strength, through our allies in NATO. We have held a strong position for the last 40 years, and they are now willing to negotiate. If we had not had that strength, and NATO, we would never be in the position today where we are looking forward to a reduction in conventional and nuclear arms in Europe and around the world.
Coming back to the point of the debate today, I would like to speak specifically about ARMX. Starting with a little history, ARMX, the Armed Forces Training Technology Exhibition, began in 1983, an exhibition at the mobile command headquarters in St. Hubert, Quebec. Its focus was and still is on training, technology, including the use of simulation devices. The point of creating such an exhibition was to allow members of the Armed Forces contact with industry to see what the training technology industry had to offer and to allow industry a first-hand opportunity of learning the needs of the Canadian forces. Although ARMX has grown and evolved over the years, its basic purpose has not
Supply
changed. It has three primary goals: first, to demonstrate modem technology, especially training technology, to as many senior commanders and staff users as possible; second, to acquaint Canadian and international industry with training equipment requirements of the Canadian Forces, and finally to encourage industry to industry related relationships between Canadian and international sources of technology and provide a forum for a potential investment and industrial co-operation.
What is so threatening about all that? It is merely bringing people together in a cost-effective way to make us more efficient in our Department and to bring us up-to-date with what is happening in the training technology area.
I would also like to clarify the role of the Department of National Defence in ARMX and the reason for our continuing interest in its success. Our job in the Department of National Defence-I would like to make this very clear because I have heard some confusing discussion over the last few weeks about it-is to safeguard our country's sovereignty and security. This involves a vast range of national and international commitments. It includes our commitments to collective security through NORAD and NATO as well as to our international peacekeeping operations. In order to fulfil these commitments, the Canadian Forces, the men and women who serve in our Forces in Canada and around the world in NATO and in peace-keeping operations, we need the most effective training and technology methods and equipment that we can acquire. We all know that we have a finite budget, and we live within the constraints of our budgets and resources. We need the assistance of industry to better equip our forces. We need new ideas to improve our training.
Let me explain why modem simulation capabilities are cost effective and are very important to the training activities of the Canadian Forces. It is much less expensive for members of the Canadian Forces to train on simulators rather than using valuable equipment. Such equipment is usually expensive to operate and can be risky if used by inexperienced personnel. Training modules save time and money in almost every forum of training in the military. Such training devices range from drones and flight simulators to electronic rifle ranges and advanced naval tactic simulators. It is obvious that if you spend hours working with the simulator, such as in air-flight training, by the time you get up in the air, you will have a lot more confidence and expertise. That

May 19, 1989
really is a more cost-effective way of helping to train our people.
Another way in which these training devices contribute positively to Canada, and perhaps this is not something usually thought of, is that the use of simulators and simulator training devices helps to protect our environment. We all know of Canadians' concern for environmental protection these days. Simulators are some of the most environmentally sound and energy efficient ways in which to provide military training and maintain necessary skills. For example, a jet fighter aircraft would be flown a fraction of the time if its crew were to be trained equally well in flight simulation. They not only save time. They save expense and energy.
This is why ARMX plays such a useful role. ARMX is much more than a defence trade show. It is a meeting place, a forum for Government and industry to exchange information and ultimately come together and work together to improve our Forces' training and our operational effectiveness. That is why we support this training technology exhibition.
However, our involvement is relatively limited. First, there is no public money spent on ARMX whatsoever. It is sponsored, organized and conducted by defence publications which are owned by Baxter Publishing. In other words, this is a private exhibition run by private industry for the benefit of both government and industry. While we do provide some direct support in terms of equipment and personnel, the cost of these services is recovered in accordance with the regulations.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time is limited for now. I will look forward to returning to the discussion following Question Period.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in sharp contrast to the moaning we heard from opposition
Parties during the free trade debate, the agriculture and food processing industries in Canada are growing and not dying.
The current massive reinvestment in these industries bodes well for future markets and for jobs.
Responding to a quadrupling in sales of oat bran, Quaker Oats has announced a $ 13-million expansion and upgrading of its plant at Peterborough, Ontario. This expansion will provide an even greater market for Ontario and Canadian oats. That means more jobs for workers in this industry.
Even more significant, those new facilities at Peterborough will produce one line of breakfast cereal which is currently imported from the United States. As a farmer, I am pleased to say that the food processing industry in Canada remains healthy and vigorous.



TOURISM


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, as we reach the end of National Tourism Awareness Week, Canadians are recognizing that this year the Government has turned the occasion from a celebration into a wake.
This is nowhere more evident than in the National Capital Region, where our efforts to promote Canada's capital as an international tourist destination are being hit doubly hard. Not only are we facing a future $20-million cut to Tourism Canada's budget, but also an immediate $5-million cut to the National Capital Commission's budget.
Recently, the Government changed the mandate of the NCC to give the Commission more responsibility for tourism promotion, and yet the Government has slashed the resources available to do the job.
When will the Government start to realize that investments in areas such as tourism are more than paid back in benefits to local economies? When will the Government rescind these cuts?
May 19, 1989



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Mr. Mark Aik-Liang, the first Chinese Canadian to bring his head tax certificate into my office in 1983, passed away last September 12 leaving a lonely, distraught widow who has lost most of her eyesight from crying every day since her husband's death. She can no longer read the Chinese newspaper for updates on the head tax issue. There is no member of her family with her. She lives alone. Her only son is left in Hong Kong which might not have happened if it were not for the Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Acts. Her only burning desire is to see the settlement of the head tax issue which has caused undue suffering for her family.
There are thousands of other families who have suffered similar experiences as the result of the unjust racist head tax. I urge the Government, on behalf of all Parties, to act quickly in negotiating a fair settlement of the head tax issue with the Chinese Canadian National Council. Only after those steps have been fulfilled can Canada be upright in its claims as a nation where equality is extolled and discrimination will not be condoned.



JUSTICE


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in the October, 1986 Throne Speech, the Government resolved to defend and strengthen the institution of the Canadian family by, among other measures, taking effective action against violent forms of pornography involving women and children.
I believe there is in Canada today a broad consensus that children and young people not be exposed to pornographic material. Further, that material depicting sexual violence, sexual degradation, and any and all forms of child pornography be outlawed.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) indicated recently that he and his officials are studying measures dealing
with child pornography and pornography depicting violence.
Most Canadians believe that violence and degrading pornography is inimical to Canadian family life. It is their hope that the Minister of Justice will proceed expeditiously with his study and come forward with strong measures outlawing malignant forms of pornography. In doing so, the Minister will recognize the importance of the family and the inherent dignity of individual Canadians.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Hon. Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) launched the national "Hire a Student" campaign in Canada Place in Ottawa.
I had the pleasure of taking part in this launching together with the Minister and many Hon. Members of this House. It was an opportunity for us to meet hundreds of young people who also took part in this event, which will be repeated across Canada.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, several thousand jobs were created thanks to this campaign.
Canada's young students greatly appreciate the excellent employment opportunities afforded them by this program and I encourage private enterprise to participate actively in this strategy to employ students. They are intelligent and dynamic, they represent the future and they deserve the support of us all.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, on May 26,1 shall take part in the official opening of my riding's student summer employment centres in Repentigny and Terrebonne.
I therefore encourage all Hon. Members of this House to support young Canadians and to make this program another great success for young Canadians and all students.



ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, water is a precious resource. I have no fear about drinking the water in this glass. However, living with uncertainty

May 19, 1989
about the safety of drinking water can be nerve wracking. One only need ask the people who live downstream from chemical valley on the St. Clair River. Residents are held hostage to the constant fear that a toxic spill could jeopardize their health. They have coped with over 300 spills in three years-300 spills, Mr. Speaker!
The Government said "no" to helping communities downstream get a clean water supply. The Tories said, "It's not our problem".
The Tories said "no" to municipal infrastructure. Those saying "yes" include every Government in every municipality, province and territory, Liberal, Conservative, and NDR They know federal funding is needed for a clean and safe environment. Water supply projects are a national problem needing a national response.
The Tories are the odd man out. They are copping out. Canadians in Kent, in Toronto, in Newcastle, New Brunswick, should not be forced to drink bottled water.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has undertaken to give qualified support to the American position in favour of modernizing the range of nuclear weapons in Europe. In yesterday's editorial in the New York Times we have the sober, critical voice of Anthony Lewis who stated:
Last year's treaty on intermediate-range nuclear forces required the Soviet Union to dismantle the 239 SS-23 missiles it had in Europe. Soviet officials had argued that the SS-23's range was just below the 300-mile threshold set in the treaty, but to meet American concerns they agreed to include it.
The Americans propose to advance the range of the Lance to 280 miles, almost the very same range that they insisted on denying to the Soviet Union. Mr. Shevardnadze, the Soviet Foreign Minister, was talking very tough about that, which may or may not be the way we are expecting Mr. Gorbachev to negotiate. As Mr. Lewis stated, we are asking them to destroy their weapons and then we are putting in weapons that are nearly the same.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to use his good offices to persuade the White House to back off on its modernization.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in our efforts to control the national debt, no part of the country has borne that burden any more strongly than Atlantic Canada. We have done it, and we will continue to do it.
However, the point I want to make is simply that we cannot afford to have our rail lines continually abandoned in that part of Canada, particularly in my home Province of New Brunswick.
I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to take a serious look at regional development, to take a serious look at what we need in the Province of New Brunswick, and to take a serious look at stopping the continual abandonment of rail lines.
I also urge the Minister of Transport to take a very serious look at VIA Rail and maintain VIA Rail. We need it, we use it, and we don't want to lose it.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the staff of the Library of Parliament for the excellent job that they do on behalf of all parliamentarians. Both the information and Technical Services Branch and the Research Branch provide prompt and professional service at all times.
The effectiveness of the Library is quite obviously a reflection of the quality of the people who work there. Their ability to provide information and analyses on complex matters on short notice requires a great deal of skill and hard work. Without this constant level of professionalism, the House would function on a less than adequate level.
On a related matter, our public and school libraries serve an equally important function for the general
May 19, 1989

public. They are the storehouses of information and knowledge available to all Canadians. They help us keep pace with this rapidly changing world of ours.
I believe that all parliamentarians owe a debt of gratitude to the staff in the Library of Parliament and to librarians across the Canada for the research, information and education they provide to all Canadians.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Budget of the Government opposite, farmers will see the price of gasoline rise by seven cents a litre and the price of diesel fuel by four cents a litre by the end of 1989. This stroke of the pen by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will cost Canadian farmers well over $120 million a year.
The Ontario Com Producers Association estimates the sum will cost farmers $2 an acre per year. No other business sector has been singled out for cuts in this Budget as has the agriculture industry.
I ask the Minister of Finance and the Government whether or not they know the importance of agriculture to Canadians and to our Canadian economy? Do they not realize that our farmers are in difficult times? Why does the Minister of Finance not do something about it and bring in good programs? I call on the Government to appoint a full-time Minister of Agriculture who knows the industry, who understands the industry and is prepared to do something for farmers in this country.



THE MONARCHY

[Stage Direction]
1939 ROYAL TOUR TO CANADA
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago, amidst colour, excitement and pageantry unprecedented in our history, Canadian nationhood was given a significant boost.
The presence on Canadian soil of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, from May 17 to June 15 1939, put into practice the theory of the statute of Westminster of 1931.
This is a perspective of the visit that is often neglected among the vivid and fond memories of that exciting time.
The 1931 Statute had changed Canada's status from that essentially of a colony to that of an independent sovereign nation within the British Commonwealth.
The 1939 tour set precedents because not only was it the first time a reigning monarch was visiting Canada, but any of his Dominions. King George VI was here as King of Canada, not as King of the United Kingdom visiting one of his colonies.
In the nation's capital on May 19, three events-accepting the credentials of an envoy, granting Royal Assent, and ratifying two treaties-concentrated attention in a solemn and colourful manner on Canada as a sovereign constitutional monarchy.



TAXATION


Mr. Jim KarpofF (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, press reports today show clearly what utter contempt Canada's largest corporations have for our Canadian political system, for our tax system, and for the Canadian people.
The corporations which helped buy the last election for the Conservative Party are now asking for their part of the pay off. They want to be able to write off from their profits the money they spent on advertising supporting the trade deal.
We are not talking about small sums. The Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities spent nearly $6 million in two years promoting their own brand of job opportunities in Georgia.
The Business Council on National Issues spent nearly $1 million, and 75 big corporations like Alcan contributed an average of $50,000 a piece.
In fact, we do not even know how many companies were involved. Noranda gave the Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities as much as $250,000. But the Alliance refuses to provide a list of its corporate supporters. Like the insects that hide under rocks, these companies and their directors do not have the guts to face the light of Canadian public scrutiny. Big business gets its way in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton Southwest (Mr. Edwards).

May 19, 1989
Oral Questions



INTERNATIONAL MUSEUMS DAY


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, today is International Museum Day.
Canadian museums receive more than 20 million visitors every year. These figures show the popularity of these institutions, both for entertainment and for education.
Canadians do not help these keepers of our heritage and culture only with their taxes and admission fees. We must not forget either the 20,000 volunteers who give their time and energy to provide a wide range of activities featuring the wealth of our collections.

The "friends" of museums help their museums in many ways. They may guide schoolchildren, work in gift shops and libraries, or organize special events.
"Friends" serve on committees and boards. They offer advice, encouragement and enthusiasm which can assist with the daily operation of their organization.
The contribution of Friends to Museums has enriched the lives of all Canadians. I feel strongly that their generosity should be especially recognized today on the occasion of International Museums Day.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's decision to slaughter VIA Rail is shameful. Since 1984, the Tories have been plotting to eliminate rail passenger service in Canada. Atlantic Canadians have been seriously misled by the Government.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister from Bay Street, has taken his pound of flesh and then some from VIA. No corporation can survive if its budget is slashed by $1.3 billion over a five-year period. The job losses will be staggering, especially in the Dartmouth-
Halifax region where some 322 people could be thrown out of work if VIA service is withdrawn.
It is shameful that at the same time as these cuts to VIA were finalized, the Tories had the National Transportation Agency, headed by Erik Nielsen, going across the country holding public hearings on the future of VIA. What a game of deceit. What a sham. While the Minister of Finance had VIA drawn and quartered, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) said absolutely nothing and the NTA continued to be a willing accomplice in what had become an unholy charade. The Tory Members opposite who vowed to fight for VIA are now muted in silence. I call upon the Government to halt these cut-backs on VIA, protect the jobs of its workers, to keep its word and to do so now.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I put my questions once again to the Deputy Prime Minister.
On Thursday, April 27, at page 1036 of Hansard, the Prime Minister of Canada said on the subject of the Budget investigation:
The Solicitor General has said that if any information comes to him, he will report to the House immediately.
Yesterday, the Solicitor General said that the RCMP had been aware of the allegations of a second leak from the outset of the investigation. In other words, for over three weeks.
The Prime Minister told the House of Commons that the Solicitor General would report any information immediately. Why did the Prime Minister not live up to that undertaking to the House? It seems incredible to me that if the RCMP knew, the Solicitor General did not know or would not have reported it to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. When did the Prime Minister of this country know, and when did the Minister of Finance know?
May 19, 1989


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition- I want to go back to what I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker. As soon as a journalist appeared on television with a document which was obviously a Budget document, the RCMP immediately started an investigation on all circumstances surrounding the incident.
And I specifically asked at that moment, Mr. Speaker- because, naturally, the leak of a Budget document one day before- I immediately asked for an investigation on whether some people could have profited from the leak of a Budget document before the Budget was tabled.
And it is precisely for that reason that we asked for an investigation right from the start, Mr. Speaker. To reassure Canadians, yesterday the Commissioner of the RCMP told me that, so far, his investigation couldn't find any evidence to the effect that some people could have profited from the Budget leak.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this Government has acted in a responsible manner.


Mr.   Tinner@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Solicitor General said that the RCMP has been aware of a second leak since the beginning, three weeks ago.
Despite the Prime Minister's statement here in this House that the Solicitor General would immediately report any information to this House, he hasn't done so.


POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER BUDGET LEAKS-MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Right Hon. John N. Dirner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We want to know whether in fact there was another second or third leak. The Minister of Justice said there might have been more. That is what he said to the House yesterday.
We want to know that because this is not a police matter. This is a matter of ministerial accountability, specifically that of the Minister of Finance to the House
Oral Questions
of Commons. It is accountability not to the police but to Parliament.
Therefore, I put my question once again to the Deputy Prime Minister. On what day, at what time were Ministers of the Government, specifically the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General informed of the fact that there was another leak, second, third or fourth, of Budget information? Why was that information not given immediately to the House of Commons?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the right hon. gentleman, it is indeed a matter for the police. He will know if he reads the newspapers, and I know that he does, that the headline of The Globe and Mail of April 28 reads: "Many leaks reported to special RCMP unit". The article goes on to state:
The RCMP yesterday expanded its investigation of Wednesday's
budget leak to include a number of other leaks reported before
Finance Minister Michael Wilson's embarrassing admission that
someone had let slip his budget.
The article goes on to quote an RCMP spokesman. It states:
"Every report will be investigated," said RCMP spokesman Denis Deveau. We're not just out in the corridor on this one. We've got the wideangle lens on it, and we've a lot of guys working on it."
I could go on to cite a number of other incidents.
Mr. Kevin Newman reporting on the CTV network acknowledged a potential leak with respect to the Ottawa TV affiliate.
We have an Hon. Member of the House who suggested that he had prior knowledge of the Budget.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There were many allegations. All of the allegations are indeed being investigated by the RCMP.
Why does the right hon. gentleman insist on attempting to interfere with the process of an RCMP investigation?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 19, 1989
Oral Questions



ACCOUNTABILITY TO HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. John N. "Rimer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I will say to the Deputy Prime Minister the reason I am being so persistent is because-
["I repeat again and I say to him as bluntly as I can, the Minister of Finance stands by his statement in the House of Commons at eleven o'clock on April 27."]
Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is the phoniest fight of your life.


Mr. Rimer (Vancouver Quadra):: -it is not a police matter, it is a parliamentary matter. It has to do with the accountability of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Henry Reimer: The Deputy Prime Minister was getting a little personal. I want to say to him this. I know that he is in a difficult position. He is stonewalling for the Minister of Finance. He is stonewalling for the Prime Minister.
I want to recall to him the similarity between the position he finds himself in and the position of his predecessor, the then Hon. Member for the Yukon, who stonewalled for the Prime Minister on the Sinclair Stevens affair.
A great deal of parliamentary exchange is gratuitous. I feel in my gut that the Deputy Prime Minister knows more than he is telling this House of Commons. I am pleading with him to come clean with the House before this whole thing breaks open.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Retire your gut.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader when he gets into a bit of a jam becomes childish and foolish. That is what he is doing right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: His own Member-


Beryl Gaffney: You are on the run.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can run a heck of a lot faster than you can.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Cover-up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will put my record up against your record any day.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We will see.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of his own Members, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre, as reported at page 1032 of Hansard said: "There is now evidence that that leakage was widespread and that there were a number of sources." I presume-


Mr.   Rirner@Vancouver Quadra: Are you admitting it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No. I presume that if the Hon. Member had evidence of that, he turned it over to the RCMP. If he did not, he should have. If he has not, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition should petition his colleague to ensure that it is turned over to the RCMP.



Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and deals with the Budget leak. I have before me a copy of the Hansard of the House of Commons for May 18, in which the Solicitor General is quoted as saying, also on the matter of the second Budget leak: -the investigation has included, from the outset of the situation, the press story referred to. This is on page 1912 of Hansard. How then can the Deputy Prime Minister conciliate the admission yesterday by the Solicitor General that the RCMP was aware of all those facts since the beginning, and the following statement made by the Prime Minister in this House, and I am quoting from page 1036 of Hansard:
"-the Solicitor General has said if any information comes to him
he will report to the House immediately- "
Why did the Solicitor General not report to us this new information he himself recognized yesterday in this House? Why did he hide that fact from the House of Commons?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to hide. I indicated to the House the very next day we already had set in motion a complete investigation of all the facts from the moment the document involved was shown on TV. And I also requested-and this is what I was referring to yesterday, what I am pointing out to the Hon. Member-that from the very beginning, they would look into any possibility of people profiting from a leaked Budget document before the Budget speech. This is what I was specifically referring to yesterday, and I believe this is the responsible course of action. As I suggested yesterday and as I am saying again today: the RCMP Commissioner, pursuant to that specific request I made on the behalf of all Canadians I
May 19, 1989

believe, came back to me yesterday and told me there was no evidence indeed to this day that people could have profited from that. I think I acted responsibly when I so informed the House yesterday.


BUDGET SECURITY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Supply and Services said in the House on April 27 that all precautions had been taken in regard to budget security. On the same day the Prime Minister described the budget leak as a theft and a crime.
Is it not now obvious that the only crime is the criminal negligence of the Government in this whole affair?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier. We have acted quite responsibly from the very beginning. The RCMP are an honourable police force and they have been asked to look into this matter. We have nothing to hide. Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons always takes the same approach whenever a police agency is conducting an investigation: we let them carry out their investigation and do their work. That is what we have to do.


REQUEST AS TO WHEN MINISTER WAS INFORMED OF SECOND LEAK
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. At 11 a.m. on April 27 the Minister of Finance advised the House of Commons that there had been a Budget leak the night before. All he said was a leak. During Question Period the same day at 2 p.m. I asked two questions about the possibility of another Budget leak and the Minister of Finance chose not to respond, suggesting instead that my question was simply a political question. We know now that the same morning the finance deputy minister was told about a second Budget leak. My question is to the point: when did the Minister of
Oral Questions
Finance first hear about this second leak and why did he fail to inform the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is referring to information provided by or allegations made in the media. I said earlier, as I did yesterday on a number of occasions, that all such allegations or whatever else have been referred to the RCMP. Our duty as Members of Parliament and as Canadian citizens is to refer any such allegations to the RCMP, and that is what we did. I said yesterday and I say again today that the RCMP are looking into all circumstances surrounaing this case. That is what I said, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that is the responsible approach.


OBLIGATION TO INFORM PUBLIC OF FURTHER BUDGET LEAKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say that that answer is totally unacceptable. I wish to go back to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Minister of Finance thought the one leak which had been publicly revealed was so serious that he had to come into the House of Commons the next day to address the question of a leak as a question of privilege. We now know that his Deputy Minister was informed that very morning of another budget leak that had taken place three days previously.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is simply this. If the Government had knowledge that day, either that morning or later on in Question Period, that there was not simply one leak but two leaks, why were the people of Canada not informed? Why was the House of Commons not informed? When is the Government going to tell us honestly when it learned of the second leak? That is what is at stake here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, let us keep this thing in perspective. Even the comment that was made by Mr. Newman of CBC very clearly said that it was not until after Michael Wilson had been forced to go public with the Budget that

May 19, 1989
Oral Questions
the company told officials in Ottawa that they were aware of more details.


An Hon. Member:: That was Wednesday night.


An Hon. Member:: Why didn't they come clean on Thursday?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: According to a Globe and Mail source, the President of a Toronto financial company learned the next morning that his staff had been in possession of the Budget. Once this issue was opened and turned over to the RCMP, all aspects of it, as the Solicitor General has indicated, had been turned over to the RCMP for full investigation.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party should know, he has been around here long enough, that it would be absolutely and totally inappropriate and irresponsible for anyone to interfere with the RCMP investigation. He is asking Members of the Cabinet to in fact interfere with an RCMP investigation, and he ought to know better than that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER OF FINANCE-PRIVILEGE-SECOND LEAK
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have been around here long enough to see a Minister of the Crown deliberately mislead the House, as I have just seen right this very minute.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa should know that he should not use language like that in the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Member for Oshawa will withdraw and put his question.


John Edward Broadbent: I will respect the rules of the House and withdraw the comment I made. I now ask the Deputy Prime Minister to respect the truth and answer the question. That is what I want him to do. I want to ask the Minister, since today and yesterday several Ministers of the Crown have avoided the question, if he will tell us when the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada learned of the second leak, did they know it on the day that the Minister of Finance got up on a question of privilege and talked about only the one leak? If so,
why did they not come clean then and tell the people of Canada? When are they going to live up to their responsibilities and be honest in the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of Finance stands by his statement that he made in the House at 11 o'clock on the question of privilege which the Hon. Member referred to. The Hon. Member says "Respect the traditions of this House and respect the traditions of Parliament." He should learn, and he has been around here long enough, that it is totally inappropriate for Members to interfere with an ongoing RCMP investigation.


An Hon. Member:: You are a phoney.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Leader of the New Democratic Party may not like the answers that he is getting.


John Edward Broadbent: You are right.


An Hon. Member:: And we don't either.


An Hon. Member:: The people in Canada don't like it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Let him be patient and let due process take its course.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF TWO LEAKS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday, in this House, he told us four times that the RCMP has been investigating two leaks from the beginning. So, the RCMP started its investigation early Wednesday evening, according to what the Solicitor General said on Thursday, April 27. If the RCMP started its investigation early Wednesday evening and knew all along there had been two leaks, why did the Solicitor General not admit it on that Thursday morning to the House of Commons and to the Canadian people?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been consistent. The day following those events, on the 27th, I think I mentioned in the House that on the evening a budget document was made public on television, we immediately asked the RCMP to investigate. We did not know anything then about the investigation or the events, all we knew was that a budget document was shown on television. We asked the RCMP to make a
May 19, 1989

Oral Questions
thorough investigation of all circumstances. Because of the special nature of a budget document, I asked the RCMP then to check specifically the possibility that people had benefited from this leak. It was the responsible thing to do, and that is exactly what I said yesterday. I have been repeating from the beginning that we had asked the RCMP to review all aspects of the matter, specially the possibility that some had benefitted from the leak. We gave a complete, clear and precise answer, that had been given to me by the RCMP Commissioner. It all seems very clear to me.


TWO LEAKS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is trying to take back his words. Yesterday he told us that the RCMP has been investigating both leaks right from the start. The first one on Global TV and the second one at the company in Toronto.
I want to know if, at the beginning of the investigation, early Wednesday night, as you said, the RCMP was aware of both those leaks. I am asking the Solicitor General why on the following Thursday the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General himself only referred to the Global leak. Why did they lie so shamelessly to the House that night?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's comment inappropriate. I will simply refer to page 1912 of yesterday's Hansard, that my Hon. colleague has read, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is an investigation by the RCMP into this case. It is a serious matter. I am informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that the investigation has included, from the outset of the situation, the press story referred to. I am also informed by the commissioner that to date there has been no indication that any profiteering has resulted from advanced knowledge of the Budget. The investigation is continuing, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this case.
It is very clear and I think this is different from what the Hon. Member referred to, Mr. Speaker.


STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS-DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Minister of Justice admitted that there may well have been many leaks. The direct quote is: "however many there may have been-"


An Hon. Member:: Who said that?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: On April 27, the Minister of Finance stated:
- that this violation did not result from negligence, carelessness or lack of proper security arrangements-
Given the fact that the Minister of Justice clearly feels that there was negligence in this matter, otherwise how would he know that there had been many leaks, my question to the Solicitor General is which of the two Ministers is correct?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I just repeat what I said yesterday. The Hon. Member must not have listened to what I said a few minutes ago. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is an investigation by the RCMP into this case.


An Hon. Member:: It is a cover-up.


Pierre Blais: It is a serious matter. I am informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that the investigation has included from the outset of the situation the press story referred to. I am also informed by the Commissioner that to date there has been no indication that any profiteering has resulted from advance knowledge of the Budget. That is clear, in English and in French.


ALLEGED COVER-UP
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask about profiteering. I asked why there was a clear difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice. Which of the two is he going to come down on? The real question is why the cover-up? The Deputy Prime Minister knows that there is no reason why he cannot answer this question. It does not prejudice in any way, shape or form the RCMP investigation. He yesterday selectively called for an RCMP investigation. There is only one question before this House. You are bringing this House into disrepute. Why the cover-up?

May 19, 1989
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: You are taking lessons from Tobin. [Translation]


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague does not have a long experience in this House, and I do not have a long one either.
However, one must recognize, Mr. Speaker, and I think my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, sais it clearly earlier, that when an RCMP investigation is under way one should at least, be it the Minister of Finance, the Solicitor General, the Deputy Prime Minister, or whoever, let the RCMP complete that investigation. I believe that this is just reasonable and I am convinced that my colleague understand and agrees with that.


CRIMINAL ACTION-STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago in the House he said that the Minister of Finance had risen in the House on April 27 on a point of privilege and referred to a Budget leak.
On that very day the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other Ministers referred on 18 different occasions to a criminal act in the singular. The Minister of Finance appearing on the Mike Duffy Show on Sunday, April 30, again referred in the singular to a criminal act.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to respond very carefully to my question. Yesterday, in answer to a question put by myself to the Solicitor General, the Solicitor General said:
-I can repeat again that the RCMP Commissioner informed me that from the beginning, the investigation included the situation referred to yesterday in the news-
Here the Solicitor General says one thing, that from the beginning he knew of a second leak and yet the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister said many times in the House that there was one leak and one criminal act. I want the Deputy Prime Minister now to explain to the House which Minister is telling the truth to the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question at the beginning of the Oral Question Period. It may be necessary to return to it and to elaborate on that. What I said yesterday and what my colleague also mentioned a while ago is that there have been all sorts of allegations since the 27th. We have asked-and I believe that the RCMP has done its job, it is doing it right now-for an investigation on all allegations, including an allegation by a Member of this House, to the effect that information had been released before. I believe it is the duty of the RCMP to investigate on that.
What I said yesterday, and I want to repeate to my honourable colleague, what I was referring to, and this seems very obvious to me, is that the possibility- Because I think that the meaning of the television program, the news that appeared before yesterday, was that some people could have profited from the premature release of the Budget document. Well, it is exactly on that aspect that we have asked, from the very beginning, for a particular investigation on the possibility that some people may have profited from the release of the document, and the RCMP Commissioner, Mr. Speaker, told us yesterday that there has been no evidence of profiteering. That seems very obvious to me.


MINISTER OF FINANCE-PRIVILEGE-SECOND LEAK
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question in a different way for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the absence of the Prime Minister, would he please respond to the question.
The president of the company in Toronto said he phoned the Deputy Minister of Finance, Fred Gorbet, on April 27, which is the day the Budget was to be brought down in the House. I want to know precisely when the Minister of Finance was informed of the second leak. I ask that because when the Government heard about the first leak, when it got caught with the first leak, the Minister rose on a question of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: What nonsense.
May 19, 1989


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When the Government was told about a second leak, the Minister did not rise on a question of privilege. When did the Government find out about the second leak and why did the Minister not rise on a question of privilege at that time and tell us that there had been a second leak?


Charles Joseph Clark: What a phoney issue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Because when the Government got caught the first time the Minister rose.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, immediately at the time that the investigation was launched there were a whole series of allegations about the number of leaks. As I said, The Globe and Mail, April 28, reported that "many leaks were reported to the special RCMP unit".
I have before me, dated April 27,1989, at 1307 hours, I believe, a story on the CP wire which stated that a public servant said that he had details of a federal budget read to him over the phone Tbesday night and was surprised that it was not leaked to the press sooner. That is what the Ottawa Citizen states.


Jean-C. Lapierre: What an incompetent Government-all these leaks.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Then you have the CJOH incident. The Member for Hull-Aylmer made a suggestion. All of these allegations were in the public domain and all are being investigated by the RCMP. Why does the Hon. Member want to interfere with that process?


DEFENCE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE-ALLEGED MISLEADING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that excellent question just put to the Deputy Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Following the NDP.


John Napier Turner: When we sat in the House on April 27 and listened to the Minister of Finance defend his question of privilege before the House, he defended his right to proceed with that Budget on the basis that the damage had been contained. There was no advantage given to any people other than the taxpayers generally and we were told that there was a single leak. That was the basis of his defence and that
Oral Questions
was his privilege to the House, that the privileges of the House were not offended and he should be able to proceed to the Budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: Where were you the night before?


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: Now we learn that at the time he was on his feet the Government and the Minister perhaps knew of other leaks.


Mr. Dick:: Perhaps.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: The Solicitor General has said that the RCMP knew from the outset. The Deputy Prime Minister is defending his case that there were wide known other leaks and yet the Minister of Finance's defence before the House was a single leak. I put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Doesn't that tear up the whole basis of the Minister of Finance's speech to the House of Commons and the whole basis of the privilege? Wasn't he misleading the House of Commons knowing at the time there were other leaks before the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance took the necessary action and precaution based upon the information he had at that time. He took the necessary steps in trying to bring the Budget before the House at the earliest possible convenience. He rose on a question of privilege and explained it on that basis. The Hon. Member is talking about all sorts of allegations which he implies in a very inaccurate manner and I think as a lawyer and a distinguished parliamentarian, he should refrain from that. I want to tell him that the Minister of Finance stands by his statement.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Eric junior.


ALLEGED WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION
Right Hon. John N. Dimer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I put this to another distinguished parliamentarian who should know that ministerial accountability is not to the police but to the House of Commons. That is what we are talking about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 19, 1989
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Isn't the reason that we weren't told of a second or other leaks is that the Minister of Finance wanted to proceed with his Budget and that had he had to admit further leaks he would not have been able to proceed, he would have had to withdraw the Budget and perhaps resign? Isn't that the real reason?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that conclusion is absolutely false-


Mr. Simmons:: That is the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has no right to draw that conclusion whatsoever.


BUDGET LEAK-PROFITEERING
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Time and again and here in the House again today we have heard the Solicitor General make the claim that no one profiteered from the advanced leaked information.
How can the Solicitor General make that statement when this morning my office was in touch with the chief investigator of the Ontario Securities Commission who told us that he has not been contacted, either by the Solicitor General, the RCMP, the Minister of Finance, or by any other government Department with respect to the investigation of a Budget leak?

Hon.Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)): Mr. Speaker, on April 27, I informed the House, here, that I had asked the RCMP to investigate all the circumstances of this affair and especially the possibility that some people may have profited from the premature release of a Budget document. Yesterday, the Commissioner informed me that so far, according to the investigation now under way-and it is still under investigation-there has been no information that anyone profited. You know that I am not to interfere in the RCMP investigation, but the RCMP informed me that it had all the means at its disposal to check whether anyone in Canada had profited.
So I simply passed on what the RCMP Commissioner had told me yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the House and of Canadians.


LEAK OF BUDGETARY DOCUMENTS-RCMP INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Today, the Minister says that the investigation is under way, but this very morning, he assured us several times that no Canadian could have profited. I would therefore like to ask him-and it is not the RCMP that is here in Parliament, it is the Solicitor General who revealed these facts to the House-how he can assure Canadians that no one profited when we know that even the chief investigator of the Ontario Securities Commission was not even contacted by him, by the RCMP, by the Finance Minister, by the Prime Minister or by any Department of the Government. So how can he give Canadians this assurance?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I simply repeated this morning what I had said yesterday, and that is what the RCMP Commissioner told me. It is not up to me, to the Minister personally, to do the checking and investigate. I let the police do their work. I just wanted to pass on some information that seemed important to me, because Canadians, as several Hon. Members have said in this House, can indeed be concerned that people might have profited. However, the RCMP told me yesterday that so far, according to its information, it has no evidence that anyone profited. I believe this information should reassure Canadians and you should listen very carefully to what has been said and take it in.


WITHHOLDING INFORMATION-CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, essentially, we are dealing with parliamentary matters rather than internal police matters. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. We were told after the first leak that there would be an immediate criminal investigation. That was the line of defence used by the Government to assuage the questions asked by Members of this House about parliamentary traditions. It was accepted.
May 19, 1989

We have learned in passing days that the Government had access to knowledge of two separate occasions of leaks, one admitted to by the Minister yesterday in his comments to the House when he said that one was investigated right from the start, and the second that the Deputy Minister knew as well. Once the Government knew that the first leak described as a criminal act would no longer act as a defence for the other two leaks, why did the Government not tell the House about the other two leaks and why then did the Minister of Finance not resign in the traditional manner?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what has to be kept in perspective is the difference between leaks and allegations. The leak was quite obvious. Everyone saw it on television. The rest are mere allegations. There have been allegations floating across the House, reported in the press, all of which are being investigated in a very broad and comprehensive investigation by the RCMP.
We are witnessing here nothing but a charade. Last week they called for the resignation of the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of State for Transport and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Today they are calling for the resignation of the Minister of Finance. Well, they are not going to get it.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we may indeed ask for the resignation of the Minister of Finance, but considering the nature of this Government, we know that we will not get it. It does not even understand accountability to the House.


SECOND LEAK-KNOWLEDGE OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Minister of Finance knew of a second leak. If he did not tell the Minister, why was he fired? It is admitted. If that is incorrect, then bring the Deputy Minister to the bar of this House and we can get to the bottom of this deal. Bring him to the bar. I ask the Minister to deny absolutely that the Government, the Minister and the Solicitor General did not know there was a second leak until yesterday.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. The Hon. Member may want to consult with his Leader.


TRANSPORT
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it is with regard to VIA Rail. It is a fact that certain rural and isolated areas in Canada will be spared the axe when cuts, if and when they are made to VIA, arrive. In light of this, my question has to do with Atlantic Canada and specifically the Province of New Brunswick. Being a very isolated community with regional development problems, I believe that we need VIA Rail. I want some assurance from the Minister that there will be a commitment to maintain the service.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to presume that any routes will be closed by VIA Rail. We will see what will be the proposal-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: Settle down a little bit. We will wait for the report by VIA Rail. Second, I do not give any assurances that routes will not be closed. I will wait for the decision, but my friend knows very well that with the money we have, we cannot afford to put $650 million a year into it and we will not. Depending on the reference levels we have given to VIA Rail, decisions will be made and will be applied.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General tells the House that no one profited from this supposed second leak. Yet this seems to be in direct contrast to what the RCMP said yesterday. Spokesman Pierre Belanger is quoted in The Ottawa Citizen as saying:

May 19, 1989
Oral Questions
The only thing I can confirm right now is that we are investigating one leak, which is the one that resulted in Doug Small getting a copy of that publication.
Who is telling the truth? Is the RCMP investigating one leak or two leaks? If it is investigating a second leak, why can the Minister not give us the information as to when the Minister of Finance knew about the second leak? He can supposedly tell us who profited and who did not. Why can he not tell us when the Minister of Finance knew?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier. There is a difference between leaks and allegations, a big difference. I said yesterday that I have been informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that so far, there is no evidence of profiteering by anyone from the Budget leak. What I said was that I was informed by the Commissioner and there is nothing more I can add to that.


CONTRADICTION IN STATEMENTS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous contradiction here. We are told that we cannot have information that is as a result of an RCMP investigation. We are told that no one is profiting from this, something which must be part of the RCMP investigation. Yet we cannot have an answer to the simple question, when did the Minister of Finance know about this leak? This is a flagrant disregard for the rules of Parliament.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think that it was responsible to inform this House when the Commissioner of the RCMP informed me himself that to date we had no information or any evidence that anyone profited from the leak. Maybe I could ask the Hon. Member that if he or any other Hon. Member in this House has information to the effect that some people could have profited from the leak, they should go to the RCMP and give them the information. I think that Canadian people should be reassured and know exactly what is going on. And this is what I did; I informed the House.


KNOWLEDGE OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who just a minute ago referred in the House to the distinction between leaks and allegations of leaks. Everyone would agree with that, but we want the Government to understand that there is a distinction between the truth and misleading the people of Canada as well.
There was a serious claim in the press this morning that the Deputy Minister of Finance had been informed about an earlier leak of the Budget. My office contacted the Deputy Minister's office this morning and he refused to comment on it. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on it. Will he confirm that there was a second leak and will he tell the people of Canada at last when the Minister of Finance learned of that leak?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member and you, Sir, that I would not take any lessons about the truth from the Hon. Member. I can tell you that because he has a Very-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is quite obvious that he has been known to exaggerate beyond the limits from time to time. Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that this is part of the ongoing investigation. Surely the Hon. Member does not want the RCMP investigation to take place on the floor of the House of Commons. He ought to know better. He has been around here for 21 years. Has he not learned anything yet?


HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN POLITICS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this is not a criminal investigation that we are involved in here in the Parliament of Canada. It is honesty and integrity in politics. That is what this Government is lacking. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why will he not answer the question? If he wants to claim, as there is, a distinction between allegations and a leak, will he tell us when the Government first heard the claim that there was a second leak?
We were told that the Deputy Minister of Finance was informed on the morning that the Minister of Finance
May 19, 1989

made his statement. Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not answer the question? Did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance learn that day? If they did not, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not come clean and answer the question? That is the issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member preaches honesty and integrity. He should practice it once in awhile.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I repeat again and I say to him as bluntly as I can, the Minister of Finance stands by his statement in the House of Commons at eleven o'clock on April 27.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Hon. Bob Layton, Member for the electoral district of Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, has been appointed a member of the board of Internal Economy in place of Bill Kempling, Esquire, Member for the electoral district of Burlington, for the purposes and under the provisions of Chapter 42, First Supplement of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, entitled an Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada.

I want to advise the House that the Members of the Committee of the Chairmen of legislative committees as well as Deputy Chairman and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House (Mr. Marcel Danis), the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, The Hon. Andree Champagne, have been designated under Standing Order 112. They are MM. Girve Fretz, Nic Leblanc, Russell MacLellan, Mrs. Margaret Mitchell, MM. Gus Mitges, Gilbert Parent, Marcel Prud'homme, Guy Ricard, Gilles Rocheleau and Neil Young.
Order Paper Questions


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36.8, I have the honour to table in both official languages, the Government's responses to Petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
*	ajc *


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the striking committee in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1 and 21.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Althouse: 1.	For each of the 72 Western Diversification Projects announced in the province of Saskatchewan from August 4, 1987 to December 31, 1988, what is the (a) date of announcement (b) project name (c) amount of money disbursed?
2.	For each Western Diversification Project announced for the constituency of Mackenzie for August 4, 1987 to February 28, 1989, what is the (a) date of announcement (b) project (i) name (ii) location (c) contribution (d) amount of money disbursed?
3.	For each of the Projects mentioned in parts 1 and 2, for which no money has been disbursed, what is the operational status?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds):: 1. Between August 4, 1987 and December 31,1988, the following 69 Western Diversification projects were announced in the Province of Saskatchewan:
Date	Project*	Amount Offered**1.	Mar. 08/88	E-Z Truss Systems Inc.	$15,4232.	Mar. 28/88	International Road Dynamics Inc.	$102,1413.	Jun. 01/88	Canadian Lightwave Techno-	
logies Ltd.


[Stage Direction]
May 19, 1989
Order Paper Questions
4.	Jun. 17/88	Everest Technologies Ltd.	$652,3475.	Aug. 29/88	Develcon Electronics Ltd.	$4,702,7196.	Aug. 31/88	B.P. Kent Flour Mills Ltd.	$52,5007.	Jan. 14/88	Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada	$5,028,0008.	Jan. 29/88	Huff & Puff Stitchery Ltd.	$10,6629.	Feb. 27/88	Prairie Implements Manufacturers Assoc.	$487,46610.	Apr. 29/88	Threadfast Manufacturing Ltd.	$256,22511.	May 05/88	Thrrill Envelopes Limited	$36,92512.	May 05/88	Clorox Company of Canada Ltd.	$25,02513.	May 25/88	Jean Paul Caskets Inc.	$47,00014.	May 26/88	High-Line Manufacturing Inc.	$142,50015.	May 30/88	Vita Quill Resources Ltd.	$18,39016.	Jun. 06/88	Prairie Stair Products Inc.	$141,25017.	Jun. 09/88	Nu-Fab Building Products Limited	$35,91718.	Jun. 10/88	DM Enterprises Inc.	$425,20019.	Jun. 15/88	Talon Tool Corporation Ltd.	$95,90920.	Jun. 16/88	NorSask Forest Products Inc.	$800,00021.	Jun. 24/88	Midwest Store Fixtures Ltd. and Cleary Glass (Sask.) Ltd.	$200,00022.	Jul. 29/88	Innovator Enterprises Inc.	$53,79323.	Jul. 29/88	Precision Metal Fabricating Ltd.	$100,00024.	Jul. 29/88	Hanwood Woodworks	$73,56425.	Jul. 29/88	Nickell Holdings Ltd.	$111,00026.	Jul. 29/88	Saskatoon Pop House Ltd.	$73,95027.	Aug. 03/88	Philom Bios Inc.	$640,99828.	Aug. 04/88	CanMar Grain Inc.	$137,00029.	Aug. 15/88	Sorenson Manufacturing Ltd.	$100,00030.	Aug. 25/88	Ekaton Industries Inc.	$350,00031.	Aug. 26/88	Degelman Industries Ltd.	$22,64432.	Sep. 09/88	CAPA Software Corporation	$264,71933.	Sep. 12/88	Leon-Ram Enterprises Inc.	$250,74534.	Sep. 12/88	Leon-Ram Enterprises Inc.	$166,42635.	Sep. 28/88	Univision Industries Limited	$941,04736.	Sep. 30/88	Ivan's Custom Auto Centre Ltd.	$54,25037.	Sep. 30/88	Saskatchewan Birch Supply	$368,39338.	Sep. 30/88	Bacon Apiaries Ltd.	$66,50039.	Oct. 11/88	S.S.F. Industries Inc.	$59,00040.	Oct. 12/88	RhizoGen Corp.	$251,50041.	Oct. 13/88	Global Agricultural Technology Exposition	$170,00042.	Oct. 14/88	Rogers Engineering Inc.	$86,06443.	Oct. 19/88	Western Canada Pulse Growers Association	$87,16544.	Oct. 20/88	Northern Lights Big Game Corporation	$465,71845.	Oct. 24/88	Meewasin Valley Authority	$1,000,00046.	Oct. 27/88	Prairie Systems & Equipment Ltd.	$149,01047.	Oct. 27/88	Prairie Fibre Inc.	$370,50048.	Oct. 28/88	Dillen Enterprises Ltd.	$24,00049.	Nov. 01/88	Heathem Feeds (Sask.) Inc.	$541,22550.	Nov. 01/88	Heathem Distilleries (Sask.) Inc.	$1,107,50051.	Nov. 02/88	Container Port of Saskatchewan Corp.	$2,000,00052.	Nov. 02/88	WestCan Alfalfa Inc.	$229,40053.	Nov. 03/88	S & S Lashta Manufacturers Inc.	$50,00054.	Nov. 04/88	Saskatchewan Sheep & Wool Marketing Commission	$39,60055.	Nov. 16/88	McNabb Trout Hatchery	$32,57856.	Dec. 02/88	CANRON Inc.	$1,046,00057.	Dec. 09/88	Hara Products Ltd.	$60,40058.	Dec. 09/88	CSP Foods Ltd.	$435,62759.	Mar. 01/88	Comco Manufacturing Ltd.	$14,87560.	Mar. 04/88	Venables Machine Works Ltd.	$21,87561.	Mar. 10/88	Heartwood Industries Ltd.	$10,00762.	Mar. 15/88	Del-Air Systems Limited	$34,56263.	Mar. 22/88	Geco Steel Inc.	$395,43064.	Mar. 30/88	Superior Millworks Ltd.	$25,37565.	Mar. 31/88	Burton Doors & Custom Mil-lwork Ltd.	$45,15066.	Dec. 08/88	Custom Built Ag. Industries	$28,56067.	Dec. 13/88	Agtech Processors Inc.	$652,22568.	Dec. 21/88	T.S. Metals Ltd.	$18,37569.	Dec. 30/88	Copeland Seeds Ltd.	$62,506
'Projects 1-6 were announced under the Industrial and Regional Development Program; projects 7-58 were announced under the Western Diversification Program; and projects 59-69 were announced under the Western Transportation Industrial Development Program.
"The amount of money disbursed is commercially confidential information and cannot be released.
2. Here is a breakdown of the Western Diversification projects announced in the constituency of Mackenzie between August 4, 1987 and February 28, 1989:
Date	Name/Location of Project	Amount Offered*1.	May 30/88	Vita Quill Resources Ltd./Wynyard	$18,3902.	Aug. 15/88	Sorenson Manufacturing Ltd./Melfort	$100,0003.	Sep. 30/88	Saskatchewan Birch Supply/ Nipawin	$368,3934.	Oct. 27/88	Prairie Fibre Inc./Tisdale	$370,5005.	Dec. 09/88	CSP Foods Ltd./Nipawin	$435,6276.	Feb. 08/89	White Fox Forages Ltd./Whi-te Fox	$176,880
'The amount of money disbursed is commercially confidential information and cannot be released.
3. This information is confidential and cannot be released.
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Skelly (Comox-Albemi): Are aboriginal people employed (a) directly (b) in the Native Employment and Affirmative Action Directorate by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so (i) in what numbers (ii) what percentage do they constitute of the total number of departmental employees?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: As of May 1, 1989:
(a)	Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Total employees 4,652, (i) 837 *, (ii) 18 per cent.
(b)	Native Employment/Employment Equity Directorate: Total employees 10, (i) 6 *, (ii) 60 per cent.
* Self-identification as an "aboriginal person" is at the employee's discretion.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question nos. 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 31?


Mr. Speaker:: Done.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, due to the number of questions being answered and the length of some of the responses, I ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read rather than my reading 12 pages of script.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above-mentioned questions are as follows:[


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Barrett: 1.	For each year since 1984, has the government estimated the annual net revenue cost of the tax deductions (a) for business meals (b) entertainment expenses for (i) corporate (ii) individual tax filers and if so, what is it?
2.	Has the government estimated the annual net revenue cost, in the years following full implementation of the 1987 tax reforms of the tax deductions for (a) business meals (b) entertainment expenses for (i) corporate (ii) individual tax filers and if so, what is it?
Order Paper Questions


Geoff Wilson: The Government cannot provide actual annual net revenue costs resulting from tax deductions claimed by corporate and individual taxfilers for business meals and entertainment expenses, as the tax data which are collected are not disaggregated in this matter.
However, estimates of the annual net revenue gains resulting from reduced deductions for meals and entertainment expenses are available. The net revenue gain is estimated to be approximately $140 million for 1988, rising to about $220 million by 1992. Individual taxfilers account for about 30 per cent of the net federal revenue impact, with the remainder attributable to corporate taxfilers.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Laporte: For (a) 1986 (b) 1987 (c) 1988 has the government estimated the net revenue impact on the Tbeasury of the 1985 budget adjustment and partial de-indexation of personal income tax deductions and, if so, what is it?


Geoff Wilson: The restriction to the personal income tax indexation introduced in the May 1985 budget has increased federal revenues by $0.6 billion, $1.4 billion and $2.3 billion in 1986, 1987 and 1988 respectively.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Gardiner: For each year since 1984, has the government estimated the annual net revenue cost for the tax-free treatment of the transfer of individual assets such as estate inheritances upon death and, if so, (a) what is it (b) what was the average tax saving by tax filer for individuals whose total income was (i) below $10,000, (ii) between $10,001 and $15,000, (iii) between $15,001 and $20,000, (iv) between $20,001 and $25,000, (v) between $25,001 and $30,000, (vi) between $30,001 and $40,000, (vii) between $40,001 and $50,000, (viii) between $50,001 and $70,000, (ix) over $70,001?


Geoff Wilson: No. Federal estate taxes were eliminated in 1972. The information needed to estimate the annual net revenue that could have been obtained by taxing such income has not been available since then.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Young (Beaches-Woodbine): For each year since 1984, has the government estimated the annual net revenue cost of the tax deductions for excess of carrying charges over investment income for individual tax filers and, if so, (a) what is it (b) what was the average tax saving by tax filer for individuals whose total income was (i) below $10,000, (ii) between $ 10,001 and $ 15,000, (iii) between $ 15,001 and $20,000, (iv)between $20,001 and $25,000, (v) between $25,001 and $30,000, (vi) between $30,001 and $40,000,

May 19, 1989
Order Paper Questions
(vii) between $40,001 and $50,000, (viii) between $50,001 and $70,000 and (ix) over $70,001?
Hon, Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance): No. The
government has not estimated the annual net revenue cost of the tax deductions for excess carrying charges over investment income for each year since 1984. To construct such an estimate would require assumptions about the composition of both investment income and carrying charges. For example, investment income may be defined as including either nominal or taxable capital gains and either cash or grossed-up dividends. Similarly, carrying charges may include all forms of interest expenses or may exclude some expenses such as interest on rental property.
A further difficulty in producing such an estimate is that it must be computed on a case-by-case basis rather than from aggregate statistics.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Nystrom: For each year since 1984, has the government estimated the annual net revenue cost of the tax deductions for contributions to registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans and, if so, (a) what is it (b) what was the average tax saving by tax filer for individuals whose total income was (i) below $10,000, (ii) between $10,001 and $15,000, (iii) between $15,001 and $20,000, (iv) between $20,001 and $25,000, (v) between $25,001 and $30,000, (vi) between $30,001 and $40,000, (vii) between $40,001 and $50,000, (viii) between $50,001 and $70,000 and (ix) over $70,001?


Geoff Wilson: No estimates have been made of the net revenue costs of the tax deductions for RRSP contributions and employee RPP contributions either in aggregate or for taxfilers in different income groups since such estimates could provide quite a misleading picture of the level and distribution of tax assistance for retirement saving. There are two main reasons for this.
First, information on pension contributions by taxfilers ignores the value of employer contributions to pension plans. Information reported in the Statistics Canada publication Pension Plans in Canada (catalogue 74-401) indicates that in 1985 employer contributions to RPPs totalled $8.2 billion, nearly double the total of $4.4 billion contributed by employees. Moreover, about 30 per cent of pension plan members (1.4 million out of 4.7 million) belong to plans with no employee contributions. Thus, information on the distribution of employee pension contributions does not provide an adequate proxy
for information on the distribution of employer pension contributions. No source of data currently exists that would show the distribution of employer contributions (or, alternatively, the distribution of pension benefits accrued in the year) across taxfilers.
Second, an estimate of the immediate tax savings associated with the deductibility of pension or RRSP contributions would ignore the future tax liabilities associated with the full taxability of payments or withdrawals from RPPs and RRSPs. Thus, it would tend to overstate the advantage provided by the tax treatment of retirement savings (particularly for older taxfilers) by treating tax deferrals as if they were full tax exemptions.
For the above reasons, the distribution of the tax advantages associated with saving through RPPs and RRSPs can only be properly estimated using a model which takes into account both the role of employer contributions to pension plans and the full tax consequences of a contribution. Work has begun in the Department of Finance to construct a model of this sort. The aggregate annual federal cost of tax assistance for retirement saving, taking account of both employer and employee contributions to RPPs, has been estimated to be in the range of $5-6 billion.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Taylor: For (a) 1989 (b) 1990 (c) 1991 (d) 1992 (e) 1993 (f) 1994 (g) 1995, has the government prepared an estimate of the percentage of its revenues that will be generated by corporate taxes and, if so, what is it?


Geoff Wilson: Consistent with the fiscal projections underlying the budget tabled on April 27, 1989, the percentage of total budgetary revenues that will be generated by corporate income and capital taxes is as follows:
1989-90	12.2 per cent
1990-91	12.1 per cent
1991-92	12.7 per cent
1992-93	13.1 per cent
1993-94	13.4 per cent
No estimate was prepared post fiscal year 1993-94.


[Stage Direction]
*Questiion No. 19-Mr. Whittaker:
Has the government assessed the net revenue impact of adding to the current tax rate structure a fourth marginal tax rate of 32 per cent to be applied to individuals with taxable incomes of $60,001 and over and, if so, what is it?
May 19, 1989
Geoff Wilson: Each percentage point increase in the top federal tax rate of 29 per cent, which would apply to taxpayers with taxable income in excess of $56,217 in 1990, would raise federal revenues by approximately $300 million assuming no behavioural changes.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Riis: Does the government maintain consular services which accept or process immigration applications in (a) the United Kingdom (b) France (c) Italy (d) Germany (e) Pakistan (f) Bangladesh (g) India (h) Central America (i) South America and, if so, in what locations?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The government maintains consular services which accept or process immigration applications in:
(a)	The United Kingdom	Immigration Processing Posts in London and Dublin.(b)	France	Immigration Processing Post in Paris(c)	Italy	Immigration Processing Post in Rome(d)	Germany	Immigration Processing Post in Bonn(e)	Pakistan	Immigration Processing Post in Islamabad(0	Bangladesh	Services are provided at the Canadian consulate in Dacca, according to demand, on an itinerant service basis by an officer stationed in New Delhi, India(g)	India	Immigration Processing Post in New Delhi(h)	Central America	Belize	Services are provided in Belize City according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in Kingston, JamaicaCosta Rica	Immigration Processing Post in San JoseEl Salvador	Services are provided at the offices
of the International Committee for Migration in San Salvador, according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in San Jose, Costa Rica
Order Paper Questions
Guatemala	Immigration Processing Post in Guatemala City
Honduras	Services are provided in Tegucigalpa according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in San Jose, Costa Rica
Nicaragua	Services are provided in Managua, according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in San Jose, Costa Rica
Panama	Services are provided in Panama City according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in San Jose, Costa Rica
South America	
Argentine	Immigration processing post in Buenos Aires
Bolivia	Services are provided in Le Paz according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in Lima, Peru
Brazil	Immigration processing post in Sao Paulo
Chile	Immigration processing post in Santiago
Colombia	Immigration processing post in Bo-gata
Ecuador	Services are provided in Quito and Guayaquil according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in Bogata, Columbia
French Guyana	Services are provided in Cayun according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in Port-au-Prince, Haiti
Guyana	Immigration processing post in Georgetown
Paraguay	Services are provided in Asuncion according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in Santiago, Chile
Peru	Immigration processing post in Lima
Suriname	Services are provided in Paramaribo
according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in Georgetown, Guyana

May 19, 1989
Supply
Uruguay	Services are provided in Montevideo
according to demand, on an itinerant service basis, by an officer stationed in Buenos Aires, Argentina
Venezuela	Immigration processing post in Caracas


Mr. Fulton: Has the government assessed the costs involved in the procurement of nuclear-fuelled submarines and, if so, what are the estimated costs of (a) decomissioning them (b) disposing of the nuclear waste created?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: The procurement of the nuclear-propelled submarines has been cancelled.


Mr. Funk: 1.	Has the government estimated the number of Canadians who will cease paying federal income tax as a result of changes to the tax system made in 1987, and if so, what is it?
2.	For each of the next ten years, has the government estimated the number of Canadians who will recommence paying taxes as a result of the partial deindexation of tax deductions, credits and brackets and, if so, what is it?


Geoff Wilson: The 1987 tax reform changes eliminated federal income tax liability for 850,000 Canadians in 1988.
Over time it is difficult to estimate accurately the number of taxpayers removed or added to the income system as a result of tax changes because other factors such as economic growth and the labour force participation rate influence the number of taxable Canadians.


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): In the years following full implementation of the 1987 tax reforms, has the government estimated the annual net federal revenue cost of the allowance of excess of tax depreciation over book depreciation by corporate tax filers and, if so, what is it?


Geoff Wilson: No, the
government has not estimated the annual net federal revenue cost of the allowance of excess of tax depreciation over book depreciation by corporate tax filers for the years following full implementation of tax reform. However, estimates of the additional revenue generated by the changes made to the capital cost allowance (CCA) system in tax reform were released with the June 1987 tax reform document.
Federal Revenue Impact "fixation Years
	1988	1989 1990 1991	1992
		($ million)	
Reduction in CCA rate for manufacturing and processing equipment	40	290 540 670	670Reduction in capital cost al-	30	80 120 160	210
lowance rates for other assets


Mr. de Jong: For (a) 1988 (b) 1989, has the government revised its forecast of the deficit from those offered in the 1988 budget to take into account actual interest rates' being higher than those forecast in that budget and, if so, what is the revised forecast?


Geoff Wilson: In the
Februaiy 1988 budget, the federal deficit was projected to be $28.9 billion in 1988-89. The results for the first eleven months indicate that the February 1988 budget estimate remains on track. The April 1989 budget forecasts the federal deficit to be $30.5 billion in 1989-90 which takes into account current interest rate developments.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Jong:
That this House condemn the government's involvement in the arms bazaar, ARMX'89, and calls upon the government:
(1)	to cease all involvement in the expansion of the international market for military and policing equipment; and
(2)	to take action to ensure that countries which violate human rights are prohibited from directly or indirectly arranging purchases of military and policing equipment in Canada.
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, when we cut off debate to have Question Period, I was talking about the role of the Department of National Defence in the ARMX exhibition. Today, we have an opposition motion which is condemning ARMX. I find it surprising because, as I
May 19, 1989

have already mentioned, the primary purpose of ARMX is to provide a forum in which training and technology needs of the Department of National Defence can be offered and shown, and where industry and the Government can get together in a very wise and profitable way. In fact, it is a method that can save government time and taxpayers' money.
As in the past year, we will be involved in a series of seminars during ARMX next week. We encourage all the commands of the Canadian Armed Forces to send representatives to the exhibition and to the seminars to benefit from the exchange of information that ARMX provides. We will also have a display booth at ARMX from the Department of National Defence. It will focus on our Department's training and simulation requirements. Both civilian and military members of the Department representing the three commands, as well as the research and development branch, will be on hand at various times during the week. We will have a public information officer there to answer questions. We will also have some members of the reserve forces who assist in the administration of ARMX during the week. I will be there for the opening as well and for some of the other events.
We will also be contributing to the seminar program. Each day these seminars will feature one of the three environments in which the Canadian Forces operates; that is, sea, land and air. The daily program will begin with a keynote presentation by a senior officer of the Canadian Forces, and the remainder of the day with presentations by industry.
It might be interesting for the members to have some familiarity with the subject matter of some of the seminars because the theme throughout is training and simulation devices for training. They have nothing to do with international trade of offensive weapons. For example, on the opening day which highlights naval training, there will be seminars on computer-assisted learning and the Canadian patrol frigate program, naval tactics training, procurement methodology for the Canadian Government, on-board training and training as an essential feature of modem naval acquisition programs. Each day there will be such sessions and I think it might be very interesting for interested Members of Parliament to attend some of those sessions.
I think it is clear that DND has a very legitimate interest and involvement in ARMX'89. However, as I mentioned before, it is a private exhibition in which
Supply
DND is only a participant. We do not ran it or fund it. Our involvement is somewhat limited.
With regard to the displays, from what I have heard from members of the Opposition, and some of the things I have read in the paper, you would get the impression that this will be an exhibition of nuclear weapons systems and all sorts of deadly weapons-a sort of Rambo. That is absolute nonsense. Most exhibitors are displaying training technology as it applies to their products. For example, binoculars, vehicles, emergency equipment, and electronic rifle-range simulators. I would like to emphasize that less than 10 per cent of the displays feature weapons or weapons systems, and then usually only to display associated training devices. As I heard someone say, that is probably less than one would find at a good sportsmen's show.
Many of the companies at ARMX will display products which have both a civilian as well as a military application. They include trucks, computers, printers, telephones, flight bags, inflatable rafts, medical tents, emergency equipment, training manuals, and on and on. That is the reality of the ARMX role and what it is attempting to do.
I would like to comment now on the possible reasons why some 400 exhibitors from 15 countries are coming to display their equipment and technology at this exhibition. The Government of Canada has identified its equipment needs from trucks to communications equipment, and ARMX provides the various companies with an opportunity to show their products and share their ideas. Many companies have developed new technologies, for example, in the computer area. Those companies want to show their technologies to DND and to other federal government Departments. ARMX gives Canadian companies across the country the opportunity to show what they have to offer to both exhibitors and to the Canadian Government. In this manner, they can demonstrate that many of our equipment needs can be met here in Canada.
The provincial government of my own Province of British Columbia has a booth at ARMX through the Department of Industry and Trade. They recently published a brochure about all the B.C. companies that will be displaying at ARMX. There are companies such as Microtel, a leading communications company. There is a special purpose clothing company, Mustang Industries, which has been in business in Richmond for many years. White's Diving Equipment will be in attendance. Meso-tech Systems makes underwater sensors and acoustical sensors which are very important to us. Ebco Industries,

Supply
a major company, a growing company in the Vancouver area, is involved in many types of diverse underwater technologies and radar systems. They were very much involved in developing the Cyclotron at UBC.
It is a tremendous opportunity for those companies from British Columbia. It is expensive to come to Ottawa to bring what they have to offer. Here is an opportunity. They will be here for the four days displaying what they have with the support of the B.C. Government and B.C. House here. They will be putting on some seminars and receptions that I will attend. They will have the opportunity to sell their goods and services to the Government of Canada.
It always surprises me that members of the Opposition and the NDP are always complaining that B.C. does not get a fair share. Here is a chance for B.C. companies in this type of a forum to sell their goods and services and get recognition. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that B.C. companies are second to none in terms of their capabilities. I know that they will be very successful when they are here.
Canadian suppliers also benefit from their participation at ARMX in another way. Visitors from NATO countries are encouraged to look at Canadian capabilities to help them meet their NATO commitments. For example, the Secretary of Defence from Great Britain is coming, and the Secretary of State for Defence from the Netherlands will be coming next week. They too will have a chance to look at our Canadian capabilities. They may discover that they can purchase from Canadian suppliers as a result of a higher quality or a lower cost of Canadian products. This can mean an additional investment in Canada in the form of joint ventures and enhanced manufacturing capabilities.
We all know that the defence industry is a relatively small part of our national economy. It is approximately 1 per cent. However, it certainly represents some of the most technologically sophisticated industries that we have. The high-tech industry is one of the ways for Canada to maintain a competitive position internationally, as well as then providing a high quality of life at home.
That is something that I am sure all Members would agree with. The defence business is important to the economic viability of many of our high-tech communities.
The equipment needs of the Armed Forces, if we had unlimited resources, would not be sufficient to maintain an industrial base here in Canada. Exports are crucial. Thus, we take great care that exports of defence equipment are not used in ways that are inimical to our values and culture. Since 1986, when the Department of External Affairs enunciated the current policy, we have maintained a very sound export control policy to help ensure that this is the case. By selling our defence products-and I use that term deliberately since Canada rarely sells combat weapons systems-to our friends and allies that share our values, we help to safeguard those values while also boosting our high-tech systems.
There have been concerns expressed that ARMX is seeking to supply the military needs of Third World countries. That is totally and absolutely untrue. The function of ARMX is to serve the training equipment needs of the Canadian Forces. There are some visitors from NATO countries who have been invited to view the exhibition. We have also invited the military attaches, the diplomats here in Ottawa. They have been invited by the host, not by the Department, to come and view the exhibition. However, they are not there to buy arms. They are not going there to buy arms, because that is not the point of the show. So I think some of the allegations that have been made are totally untrue. It is really unfortunate that ARMX has been misunderstood.
I find it surprising that the City Council of Ottawa has indicated that it does not think we should have those types of trade exhibitions. I could go back to the Council and ask if it does not want the defence industries here in Ottawa. They are a very critical part of the economic viability of the Greater Ottawa area and the silicon valley.


Mr. Thacker:: We will take them in Lethbridge.


Mary Collins: I can think of a few other communities that might also like to have them, too. I find this position totally inconsistent.
May 19, 1989

In conclusion, I wish to once again state the purpose of ARMX '89. It is to allow companies to display the latest developments and training technology and manufacturing capability. It allows those companies to make contact with government officials and to expand their market potential. It is a learning experience. It is a very specialized exhibition of equipment which is useful and at times vital to the day-to-day operation of the Canadian Armed Forces. Our personnel, who are committed to NATO and to continental defence, require modem equipment and technology to fulfil their roles. I am surprised that members of the NDP do not seem to want them to have those types of capabilities. Our soldiers who are on peace-keeping duty in trouble spots around the world deserve to have the very best.
I invite all Members because, as Members of Parliament, they have the opportunity to visit ARMX and see for themselves. I think that all Hon. Members will see the tremendous opportunities that ARMX '89 will offer our Department, the Canadian Armed Forces generally, and our Canadian defence industries.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some amazement to the Minister saying that we are not going to be selling or trying to trade armaments, that these are just little training devices displayed in a schoolroom atmosphere where people can learn. It is like playing with slot machines to increase one's skill.
I do not know if the Minister has ever seen what is called the ARMX '89 Preview which lists and describes some of the exhibitors. Bofors will display the BILL top-attack, medium-range anti-tank system and so on. I cannot go into all the details, however, I do wish to mention a few more. Bell Helicopter will be an exhibitor. We know what helicopters are used for in countries such as El Salvador. They are used for attack. There is a Canadian submarine consortium. I do not see anything in here to indicate that the submarine consortium is simply going to show movies of people skin-diving around submarines. It states that it is part of a consortium of five groups that would like to build submarines, which are attack weapons. Then there is FMC Defence Systems International. It provided the Canadian Government with track vehicles for more than 20 years and armoured personnel carriers. Armoured personnel carriers are
Supply
weapons of war. They are not used for going camping in provincial parks.
Then there is Garrett Canada which has been selected as the Canadian lead contractor for selected sub-systems for NATO's advanced short-range air to air missile. The company is also a member of the multinational team developing the NATO 155-M autonomous precision guided munition. These are not training movies, these are weapons for killing people. That is their only purpose.
The Minister wants us to believe that they will not be dealing with weapons here. She also wants us to believe that Third World countries outside NATO will not be making purchases or arranging to make purchases. In that case, I wish she would explain why the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has said that South Africa is welcome to come, a country which we are supposedly trying to discourage from murdering its own inhabitants. Yet we want them to come and look at weapons with which they can kill their own inhabitants or maybe the people of Namibia.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to start with all that. Let me deal with helicopters first. We use helicopters in the Department of National Defence. We use them for a variety of reasons, including search and rescue, which is a very important part of our capability.
The Department of National Defence has weapons. You need guns if you are going to be on the front line. We have some tanks in Europe, which are kind of old, I must admit. We do buy that kind of equipment.
Less than 10 per cent of the exhibits at ARMX will focus on weapons or weapons related systems. It is a very small portion. The remaining 90 per cent is goods and services for a whole variety of activities. Exhibits include such things as rubber life rafts and computer systems, to bring together the buyers and sellers.
I cannot understand why the Hon. Member objects to a trade show which brings together the buyers and sellers. There are all sorts of trade shows, like computer trade shows and home shows, where buyers and sellers get together to have the opportunity to see the most up-to-date equipment.

May 19, 1989
Supply
Let me deal finally with Third World countries. The Hon. Member's statement is absolute nonsense. South Africa has not been invited to attend ARMX.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Minister said they are welcome.


Mary Collins: That is not true. It is by invitation only. I am advised by the Minister that the organizers have assured us they have invited no South Africans to attend ARMX, including South African diplomats in Canada. They will not be there.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: He said they have a right to attend.


Mary Collins: The only foreigners who are invited by the organizer of the conference are diplomats other than from the Warsaw countries. They will only be there to look, not to buy. Frankly, people will not be making purchases at the show because it is an exhibition where people can look at what is available.
The allegation he is trying to make that this is an opportunity to sell arms to the Third World is totally without foundation. I think that is very unfortunate because I understand that in churches and various places around Ottawa they are trying to create this hype about the exhibition, which is totally uncalled for. It is really unfortunate that members of the New Democratic Party are perpetrating that kind of mythology.
We all want to work for peace in this world. I suggest that the members of our Armed Forces are the greatest peacemakers in this country. They are the ones securing the peace of this country. I want to make sure they have the right equipment, the right capabilities to be the best trained and most effective members of the Armed Forces anywhere in the world.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Hon. Minister for her speech and for the gracious way she spoke on that important motion.
I would also request her opinion for, if I am not mistaken, she has stated before Oral questions how important it is that NATO Allies be united.
I would like her to keep in mind that motion has been moved today by a NDP Member to whom I have asked questions on his party! position towards NATO because, as we will recall, the NDP said they would withdraw from NATO as soon as they took power. During the electoral
campaign, in view of the polls and public opinion, they qualified their view somehow, saying that they would stay within NATO for a time, and the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle (Mr. de Jong) who has moved the motion said that they would stay within NATO until due time.
I would like to have the Minister's opinion on that. What does she think of such a position from a party that calls itself national in view of the efficiency of the Allies within NATO?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, what I heard from the Member from the NDP was not new. We know that for some time their position has been to withdraw from NATO. What I find confusing is that when one tries to pin them down they will not say when they would withdraw. They cannot have it on both sides. You are either with your friends or against them.
As far as this Government is concerned, we are with our friends in NATO. It is a very important allegiance.
The NDP obviously do not share the same view as the Labour Party in Great Britain. I noticed in the paper this morning that their opposition leader, Neil Kinnock, recognizes that one cannot unilaterally disarm. It must be a co-operative process through the NATO alliance, which has been so important.
We have had peace in Europe in the 40 years in large part because NATO has existed to provide that strength and co-operation. It is not easy because there are sovereign nations with different views.
I read about the first NATO summit in 1958 with Mr. Diefenbaker, and how difficult it was to get together then. There are still problems, but it has worked because of that solid commitment. It is working today and it will work in the future.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an arms exhibit. I am compelled to get involved because of the suggestion that somehow the religious community is at fault for raising these questions about the role of Canada and other nations in arms manufacturing. If the religious communities speak out against this, is the Minister suggesting that they are misleading their flock when they raise questions about this? Using the church in that kind of inane interjection is the kind of stupidity that leads to the mindless development of an economy that is based
May 19, 1989

purely on arms and arm's exhibits. I want to ask the Minister about the arms exhibit.
She talked about the Third World countries not buying arms. Does she not realize that the major part of their debt is incurred because of the arms sales of the western and Soviet Bloc nations? Does she not know that there is competition between both the Soviets and the Americans to sell arms any way they can in the world and all she is doing is perpetuating an arms bazaar? To attack the religious communities for their opinions is absurd and unworthy of the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister for a short answer as the period for questions and comments has expired.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, this is not an arms bazaar. That is the point I am trying to make. It is a trade exhibition of the goods and services and equipment that we use in the Armed Forces. That is what I want people to understand.
When people understand the facts they will recognize that this is a very good opportunity in Ottawa, where we have DND Headquarters-perhaps they do not want DND in Ottawa and we will move it to some other part of the country-but it is important to have those opportunities. I am surprised at the Member, my colleague from British Columbia, for trying to make allegations which are simply not the facts.


David Barrett: You mentioned the church. You mentioned the religious communities.


Mary Collins: That is right, because I do not think they have been given proper information.


David Barrett: That is not what you said.


Mary Collins: It is important that they should be given the proper information


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Debate should go through the Chair.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this motion before the House, since it allows us, the Official Opposition, to comment on some recent developments happening in Canada, and particularly on what is happening with the Government of Canada's White Book on Defence. We saw that in anticipation of the last election, the Govem-
Supply
ment had made a series of promises, each one more important than the other, to the Canadian Armed Forces, but now it is an entirely different story.
I listened also to the remarks made by the Hon. Minister who described to us some kind of Disneyland. The kind of description she made of that arms show in Ottawa is very different from reality. From what she said, one would think that that is part of the Ottawa Festival of Spring. In fact, many organizations in Canada object to this arms show. A coalition of pacifist movements, from both Quebec and Ontario, will be demonstrating at the entrance of Ottawa's Lansdowne Park, where this international arms fair will be held. Why will they be demonstrating? Because it has become obvious that, with the complicity of the Canadian Government, this show is no longer what the Minister described, that is an opportunity for Canadian companies to acquire a better kowledge of the needs of the Department of National Defence and for DND to inform Canadian companies of its needs. It has become a big international fair where representatives from several countries meet to talk about armaments and especially to order very sophisticated arms.
We of the Official Opposition are troubled by this because we know that representatives from countries like El Salvador, Chile or South Africa are likely to participate in this fair.
These past few days, we had an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who appeared before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. Regarding the participation of individuals from South Africa, he said this, and I quote:

"Your question was specifically about South African participation in this private event. If they are there, they have a right to be there". That is a quote from our foreign Minister who on other occasions has said that he wants to carry on the fight against apartheid on Canada's behalf.
I want to say to the Minister that, indeed, when the Prime Minister of Canada on behalf of all Canadians spoke at the United Nations and in Africa against apartheid, he received the support of all Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. We in the Liberal Party certainly support the strong words against apartheid of the Prime Minister at the United Nations. Now,

Supply
unfortunately, there have been a lot of words but very few concrete, positive actions.
I think that if Canada is to restore its leadership in this issue we have to clean up our own act. We have to put real teeth in our commitment. We should see our Government be prepared to employ the full power of mandatory sanctions in the economic area. At the same time, it should provide broader recognition of the ANC, its work in humanitarian areas, and its recognition as the counterforce to the type of propaganda that we receive in Canada from the South African Embassy.
Clearly, the Minister and the Prime Minister have not lived up to their commitment vis-a-vis the South African regimes. When we see that our exports to South Africa are increasing, and when we see that we are finding all types of ways to excuse what is taking place, we realize that we now have a Government which justifies the increase of exports of sulphur to South Africa by saying: "Somebody else will sell it to them". We can look also at the enormous increase in the imports which has about tripled in the course of the year. We see the Government saying: "Our steel industry needs this, even though we know that they are stockpiling when they can".
The Department of External Affairs has rejected, much to our regret, any assistance to the African National Congress to establish an office in Canada. There are a number of of events which have taken place which make us believe that indeed the Government is strong on words but very weak in terms of actions in relation to South Africa. Our knowledge that South African individuals and companies have been invited to participate in this trade exhibition is absolutely unacceptable.


Mr. McDermid:: Not true.


André Ouellet: The Minister says that it is not true. I have read to the House citations of the Secretary of State for External Affairs who indicated to us when he appeared before the Standing Committee that if they are here then they have the right to be here.
In fact, representatives of other countries which are interested in buying arms should not be here either. What we are witnessing is an effort by the Government to sustain additional armament in the world at a time
when we hope that there is a genuine effort on the part of the superpowers to reduce armaments in the world.
Some members of our caucus had the good fortune to meet earlier this week representatives of a campaign called "On Track for Disarmament" who came to discuss with us their projects. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and my colleague, the Hon. Member for-


John Horton McDermid: Your good friend.


André Ouellet: I could give the name, but according to parliamentary tradition I have to name his riding. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Labrador (Mr. Romp-key), was also with me to listen to these people. We met with Lois Wilson representing the World Council of Churches, as well as with Mr. Simon Rosenblum who is the co-ordinator for the Plowshares Project, with Mr. Dave Jenson, representative of the Mennonite Central Committee, and with Mr. Alex Bryans representing the Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. They were saying that they want to promote a campaign which is for disarmament and against new generations of nuclear weapons.
The campaign is intent to build on the new environment of hope for continued armed cuts and to say an emphatic "no" to the technological arms race.
These people are coming to Ottawa to meet with us and talk about disarmament. Another very important organization called "Veterans Against Nuclear Arms" has just come to Ottawa this week to meet with representatives of the Liberal Party and the NDP Party. They tried to meet with representatives of the Government but were turned down. They could not see anybody from the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


André Ouellet: Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what these people were trying to convey to us? I have the document that they left with us. I met them because I believe that they are representing a very important organization. Here is what they told us:
As former military people who have put our lives on the line for democracy, the undersigned are concerned that Canada's agenda for NATO's May 29-30 meeting has not yet been discussed in Parliament. The subject is far too critical to be decided behind closed doors.
I agree with them. That is why I told them that I would indeed raise the matter today. They continued:
NATO's choice about "modernization" of short-range nuclear
weapons will reveal whether it aims at diminishing the risk of war, or at
prolonging the burdens and risks of the arms race.
May 19, 1989

The challenge is to propose to the Warsaw Pact mutual arms reductions in all aspects of the military confrontation. This is what Norway, West Germany, and other European allies want.
At the same time, powerful forces want NATO to upgrade its Lance missiles and nuclear artillery, especially to encourage the U.S. Congress to fund more new nuclear weapons. These people want the arms race to continue.
The May 29-30 NATO decision can be a major step toward international co-operation and the elimination of war or it can be a dispiriting rebuff to Mr. Gorbachev's constructive acts and proposals.
Forty years ago, it was Canada that insisted (in Article 2 of the Tleaty) that NATO be more than a military alliance. It is Canada's opportunity now to carry this farther, by insisting that NATO initiate NATO/Warsaw Pact co-operation in resolving world environmental and economic problems. Negative and obsolete militarism must not be allowed to win the day.

That was the message conveyed to us this week by the Veterans' Association Against Nuclear Arms. We of the Liberal Party received them and listened to them attentively. Furthermore, I wanted to transmit their viewpoint to the House as soon as possible. I think it is unacceptable and most regrettable that neither the Minister or the Associate Minister nor any Member of the Conservative government cared to meet with them or listened to their viewpoint. It is obvious that the NATO meeting at the end of May will be an important and historic event.
The Minister said a few moments ago that she wants to stand by her NATO friends. What friends? As we well know, there is presently quite a split among NATO members. Canada played a very important role in the setting up of NATO and rightly insisted that Section 2 of the NATO Charter should not address exclusively the military character of the organization, but also its economic and political responsibilities. We think that NATO is a very important tool. Unlike the New Democratic Party, we do not want Canada to withdraw from NATO. We believe that we should belong to the Alliance.
The Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, wants Canada to remain in NATO, but we want NATO to play not only a military role, but a political and economic role as well, as was initially intended. We think that the recent initiatives by Secretary General Gorbachev offer us an ideal opportunity to bring about a rapprochement between the members of NATO and the members of the Warsaw Pact.
At a time when there is much talk about peace, at a time when organizations such as the one I have just mentioned want more harmonious relations between the peoples of the earth, the Minister promotes an arms
Supply
trade show as if it were a great and wonderful thing. I say she is out of touch with present-day reality.
People are craving for peace, they are completely overwhelmed by all those nuclear weapons threatening their safety, 24 hours a day. The people of the world, not the governments, do not want to hear speeches like the one the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Collins) just gave us praise of arms sales and new defence technologies. That is not what we want. We want peace! We want people to realize what is going on in the world! We just have to put an end to this crazy arms race, to this quest for new weapons. We don't want that, we don't even want to hear about it!
We regret that this government which is supposed to be going through a very serious budget crisis- Since each and every minister, and especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), have been telling us all week long that Canada is facing an important deficit which has top priority, and that we have to cut government expenditures, I wonder why the Government did not simply decide to cut funds to this arms bazaar. That would have set a good example and would have been a good way to cut down on expenses. Instead, we are setting display booths and sending representatives who will spend the whole week giving out pamphlets and overseeing the arms exhibition, at a time when we could be dealing with more important things!
Finally, I just want to add that it is obvious the arms produced in Canada are, directly or indirectly, finding their way to developing countries, to Third World countries.

The highly profitable trade in high-tech weaponry from the north to the south, always justified on ideological grounds whether real or contrived, has transformed dozens and dozens of regimes around the world into heavily equipped arsenals. We know for sure that the Russians are expending a lot of effort to sell some of their weapons in the Third World. We think that it is unacceptable. As conventional disarmament takes hold in Europe there is the dangerous risk that arms will be released to Third World markets at bargain basement prices, involving thousands of lethal weapons ranging from battle tanks to heavy artillery. All the while in developing country after developing country alert to the profitable circumstances of weapons manufacturers in the western world, we find that industrialized output is being geared to military hardware.
We do not like this and we hope that the Canadian Government does not follow suit in this regard. Indeed,

May 19, 1989
Supply
it is not the Minister of National Defence who should be here, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He should be here to tell us that the Government does not believe in war through the voice of one of his Ministers of Defence but believes in peace through the words of his Minister of foreign affairs who should be here today to speak about peace.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would just like take the opportunity to ask the Hon. Member a few questions. Before I do, I want to make one thing clear because he mentioned VANA, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms. Indeed, I am meeting with them. They are bringing a group with some other people from other countries early in June, I believe, so I wanted to make sure the record reflected that.
I also want to remind the Hon. Member once again- perhaps he was not here when I spoke-that the Department of National Defence does not pay or in any way fund the ARMX exhibition. It is a private sector operation, so it does not cost the taxpayers anything.
Is the Hon. Member speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party? Is the Liberal Party, the Party that started ARMX in 1983, now saying that the Liberals are against it? What is the alternative? The alternative I can think of, I suppose, would be for our people from DND to travel all over the country, all over the world, to seek out equipment and services. I think that would be far more costly and far less efficient than bringing together all of the companies and potential sellers involved to our Department in one place at one time where we can all have a look and see whether or not this is a computer service in which we are interested or a helicopter in which we are interested. As I mentioned, some B.C. companies are here. What would he see as the alternative? The Department of National Defence continues to buy things for our Armed Forces. We spend a couple of billion dollars a year-


John Horton McDermid: The Liberals do not understand that.


Mary Collins: -in order to equip the men and women who are out there serving in NATO. There is no sense saying that we are going to be part of NATO unless we have men and women who will be out there participating in the NATO forces with quality equipment. We would like them to have more. We cannot do everything for them but they have to have the most up-to-date, the most cost effective equipment available.
Is the Liberal Party against ARMX? What would be their alternative of achieving the most cost effective way to enable us to do our purchasing?


André Ouellet: I am sorry the Hon. Minister did not pay more attention to my speech. I said at the outset that over the years this arms bazaar had become quite an undertaking.
To provide an opportunity for a number of Canadian corporations to get together and acquaint themselves with the requirements of the Department of National Defence is one thing, but to invite foreign corporations and foreign country officials to come here to learn about new technologies and sophisticated weapons is to foster arms proliferation.
If the priority of this Tory Government is to foster arm proliferation and sale, not only to NATO Member countries but also to Third World countries, it is a responsibility which we cannot share or accept. And we clearly distinguish between the requirements and commitments of our Armed Forces within such organizations as NATO and NORAD on the one hand, and this profitable and scandalous effort to sell weapons to Third World countries. Therefore, I just cannot condone what has become of this arms bazaar, a private concern, and a very big one at that, for the promotion of those who want to make big bucks with the sale of military equipment.
As to her remarks concerning a meeting she is willing to have with members of the Veterans' Association Against Nuclear Arms, I am pleased to see that she has finally recognized the importance of meeting with this group of veterans who were yesterday and the day before, who had no trouble meeting with elected representatives of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, but so far have failed to meet with members of this Tory Government.
If she agrees to meet with them, I am glad and I hope that not only will she meet with them, but she will pay very close attention to their recommendations.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member on the Liberal front benches, because I remember that he was in the Cabinet several years ago at the time of the last Liberal Government, and it was the last Liberal Government I remember that approved the sale of spare parts for tanks to the Chilean Government headed by the dictator, Pinochet.
Chile does not use the tanks for war or defence with Bolivia, Peru or Argentina. It is decades since there has been any difficulty of that sort. Chile does use those tanks on occasion to intimidate the people in the poblaciones, the slums of Santiago, which comprise half the population of the city. I would like to know whether the Hon. Member considers that it was all right for the
May 19, 1989

Government of Canada to sell tank parts to a Government such as the Government of Chile that has used them against its civilian population.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because indeed it is a very serious one. I would be more impressed if the current Conservative Government were as aggressive against the Chilean regime as it is against the Liberal Party. I think it would mean the Government really has feelings against the dictatorship which abuses the population.
I do not recall the specifics of the question about which the Hon. Member asks. Clearly there have been rules and regulations concerning the sale of equipment. I cannot confirm nor deny that such transactions took place. I was not the Minister responsible for those transactions. I do not know about them so I cannot say whether or not such action took place. Knowing what we know now about the Pinochet regime, if we were the Government today, I doubt that we would be selling arms to that regime.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here looking forward to getting into this debate. Before I start my prepared remarks I want to comment on a couple of items that the Hon. Member for Papi-neau-Saint-Michel (Mr. Ouellet) related to the House, which really are not accurate at all. I think the record should be corrected so that people will know the exact situation.
First, ARMX started in 1983. The previous administration approved of this type of show back in 1983, and with justification. I am not criticizing the administration for that. It is a very legitimate show put on by the private sector. It took place in 1985 and 1987 and now it is taking place in 1989, so it has gone on for a considerable time. It has been a great aid to the Canadian Armed Forces. It has allowed the Armed Forces to do two things. First, it alerts the manufacturing industries to their needs so that we can supply the Armed Forces with the best possible equipment available. Second, it allows Canadian producers of clothing, computer programs or whatever to show their wares.
The Hon. Member for Papineau-St. Michel (Mr. Ouellet) talked about how terrible these things are and said that Liberal Members are now opposed to this show. That is quite a dramatic change in thinking of Members of the Liberal Party. I ask the Hon. Member, though I cannot ask him directly since he has had his time in the
Supply
House, is he saying that he is opposed to Oerlikon establishing a major plant in the Province of Quebec and creating hundreds of jobs and producing defensive property that is being used not only by the Canadian armed forces but is being exported into the United States with a possibility of exports to other countries, other countries that would fall in line with Canada' strict restrictions on where arms may be shipped?
The Hon. Member for Papineau-St-Michel talked about the involvement of South Africa. I want to inform Hon. Members that the situation regarding South Africa and this particular show is absolutely clear. The organizers of ARMX have assured us that they have invited no South Africans to attend, not even South African diplomats in Canada. There is a ban on military co-operation and a strict official visits policy with respect to South Africa, and this is being adhered to. Why did the Hon. Member bring in this red herring about South African participation in this show?
I think the whole point of this is that there is so much misinformation. The fearmongers are exaggerating what is going on with this show. Because of that, everyone panics and all the special interest groups get on the bandwagon. This misinformation just grows and grows. The Hon. Member for Papineau-St-Michel stood in his place and said that it is terrible that South Africa is participating in this show. Well, South Africa is not participating in it, and I want that point made very clear. That is the kind of misinformation that is being spread and unfairly bringing discredit to this show.
Then I heard the Hon. Member for Papineau-St-Michel saying that the Government is not interested in disarmament or in peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me give Hon. Members an example of the Government's latest peace initiative. The latest thing we have been discussing with the United States is joining in an open-skies arrangement that would allow for short notice over-flights of Canadian territory by unarmed aircraft. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that this concept symbolizes the West's commitment to transparency, referring of course to arms reduction, and serves as a clear reminder of our interest, meaning Canada's interest, in both arms control and peaceful co-operation with the East. The Prime Minister noted that an open-skies agreement could provide major benefits in the verification of arms control agreements, especially for states which do not possess satellite monitoring capabilities. As well, an open-skies agreement would provide benefit to the superpowers in that overflights by aircraft would be less predictable than those by satellite.

May 19, 1989
Supply
This is a major initiative on the part of the West which President Bush proposed. Canada agrees with it. The Hon. Member says that we are not playing a prominent role in arms reduction in the world. That is totally untrue.
Members of the NDP would have us withdraw from NATO. They would have us leave the NATO table where we sit and have a strong voice and can encourage arms reductions.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You are just encouraging the White House.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member is saying that that just encourages the White House. We are encouraging the White House and we are encouraging Moscow to reduce arms. The Members of my Party, the Prime Minister and I are very interested in peace, but the Prime Minister also understands that peace does not come from weakness. He understands that the reason both superpowers are talking about arms reduction, and NATO has a major debate going on about it is because we are dealing from strength, not weakness. Does any Hon. Member honestly think that there would be unilateral or bilateral reductions in arms if we were not dealing from strength, if we were pussycats and did not have the NATO Alliance which, by the way is working?
My socialist friend from Edmonton, the token socialist from Alberta, is waving his hands around. We understand why he is doing that. He simply does not understand the peace process and how successful it is. He does not understand what is going on in the world today.
I wanted to make those points very clear. We are supporting initiatives such as the one the Prime Minister is involved in, allowing over-flights of western and eastern planes, and we are encouraging our NATO allies to agree to this. We are also encouraging the members of the Warsaw Pact to do the same thing. We think it will go a very long way toward allowing verification of arms reductions and toward bringing a stabilized peace to the world.
I do not think the fact that Canada has the need for effective defence capability is in question here today, but after listening to the speeches that have been made, I am questioning my own thoughts on that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Members of the NDP do not want Canada to have an effective defence capability. That is what that applause was about. Now we know where they are coming from. Now we know that they do not want Canada to have an effective defence capability.
What we are debating today is the appropriate balance between Canada's industrial capability to provide goods and services needed by the defence forces and the export requirements to make a defence industry viable.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Oh.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, oh, good. After all, ARMX is a showcase for defence goods aimed at Canada's defence needs. That is what it is all about.
The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) is the NDP's defence critic. I notice that he is conspicuous by his absence today and is not taking part in this debate. Visitors from other nations may also, surprisingly enough, be interested in our defence products. That should not come as a surprise to anyone.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise because I am sure the Minister did not want to unduly call to the attention of Members people who are absent. Otherwise we will have to bring to the attention of the House the fact that many people should be here and are not. I am sure it is unintentional on his part, but he knows that he cannot call our attention to those present and those absent.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I accept that from my friend, and I apologize. I would suggest, however, that he might mention that to the Leader of his Party, who stood up in Question Period and talked about the absence of Ministers all during Question Period. If you are going to preach, preach to your own people, too.


Marcel Prud'homme: It is fair game. What I said applies to everybody.


John Horton McDermid: I hope the right hon. gentleman is watching.
Canada produces military equipment in order to meet our defence needs and our obligations under NATO and NORAD. To purchase these goods from other countries, which is what the Opposition seems to be suggesting, would be financially onerous and would hamper our ability to equip Canada's forces. It would also deny
May 19, 1989

Canadian industry the technological and industrial benefits that are associated with defence production, and deny Canadian workers the jobs that would be created.
Defence acquisition takes place in a highly controlled environment to ensure the best possible value for the operational requirement of the Armed Forces and the best possible return on investment for the taxpayers. In recent years, all major DND acquisitions have included an industrial benefits component that includes technology transfer, new investment, job creation all across Canada, from Newfoundland to British Columbia. The Defence White Paper clearly sets out the development of a defence industrial base as one of the foundations of an effective defence.
We now have some 540 companies involved in the industry and close to 40,000 Canadians employed in these companies manufacturing defence and civilian products. Many of these industries that have evolved in Canada have developed technologies that are relevant to civil applications; particularly electronics and avionics. Relatively few defence products manufactured in this country can be classified as offensive military equipment.
The increasing complexity and high cost of modem military systems are such that it is not possible for Canada to undertake most major development projects on its own. Thus the nature of Canada's industry has become one of supplying subsystems and components, co-operating with other allies in the development of co-operative programs other than supplying weapon systems as such. Over the years, Canadian companies have developed an expertise that is recognized the world over. They are sought out by our treaty partners for systems developed by them. I do not need to tell the House that the lion's share of our trade in defence goods takes places with our NATO allies and other friendly nations. Approximately 97 per cent of our exports of military goods went to OECD countries in 1988.
These countries have, like Canada, a legitimate defence requirement as our partners in a defence alliance and to exercise their right to legitimate self defence. Our exports to these countries not only reduces the cost burden on Canadian taxpayers and the Government by extending production lines and reducing costs, but they
Supply
satisfy our defence objectives by contributing to standardization and inter-operability. It also ensures that NATO defence forces have equipment that we know to be reliable and state-of-the-art. It follows that if we produce this equipment, and we want to keep costs down and the industry viable, we will also want to encourage other countries to purchase the equipment.
Canadian exhibitors at ARMX have every right to demonstrate their capability to potential customers. We encourage them to do so, and support them in their marketing activity. However, we also control them and to whom they sell. I will return to this a little later.
A close examination of Canada's defence industry will reveal that we produce very little bellicose equipment. Those defence goods that we do produce have earned us an enviable reputation around the world for civil applications. One need only cite simulator technology, short take-off and landing aircraft, navigation systems and communication technology.
Press reports and the rhetoric surrounding the show which I mentioned earlier, have alleged that Canadian firms sell vomit gas. That was one of the claims that was being made; something else to abuse the rights of civilians. The Hon. Member from Spadina (Mr. Heap) is probably one of the greatest abusers of misinformation. He likes to talk about things of which he knows very little, and does not always have the facts at his fingertips. I am sure we will hear from him later today. But nothing is further from the truth. A responsible student of the issue will know that Canada does not produce these gases or any other crowd control gases. We have stringent controls on the export of all military and paramilitary goods.
All Members of the House should be familiar with Canada's export control policies which were announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in 1986. These controls are amongst the most stringent in the world, and they work. In his meeting with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade just last week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs invited that committee to look into our arms export policy. Perhaps a review by the committee could also review some of the rhetoric that surrounds this issue and help people understand that Canada not only has a

May 19, 1989
Supply
responsible policy in this complex area, but also helps interested Canadians recognize that our policy works.
I repeat that invitation here today on behalf of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to see the committee get involved in this.
In the few minutes left to me, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about our export control policies as they apply to military goods, and as they reflect the views and objectives of the Canadian people.
Canadians recognize our need to respect our defence obligations. They recognize our desire for international order and stability and they take a strong stand against human rights abuse. Specifically the policy is biased to deny export of all military goods and technology to, first, countries that pose a threat to Canada and its allies; second, countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities; third, countries under United Nations security council sanctions; and fourth, countries whose governments have a persistent record of violations of the human rights of their citizens, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population.
Those are the cold facts. But in reality our scrutiny does not stop there. We review every overseas export transaction for military goods. As part of that review, we assess the human rights record of the country of destination. We verify security concerns, and examine the regional stability implications of these transactions. In a large number of cases, the export permit must be reviewed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself.
Once a permit is issued, trained officials seek assurances that goods are destined to bona fide clients and verify the veracity of these transactions. This scrutiny of export transactions is not restricted to weapons or arms, but covers all goods that could reasonably contribute to a military capability. This could include goods that are specifically designed or adapted to military purposes such as military vehicles or goods made to mill specs and components thereto. I heard my hon. friend talking about helicopters earlier on. These goods are defined in the export control list and were developed with our partners in COCOM.
COCOM is the co-ordinating committee on multilateral strategic export controls. Those are our NATO allies plus the country of Japan.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that my time is drawing to a close. I would like to say this; that the foregoing should assure the Hon. Members and the Canadian public that Canada is not, and will not, become the source of arms for nations that would abuse human rights. ARMX is a show that highlights simulation and training equipment. Both are areas where Canada possesses particular expertise; high-tech, developed and produced in Canada, and why not, and why should we not use them?
Exhibitors are targeting the requirements of Canada's Armed Forces. Although visitors from other nations are invited to view Canadian capabilities, Canadian industry is well aware of the constraints placed on it by Canada's export control policies.
We are confident that this particular show is a very important show for Canada, for Canadians, for our Aimed Forces, for industry, for those workers who work there, and we have no objections to this being carried on by the private sector.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Trinity- Spadina on a question or comment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I listened carefully to the Hon. Minister. I was particularly interested in his latter remarks about the controls on exports. I did not hear him say that we place an end-use requirement which the United States does to require the buying country to testify in a legally binding manner as to what will be the end use.
In other words, when we sell goods to the United States, for example, helicopters or helicopter parts, we do not know whether they will wind up sold or given by the United States to the Contras in Nicaragua, or to the Salvadoran army in El Salvador to strafe and bomb civilians.
The same applies when we sell aeroplane engines to Israel or Brazil, and later hear that they have been sold to Governments such as the Governments of Honduras, El Salvador, or to the Contras. It appears quite legal for those countries to do this because we have not required any statement from them about end use.
When the Minister talked about the restriction on exports to certain countries in certain categories, and spoke about countries with a persistent record of violence against their citizens, unless it can be shown that there is no danger of the goods being used that way, he did not mention that the Government has refused to identify which countries are currently under that restriction. Therefore, it is impossible for us to evaluate how

subjective or accurate the Government's identification may be. Does it include El Salvador in such a list? We do not know.
Finally, the Minister did not explain why the Government altered its practice with respect to access to information. When there have been inquiries about exports to certain countries, the information that is returned consists of stating that "deleted" sent "deleted" to "deleted". In other words, they do not want any further embarrassment such as that encountered by the previous Government about the tank parts to Chile.
Perhaps the Minister would be willing to explain why the Government is so secretive about this policy of which it is so proud, and why it neglects to secure the end use of its products in the same way as does our ally the United States?


John Horton McDermid: I think I made it very clear to the Hon. Member. Perhaps he missed that part of my remarks, and that is fair ball. We have verification procedures, and I will just read those into the record once again. It states that in a large number of cases the export permit must be reviewed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself. Once a permit is issued trained officials seek assurances that goods are destined to bona fide clients and verify the veracity of those transactions. There is a follow-up, and we do keep an eye on those things.
It is not our intention to publish a list of countries which are affected by this policy. Such a list would be a cabinet confidence. I believe the identity of some countries is self-evident. Others may be of a more sensitive nature, and therefore it must remain within cabinet confidentiality. If the Hon. Member was not grandstanding, I think he would understand that very well.
The Government spends a considerable amount of time consulting with NGO groups, the non-government organizations that work around the world in many beneficial ways and are on the ground in most of these countries and know what is going on. They provide a tremendous amount of information to the Government. They let us know about the human rights developments
Supply
in countries. We are very appreciative of that type of support.
The House will remember that one of the last acts of the House last fall was to approve the establishment of an International Institute of Human Rights and Democratic Development. We do not turn our backs on those principles when it comes to military exports. If my friend thought about it and fully examined what we do, I am sure he would agree that we are extremely strict in this country about exports.
I am sure the Hon. Member will support the offer that the Minister made to the External Affairs Committee to examine our export polity when it comes to defence goods, and have a thorough study of it and get the information out in the open. I trust that the Hon. Member would support that invitation from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East on a question or comment.


Ross Harvey: A little bit of both, Mr. Speaker. I was delighted to hear the Minister's declaration that South Africa will not be present at this exhibition, and that we ship absolutely nothing of military value to South Africa. This will come as a bit of a surprise to Spar Aerospace which was found to be delivering proximity fuses for 155 millimetre artillery shells to the Republic of South Africa. It may also puzzle those people who view sulphur as having at least in part a strategic element to it, because we continue to ship huge quantities of sulphur, much of it from Alberta, to South Africa.


John Horton McDermid: Are you in favour of that, or against it?


Ross Harvey: I am against it. Absolutely against it.
Mr. Schneider Starve them all.


Ross Harvey: Most folk do not survive on sulphur.


Blaine Allen Thacker: He wants to unemploy Albertans and have the whole province unemployed.


Ross Harvey: I am certain, Sir, there are ways to employ Albertans other than in industries and in the production of products which can be used to kill people elsewhere.


John Horton McDermid: Sulphur?

May 19, 1989
Supply


Ross Harvey: Acknowledging that the RSA will not be there, can the Minister advise whether or not such other countries that routinely abuse their civilian populations, or at least civilian populations under their control, such as El Salvador, Chile, Indonesia, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Panama, Morocco, Israel, and Iran will also not be there?


John Horton McDermid: In an earlier answer addressed to the Hon. Member for THnity-Spadina (Mr. Heap) I said that I was not going to release any kind of list whatsoever. That is cabinet confidentiality. I cannot make it any more clear than that to the Hon. Member. I read the list of our policy in sales, and if the Hon. Member wants me to do it again, I will.
I think the Hon. Member understands that sulphur is used to make fertilizer.
It is fertilizer to be used to produce food for millions of people in South Africa, most of whom are black. If he is suggesting that we cut them off from that, is that part of the NDP policy? If that is their policy', let him stand up and say it.


Ross Harvey: It is our policy to cut off sulphur sales to South Africa.


John Horton McDermid: They want to use food as a weapon. That is the NDP-


Ross Harvey: Sulphur is not food.


John Horton McDermid: It produces food. It helps to grow food. That is what they use it for. They don't use it for defence purposes. When will you get that through your thick head?


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of being in the Liberal Party is that it is the very embodiment of light and reason. One of the entertaining things we have watched in this House today is the difficulty that is faced by the Government on the one hand because it has caught itself in a very embarrassing situation with the ARMX bazaar next week, and the New Democratic Party tiying its best to abandon its unusual policies.
We have seen much back-pedalling on both sides, and many attempts to shuffle and cover over the facts. I am delighted the Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDermid) is here. I enjoyed his speech today, and I will undoubtedly refer to some of his remarks again.
I want to start with my friends on the left because it is their motion we are discussing today. It has to be one of the most back-pedalling motions I have seen in a long time. It will not say what is the position of the Party. We are getting different stories.
This morning the person who would like to be leader of that Party, the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle (Mr. de Jong), made his foray into the leadership race. He spoke very eloquently but, of course, was not really spouting the same line that the Hon. Member for Esquimau Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) was espousing with his comments to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Collins). Now we are hearing a different view for the benefit of Edmonton East. They are all over the place.
When we hear from the Hon. Member for Trinity- Spadina (Mr. Heap) later, I expect he will give a different version as well. In other words, there is a complete lack of coherent policy.
I am sure that is the reason for this vaguely worded resolution we are discussing today. I want to read part of it:

That this House condemn the government's involvement in the
arms bazaar, ARMX'89, and calls upon the government:
(1) to cease all involvement in the expansion of the international market for military and policing equipment; and
(2) to take action to ensure that countries which violate human rights are prohibited from directly or indirectly arranging purchases of military and policing equipment in Canada.-Mr. de Jong.

What does all that mean? What are we supposed to take from this? Are they in favour of ARMX, or are they against ARMX?
They say that they are opposed to the Government's involvement in it, but they do not say anything about ARMX itself. They are not sure. Some of them will be against it and some of them will not.
The Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle certainly did not condemn the exhibition this morning. He was speaking in wonderful sentences about how it was a shame that it was happening, but he did not say he wanted it stopped. He did not urge the Government to
May 19, 1989

discontinue it. He urged the Government to stop supporting it, and that is as far as he would go. We keep getting different stories.
I had a New Democratic Party opponent whose views I am sure Hon. Members have heard. Major General Johnson was their principal defence critic throughout the last election campaign. We had a lot of discussions in Kingston about defence matters, with good reason. Kingston has a large Canadian forces base, which fortunately has not been closed down by recent government cut-backs and is also the home of the Royal Military College, one of Canada's finest educational institutions. I am honoured to represent those two bodies in this House.
It is made much easier to represent it because of the party position we have in these matters, which I will turn to in a moment.
It is important that we look at the views the New Democratic Party has attempted to express.
The Hon. Member for Regina Qu'Appelle gave his very long-winded exposition this morning. He spoke about the evils of the arms race, which everyone concedes, and spoke about the virtues of peace, which everyone recognizes. He really did not say very much about the resolution or about the New Democratic Party policy. I think the reason is apparent. I hope that there will be some clarification of what their policy may or may not be during some of the speeches later.
The Government's position in this matter is equally ambiguous. I want to deal with some of the difficulties in terms of what has been said here this afternoon and what is happening with respect to this exhibition. What is this exhibition or bazaar? As the Associate Minister of National Defence said earlier, it is a bazaar for training and simulation technology and for defence technology for the 21st century. That is what is advertised on the brochure.
It appears that this exhibition was formerly sponsored by the Government. Perhaps the Minister of State for Privatization can tell us why this was changed, because he is privatizing everything by selling the assets of the Canadian people back to them.
The Government has decided not to run ARMX as a government function any longer and to let the private sector run it. I can understand the Government's reluc-
Supply
tance. The questions being asked, particularly by New Democratic Party Members in the House today, clearly are causing the Government some embarrassment. It decided that the best course of action was to put it in private hands in order to deflect the criticism to others, so it will not have to answer for any of the mistakes that might be made. That is the kind of attitude that typifies the Progressive Conservative Party. Instead of standing up and admitting mistakes or that things are not the way they ought to be, they say it is not their responsibility and try to shirk that responsibility. That has been happening in the House for some weeks.
My constituents have written many letters to many government Departments in an attempt to find out what is happening at ARMX. In many cases the replies were four to six weeks in coming. In many cases there were no replies at all. Ultimately they approached me to take up the matter with government Departments.
They brought me a petition containing over 200 names. Unfortunately, I will be unable to table it in the House because it is not in the proper form, but they indicated in it their opposition to this exhibition and their dissatisfaction with the answers they were receiving on the matter.
Among other things, they urged me to take steps and write to the various government Departments to find out what, in fact, was happening.
I have a letter I received from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight), which basically reaffirms the position taken in the House today by the Associate Minister of National Defence. Let me read it to the House to illume the House on this matter. The Minister writes:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your inquiry of March 6, 1989 on the subject of ARMX '89.
I should say that this letter is dated April 27, to give an idea of the length of time it takes to get information together on ARMX. There is clearly a problem. The letter goes on:
At the outset, it is important to realize that ARMX '89 is a private sector undertaking sponsored by Baxter Publications. The exhibit itself focuses on technology, related to training simulator and procedures for military applications. As such, it features Canadian and international industry demonstrating training technology equipment and simulators devices. The Department of National Defence's interest in ARMX '89 is exclusively related to obtaining as much information as possible on this training technology in order that we may better train our personnel in a more cost effective manner. DND's participation is confined to stating future training

May 19, 1989
Supply
requirements in the form of presentations at a seminar program and a booth display.
Since the organization and conduct of ARMX '89 is the exclusive purview of the sponsor, Baxter Publications, any further information on matters related to ARMX '89 should be related to-
There is an address and telephone number provided.
I hope you will agree that the Canadian Government neither condones nor promotes exhibits of arms whose potential buyers may include countries that have unacceptable human rights records. I suggest that your question of the export of arms is one more appropriately directed to the Department of External Affairs.
That was the reply I received from the Minister. It all sounds quite good. However, this morning the Associate Minister made what I thought was a pretty telling slip of the tongue. She said: "among the people we have invited". Then she said: "Of course I did not really mean the people we invited because of course it is not really our show, it is somebody else's".
I suggest that the Government has input, and I suggest that it has been extensive, into the guest list. While I do not think that it is necessarily a matter for criticism, it is a matter for which the Government should accept some responsibility and stop pussyfooting around the House and suggesting that it has nothing to do with the guest list or if anything is going on at ARMX. It has to live up to its responsibilities.
The other letter that I thought was most interesting was one which one of my constituents received. She took the bull by the horns and wrote directly to Baxter Publications, at least I presume it was them. It was certainly the name and address given me by the Minister of National Defence. She wrote to them in February and received the following extraordinary letter. I would like to read it. It is addressed to one of my constituents in Kingston. It is dated February 20. It states:
Thank you for your letter of February 16,1989, and your interest in ARMX.
ARMX as you may know is Canada's Defence Equipment Exhibition featuring simulation and training technology. It is only open to military, government, police and defence industry representatives. It is not open to the public. We do not provide the list of Canadian exhibitors to anyone other than our subcontractors. As far as foreign countries attending is concerned, this is controlled by the Department of External Affairs. Invitations have been sent to a number of countries but this once again
is privileged information. Should you be eligible to apply as a visitor, please let me know and I will send you the application form.
If you are one of few who object to ARMX, please be assured that this show does nothing to enhance the "Arms Race". It is a private venture, receives no government funding, and none of the equipment on display is sold (not permitted by law) and "Third World" countries are not involved other than as spectators. If you are concerned about being represented at ARMX, all Members of Parliament will be invited.
Sincerely,
Stuart P Northrup (LCol Ret'd)
ARMX Co-ordinator.
This is an extraordinary letter. The reason it is so extraordinary is that when we turn back to the ARMX brochure that advertises the exhibition we see that the second paragraph states:
Your company can be right in the centre of intense buying action.
With no general public in attendance, each delegate is a bona fide
buyer, prospect or user. The time you spend with them will be the
most effective and productive of the year.


Ross Harvey: It must be a typo.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It must be a typo. The Minister herself assured us in her speech-at least I thought I heard her-this is not a sale. It is merely an exhibition. It is merely a show, a trade show and there will be no sales.
Lieutenant Colonel Northrup said that there are no sales that are not permitted by law. Yet here in the brochure advertising the exhibition it states that: you can be in on intense buying action. What are they selling? Coca-Cola.


John Horton McDermid: Of course it is not a sale.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Minister for Privatization perhaps can tell us. Perhaps they are selling off Crown corporations. I do not know what this sale is all about. Either it is a sale or it is not. I think the Government should come clean on this and tell us about it.


Don Boudria: Don't count on it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Don't pussyfoot and cover the thing up and suggest that this is merely a trade show. This is a sale. These people are there for showing these weapons systems, not for the purpose of an exhibition. They want to sell them. Let us be honest about it and tell us about it. Instead of that the Minister says: "Oh, no, this is merely a trade show. There will be no sales". At least the New Democratic Party recognizes that it will be a sale. However, members of that Party do not say that they disapprove. I think some of them think that they do but they are not sure. They do not want to say that they disapprove because they are afraid they will get into trouble with their constituents. The Government does
May 19, 1989

not want to say that it is going on because it is afraid that it will get in trouble with another group. It is nice to be in the Liberal Party. We do not have any such problems here.


John Horton McDermid: What is the policy?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The policy is quite clear. Before I come to that, however, I have a few questions that I would like to put to the Government.
There is altogether too much secrecy surrounding this whole arrangement. That is part of the reason for the problem in this House. That is the reason for the disagreement in part. My constituents in their efforts to determine the facts have been stonewalled by the Government. They are told that everything is secret in so far as Baxter Publications is concerned. That is not fair. It is a trade exhibition. As a Member of Parliament I have received an invitation. My constituents are urging me to go to see what is going on. I feel that that is fine.
As far as the defence establishment in Canada is concerned, I recognize the importance of the exhibition. I suspect it is a valuable exhibition for persons involved in national defence in our country. To that extent I say to the Minister I agree with what the Minister has said about ARMX-from that sole perspective.
Having said that, it seems to me the Government has other responsibilities. Here in the letter from ARMX is a statement that External Affairs is controlling the guest list. It controls the foreign countries invited to this thing. Is it true or not? Why is not the Secretary of State here telling us the facts as to whether or not his Department controls that guest list? I think that is very important. The public is entitled to know who will be there.
The Government says: "We cannot tell you because it is not our show. It is private". Baxter says: "It is privileged information. It is not our business to release it". Everybody is covering up as best they can.
As a Member of Parliament, and particularly a new one, I am not able to recognize military people from around the world at this exhibition. I have never been involved in the military. I do not know who will be there. I would not recognize the Chief of Staff of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Nicaragua, Chile, or any place. I do not know what they look like. How am I
Supply
supposed to know who is there? I cannot tell. That is what is going on here. There is a real cover-up operation in respect of this show. It seems to me that the Government has an obligation, if it has not got the list itself. I suspect it has. I suspect it helped prepare the list, to get it and bring it into the House and say: "These are the people being invited". There is no secret about this. Why are we not making it public? Why do Canadians have to be kept in the dark about what is going on right here in their nation's capital? I suggest there is no need for it in this case.
With respect to the list of exhibitors, we were told that the list of exhibitors was not public. I have seen a list of the Canadian companies exhibiting. The question is: Are there any others? We have no information on that.


Don Boudria: What is so secret about that?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Why should that be kept quiet? The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is perfectly correct in raising this issue. There is no secret in that.
We have raised the criticism, and I think it is legitimate, that the exhibition may be used for the purpose of arranging sales to Third World countries or countries which are involved in mistreating their nationals. It seems to me that the Minister of State for Privatization has been telling us that the Government has a list. He says that the Government has a list of countries to whom it bans exports.
However, he will not tell us who is on the list. This has been government policy for some time. I do not understand why. Why would the list not be made public? If the Government has made a determination that Government a, b, or x should not receive arms from Canada, why would we not publicize that fact? Why is it kept secret? Yet that is the position that the Government is in.
I see that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. In our Party we are in favour of publicity in relation to this event. We believe the veils of secrecy should be lifted and the facts disclosed.
Second, we support the event in so far as it is a genuine show for military purposes for Canada's defence establishment.

May 19, 1989
Supply
We are not in favour of this exhibition if it is being used, as we suspect it is, as a vehicle for arranging sales of defence systems or weapons systems of any kind, offensive or otherwise, to countries that are using them against their own nationals, or to countries which under United Nations directives should not be able to purchase them. We are apprehensive that those people are there.
McDermid: We have said that. They are excluded.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Minister of State for Privatization says that those people are all excluded. Give us the list. Let us know who is on it and then we can tell, first, if they are excluded. Second, give us the guest list and we can see who has been invited.


John Horton McDermid: I said that we are not selling to them.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Minister says that we are not selling to them. They are invited to come and look at all this equipment but sales will not take place. Why are they even there? There is no need for those people to come and look at it. They will buy through another third party. The Minister knows that and he does not care. They do not care. I think it is very important that these facts be disclosed and that the Government come clean with the Canadian people. That is the position of this Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State for Privatization, followed by the Hon. Member for Trinity- Spadina on questions and comments.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this is really interesting. We had the Hon. Member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, a former Minister in the Liberal Government, oppose this particular show that is going on here in Ottawa. Now we have heard from the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. I understand why he is in favour of this show. It is because he represents Kingston and the Islands. It is a great traditional military centre, strategically important for Canada. The Royal Military College is there. I understand why he would support this particular show. I give him full marks for that.
What is the policy of the Party? I mean, come on. I am not sure who the critic is over there for national defence.


An Hon. Member:: All of them.


John Horton McDermid: All of them. I know that the Hon. Member for Papineau-Saint-Michel is the critic for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He made it very clear that he was opposed today to this particular gathering for this show. I find that rather amusing that the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, the new breed in the Liberal Party, is in favour of this particular show, with some caveats. He thinks it is a good idea. He likes the publicity on the show. He said that he thinks it is good. What is the policy of that Party? What is the policy over there?


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you answer his question?


John Horton McDermid: That is what Canadians are crying out to learn.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs had so much difficulty understanding it. I gave the policy of the Party in three short sentences. I thought it was quite clear.


An Hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I think the Hon. Minister should pay close attention because he seems to have difficulty establishing the order of these facts in his head. I know he wants to sow confusion. I know he wants to detract attention from the failure of his Government and the Department of National Defence to release the information as to who has been invited to this show. He should come clean with Canadians and tell us what is gong on here.
He said that I am all in favour of this show. I said very clearly that I am in favour of this show for its military purpose for showing hardware or military systems to Canadian defence personnel, period. I did not say that I was in favour of the show as an international arms exhibition. I said that I was very concerned. The Minister shakes her head and says that it is not. This is Canada's defence exhibition. There are people invited from all over the world. It states that right inside here. The Minister cannot have it both ways. It is either an international exhibition or it is not. It states in here: "For pre-registration or to order exhibit space, contact-", and then it has three lists. There is one for Canada and the U.S. There is another Great Britain, Germany, Turkey and the Netherlands. There is another one for Switzerland and the rest of Europe. All of those people are invited.


An Hon. Member:: Exhibitors.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes. I am asking for the list of exhibitors and I am not getting it.


An Hon. Member:: Here it is here.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Oh, the international ones too? Oh, great! Why does the Minister not table the list? The only list on the back is of Canadian companies. I invite the Minister to table the list. I have not seen the program.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Perhaps these Ministers could contain themselves for a moment. I can understand their excitement. I do not know why they would not file these documents while they were making their speeches. They should table them in the House so that we can all have the benefit of the information they have. I have asked for it. Indeed, we have been asking for it since eleven o'clock this morning when the debate began, and so far there has been nothing forthcoming.
I would be delighted to have the list of exhibitors, and I would be delighted to have the list of guests. I suspect veiy strongly that the Minister of National Defence or the Associate Minister of National Defence helped the organizers prepare the guest list. Why not bring the guest list in here and let us see it? She said in her speech: "Some of the people we have invited". I do not think it was purely a slip of the tongue. It might have been, but I think the Minister has had something to do with this and she knows it. I think the Minister for Privatization may have had his foot in the door too. Tell us all about it? I would invite the Minister to reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be a short question from the Hon. Associate Minister of National Defence, and then we will proceed to put questions and comments by the NDP.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am still not quite sure what is the Hon. Member's position. I think he supports it. We are going to be together, I believe, tomorrow in Kingston at the graduation at the Royal Military College, and I am sure we will have a good opportunity to discuss his views with the military.
I would just like to clarify one thing. The list of exhibitors is published in the program. Perhaps he does not have it. It has all the exhibitors. The countries represented are Canada, United States, Sweden, and
Supply
Germany. They are all NATO countries, except I believe there is one from Israel. I have heard that there was one; I am not sure if it is on the final list or not. Those are the people who are coming from offshore to be exhibitors.
Second, we do not buy things at the exhibit. We go to look at it. I am sure Hon. Members understand how Government does its purchasing. We do not just go down and write a cheque or write an order form at ARMX. We find out what is there and then obviously the purchasing officers of the Department or the project officers go through a process at some point in time if they are interested in buying more tents or more computer systems or whatever it is. It gives them the chance to see them.
In terms of other people, I personally have invited- actually it was my predecessor-the Secretary of State for Defence from the Netherlands. He is coming as my guest next week for an official visit and he will be attending ARMX.
I understand that the Department of External Affairs has invited the the Secretary of State for Defence from the U.K. Those are the only invitations I have been involved in. I understand that the sponsors of the show have invited all the diplomatic people here in Ottawa. These are not the people that buy things. It is a diplomatic courtesy that they are invited, other than from the Warsaw countries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Minister be ready to table the document. I see no objection to that. Would she look into the possibility of also tabling the list of the "invited guests", the diplomatic corps. That is of great interest to us. Yes or no.


Mary Collins: In responding to the point of order, I am sure if Members would like this list, there is a program that has been published showing all the exhibitors. This is just a photocopy of it. I do not have the list of who the sponsors have invited. I will make those inquiries and see if we can get that list.


Marcel Prud'homme: Thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can we proceed with the question from the Member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke

May 19, 1989
Supply
and then the Member for Kingston and the Islands will be able to close the questions and comments period.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the question asked as to the position of the Liberal Party. In listening to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, it struck me that in the great Liberal tradition it was ARMX if necessary but not necessarily ARMX, depending upon the circumstances. That is not confusing for a Liberal, of course.
There are two other positions that may have come out of it in a slightly different syntax. One is: when in doubt, mumble and when in conflict confuse. It would seem to me that it is not surprising if there is some conflict within the ranks of the Liberal Party over this issue.
I would like to draw to the attention of the Member and the House that one thing we have in Canada is a proper record of not only government expenditures and grants from the Government to various companies in the defence industry, particularly the defence industry production and procurement grants. We also have a clear public record of political contributions.
It is interesting to note that from 1969 to 1985, Spar Aerospace received some $25 million in DIPP grants. In
1986,	Spar Aerospace donated some $22,629 to the Conservative Party and $21,780 to the Liberal Party. In
1987,	it was $15,710 to the Conservative Party and $22,700 to the Liberal Party. Pratt and Whitney received some $333 million in DIPP grants from 1969 to 1985.
In 1986, the Liberal Party received $5,800. In 1987, the Liberal Party received $5,500 while the Conservative Party received respectively some $5,846. I can see some of the source of confusion that may exist within the Liberal Party as to where actually it stands. I wonder why the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken), in his initial address which was entirely in English, chose when he was trying to suggest that the NDP motion was not clear, to speak French. To whom is he sending this address? If he is sending it to English-speaking constituents in Kingston and the Islands and all of a sudden says, "Well, the NDP's statement is confusing" and that is the only part that is not in English, it is going to be a little difficult. I suspect that in Kingston and the Islands we
are going to see copies coming out of the English address with a few paragraphs in French.
I would ask the Member for Kingston and the Islands to read the motion in English so that all of his constituents will have clearly on the record what the position of the NDP has been in this debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, first, I make no apology for speaking in either official language.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Second, as the Hon. Member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke (Mr. Kristiansen) knows, the House of Commons Debates are printed in one language or the other language and are translated. If I thought for one minute that the motion we are debating sets out the position of the New Democratic Party I would not worry about publishing it because I don't think it does. I think it sets out the amalgam of a group of positions because I don't think the New Democratic Party, frankly, has a position on this.


Don Boudria: It has several positions.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Or it has several positions. The Hon. Member has gone through a list of companies which are making donations to political parties and happen to be arms manufacturers at this ARMX exhibition. He should be very careful because he knows that a lot of his money comes from unions. The mandatory deductions from workers in various parts of Canada, many of whom are in my constituency and work in National Defence establishments depend on National Defence payments and depend on the Department of National Defence for their employment. They work on the bases in Kingston. They are members of unions and they are making a substantial contribution to the representation they are supposed to be getting in this House from the Hon. Member's Party.
If the Member is going to start bandying around figures and suggest that motives are dictated in this House by donations he had better be-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Confusion.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: who work on the bases would not have jobs. Those people are being forced, I suspect in many cases, against their will to make contributions to the hon. gentleman's Party to help keep him elected to this House. If the workers could appreciate the lack of unanimity-if I may use that expression, that is even perhaps a strong word in the circumstances-and total dissension in the Member's Party over this issue they would probably feel that perhaps they were not getting their money's worth.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) was not here at the beginning or did not take the time carefully to read our motion. I think it is quite clear and I will read it for his benefit and for anybody else who would like to know what it is.
Our motion is:
That this House condemn the government's involvement in the
arms bazaar, ARMX '89, and calls upon the government:
(1)	to cease all involvement in the expansion of the international market for military and policing equipment; and
(2)	to take action to ensure that countries which violate human rights are prohibited from directly or indirectly arranging purchases of military and policing equipment in Canada.
That presents difficulty only to those who want to cast the NDP in the position of total and absolute pacifism and then express mock surprise when they find that while we have pacifists in the Party, the Party by policy is not pacifist but, in fact, is a Party that undertakes to promote peace and to keep militarization to the minimum that is needed for defence, and not to use militarization as a means of enrichment. That is perhaps what the Hon. Member has not been able to learn but it is clear enough from the way we worded our motion.
I want to give a little description of this armaments exhibition, explain what I think is wrong with this rationale, what I think would be a better rationale for an approach and an alternative.
In its description I think it could be reasonably said that the representation of the evil empire will be in Ottawa next week. President Reagan once said that the Soviet Union is the evil empire. He changed his mind. The Leader of Iran has said the United States is the evil empire, or the satanic empire, but some of his supporters
Supply
are not clear about that. I am not suggesting that any government is an evil empire. I am suggesting that the arms race itself and the very great powers that support it, those that President Eisenhower on his retirement called the military industrial complex, collectively constitute an evil empire.
Governments are currently promoting the spending of $1.2 trillion on armaments, while nearly half the world's people go hungry. They could be well fed with much left over if even part of that $1.2 trillion were diverted from arms to more constructive uses.
The Government, as was pointed out, has been curiously defensive. It wants to suggest that this has nothing to do with selling arms. I give the Member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Milliken) full credit for having clearly explained from the Government's own document that, in fact, as he quoted "Your company can be right in on the centre of intense buying action", and so on and so forth.
There is also the letter in the program from the Chief of Defence Staff, General P. D. Manson, "As in past years the ARMX exhibition will have a special Canadian Forces focus following on from the Government of Canada's 1987 White Paper on Defence, Challenge and Commitment. Canadian Forces have entered a period of revitalization, restructuring and re-equipment. These advances will generate unique training systems and equipment requirements which will be defined in the Canadian Forces exhibits and seminars during ARMX '89".
In other words, it is not as the Minister would have us believe, just training. It is training and equipment. Of course, modem equipment requires modem training. There is no mystery about that.
I listed earlier for the Minister's information a few of the exhibitors advertised in the program which are involved in anything but peaceful activities. They are producing weapons that kill people. I did not have time to continue but I will give just a few more.
General Dynamics from the United States produces the Stinger, a shoulder launched fire and forget missile. That company will be there, according to the Government statement at least.

May 19, 1989
Supply
Invar Manufacturing will display a designed armoured launching turret for tow missile systems. Well, a launching turret does not sound like a training or a simulation system, it sounds like something that will launch, something that will kill people, or if you aim right will kill people.
Junghans Feinwerktechnik from West Germany, are producers of mechanical and electronic fuses for automatic cannon, mortar and artillery ammunition, fuses for rockets, missiles, AT weapons, mines, and so on. There are plenty more exhibitors that produce weaponry. The Government's attempt to suggest that that is not true certainly helps to encourage the suspicions of the public who wonder what is going on.
In fact, what we have here is an arrangement for sale, granted they will not take tanks home their knapsacks, but both the equipment and the training systems can become part of regimes which are suppressing their civilian populations. The Government will be teaching methods of killing and suppression and control. Some of those methods have already been used in countries like Chile.
The Government claims that it has a good system of follow-up to make sure that our equipment does not go astray to any such country, but in fact, Project Ploughshares, a national research organization-the Minister will complain, of course, that it is funded by the church or churches.
The Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDer-mid) will complain that the churches have an interest, and I do not know whether he thinks they make money out of this or not, but in fact, Project Ploughshares has for many years been a well-respected peace organization. They estimate that $150 million to $200 million worth of Canadian arms components find their way into the Third World annually through other countries. This was printed in The Ottawa Citizen in January. Canadian arms exported to the United States have ended up in Iran, South Korea, Honduras and Paraguay, all human rights violators, according to Amnesty International.
The Government's follow-up system does not work very well and it is very unwise of the Government to be so secretive about its prohibition list because, clearly, the
Government cannot do its job properly without the help of Canadian citizens who support the prohibition that the Government claims it has enacted.
This arms bazaar is being conducted in keeping and with the implicit support, of course, of the Free Trade Agreement which exempted only two kinds of subsidies to be used by the Canadian Government. One is a subsidy on energy and the other is a subsidy on armaments. Section 2003 of the Free Trade Agreement clearly encourages and gives the green light to the Government to use arms production as the only job opportunity for Canadians in very depressed areas of Canada. This, of course, plus the $250 million worth of annual grants to arms producers, is the main basis for holding ARMX. Granted, now they are able to funnel the profits to Baxter Publishing, but in fact, it would not be happening without Government encouragement, without this brochure in which the Government participates, without the military being there from all three services. ARMX would not be happening without the Government's participation, and that is why our motion condemns the Government for promoting that sort of thing.
I will not go into the list of companies who receive DIP grants and are exhibiting here. Some of them have already been mentioned. I would rather go on to a further point and that is the list of countries for whom arms export permits are given under the Export Control Act. They include India, just last year nearly $83 million worth; South Korea, just last year nearly $162 million worth; Pakistan, $1 million; Peru, $3 million; Turkey, $17 million; Zaire, $7.5 million. Our country has been exporting to these governments, although they all have very serious records of human rights violations. Yet-


John Horton McDermid: Exporting what?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: According to this list, this is the arms export control list, and these are the countries to which these millions of dollars worth were sent.


John Horton McDermid: What were the products?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: It is very difficult to find out. The Minister hollers, what were the products. It is very difficult to find out when we send for the information and we get the reply, after paying the fee, that "deleted sent deleted to deleted". The Government does not want us to know what they are sending to those countries.
May 19, 1989

I will give just a few instances of some of these countries from Amnesty International. We mentioned Chile already, but for example, in El Salvador, there were arrests of suspected government opponents, some of whom were supposedly tortured, subjected to severe psychological pressure or extra-judicially executed, some of whom disappeared while in custody. What we are told publicly is that anyone who is accredited to Ottawa, any diplomat accredited to Ottawa is invited to attend. In other words, to that extent, all these countries that are human rights violators are invited to attend. While of course they cannot carry away a tank in their knapsack, as Colonel North said, in fact they can make contacts and place orders. Guatemala has the same sort of record.
Apparently Israel has a Canadian subsidiary that is exhibiting here. In December, at least 23 Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank and Gaza were shot and killed-this is a report of the previous year-by soldiers during widespread violent protests against the Israeli occupation. There were also severe and indiscriminate beatings of demonstrators and hundreds were summarily tried and imprisoned. There was an increase in reports of ill-treatment and torture of detainees by members of the Israeli defence force and the general security service. Yet Israel is invited to exhibit here and Israel is free to attend and make arrangements for buying.
In fact, it appears that the primary object of the arms bazaar is not to equip the Canadian Army. We would not need 13,000 visitors which the Government says it is expecting to equip the Canadian Army. In fact, I think the clear object of this is simply to make higher profits for arms producing companies, including Canadian ones, and to make those profits without regard to what happens with the weapons that are sold. This is what I object to and what our Party objects to and what is clearly opposed in the statement that we produced last spring called "Canada's Stake in Common Security". We object to having the manufacture of armaments done primarily or solely for profit or perhaps solely for profit with the only condition that it stays within the general guidelines of NATO. I say general because obviously our weaponry gets to countries who are not in NATO but perhaps through NATO partners. Otherwise, it is a matter of profit.
Supply
Indirectly, also, technological growth in turn increases the power to make profit, but the key question is profit. I would like to point out that more and more economists are pointing out the flaws in the theory that building up armaments builds up the general economy and the industrial strength of our country. It has been pointed out that in recent studies done under the United Nations and in the United States, countries such as Japan and Germany with the least investment in weaponry, that is in production of war goods, have a better industrial performance, a more efficient industrial performance, than the United States does. For Canada, of course, with our DPSA agreement with the United States, any jobs that we gained by selling to the United States are balanced by jobs that go to the United States when we buy from them. We are only supposed to sell as much as we buy. Actually we sell less than we buy. So the sale arrangement is not one that increases the jobs in Canada. We simply at best exchange jobs with the United States.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, what has been found by experience; that the technological spin-offs from military development are not very important, not very useful. In fact, that is one of the reasons why Japan and Germany have been able to progress faster than the United States and Canada in their economies.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating to me that my time is running out. I want to finish by pointing out that it is possible to plan for a transition from war production that is not needed to peace production, production in the broadest sense. That does not appear to have occurred to the Government in connection with its closure or announcement that it will close certain bases. It does not appear to have made provision for alternative economy or alternative employment. It can be done. It was done in the United States and Canada after World War II, quite successfully. If you are not interested in making highest profits, that is what we should be doing. Instead of promoting, as this armaments exhibition does, just mindless increase in the sales of weaponry, we should be choosing after public debate what kind of weapons we need to defend our country and the ones that can be least used to threaten others with attack.

May 19, 1989
Supply
Then we should be considering what is necessary to produce those and direct the rest of our resources to meeting the needs of the one-sixth of the people in our country who are under the poverty line and the needs of the aboriginal peoples of our country. We would find we have some left over to meet the needs of the countries that were recently colonies of Europe that have been pillaged and need to be allowed to stand on their feet.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the benefits of this debate has been the furthering of my knowledge of what ARMX is all about. I appreciate the comments of my colleague here and also the colleagues across the floor and on the NDP side of the House. We have heard quite a distinct divergence of views this afternoon. It has certainly lifted some of the aura of indecision and confusion that seems to lie around the ARMX bazaar that is happening shortly in Ottawa. If I could move off ARMX for a moment, I would like to briefly comment on where we stand as a nation today in world military spending. We all know we spend more than 25 times what we spend on foreign aid to the developing nations of the world, and that weapons imports now amount to 25 per cent of the total debt burden of the developing world. I think this is something that concerns us all.
I believe it is incumbent upon us all to ensure that Canada has a multilateral approach to peace in the world, and working with other nations and other peoples is surely the best way to ensure peace and prosperity for all. The question that we all should be asking ourselves is how Canada can best contribute most effectively in the search for global peace. One of the key problem areas is the existence of nuclear weapons. We should all be working toward their reduction and the means to ensure that the East-West conflict will not occur.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Beryl Gaffney: There is no question that Canada should not get into the game of mass producing military weapons for export abroad. One of the things that the Free Trade Agreement does is it threatens the capacity of Canadians to pursue an independent foreign policy. The question I would like to ask my colleague is this. Looking at the NDP policy with regards to the arms race and peace in the world, I am wondering if he as an NDP still rejects Canada's view that we should be neutralist in our commitment to NATO. Also would he not agree that we
as Canadians should continue our commitment to our NATO friends abroad?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, in fact as the statement that we adopted a year ago last month lays out, we believe that NATO has outlived its usefulness for peace and that it is now one of the embodiments of a sort of unthinking momentum toward the arms race. Our policy is that in the first year of government, we would withdraw our troops from Europe. We would continue with the political side of NATO until perhaps a second term. The decisions could be made as we continue along, but what was clear and unambiguous in that statement is that we would withdraw our troops at the beginning of an NDP Government.
I think that is an important signal. When we began debating this in public, that is to say when certain journalists affected great surprise at discovering an NDP policy which had existed since 1969, what we found was it generated a great deal of discussion, not only on the left in Canada, but amongst people who are not considered to be on the left, and we find there is a great deal of debate within the United States and Europe about the usefulness of NATO. There are some alliances that do not last forever, and it is fairly clear that NATO will not. Therefore what we propose is that Canada should first of all restrict itself in such things as having nuclear ships visit our ports, testing potentially nuclear missiles and quartering troops in central Europe. Those are now quite unnecessary for the defence of Europe and quite ineffective for the defence of Canada, but they are provocations which continue to justify other countries in building up or maintaining their armaments. At the present time there is the chance of reducing armaments, and this is the kind of action that Canada should be taking.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Member for Spadina correctly, he said that Israel was to be one of the participants or at least one of the window shoppers at this event?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: An Israeli firm will be an exhibitor.


Ross Harvey: An Israeli firm will be an exhibitor? So it is not unreasonable to conclude that there will be official Israeli agents there?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Right.


Ross Harvey: Perhaps checking out the competition? I was wondering, although this Chamber careers off into realms of morality and ethics, given the Hon. Member's background, if he would care to comment on whether or not there can be any moral
May 19, 1989

justification whatsoever for a sale consequent to this exhibition to an Israeli government that can then use the product purchased to kill Palestinians on the occupied West Bank?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things in response to that. First, I believe Israel is already quite well enough armed and does not need for good purpose or other to buy armaments from Canada. If they are here to exhibit armaments, I would want to know what sort of armaments they are exhibiting.


John Horton McDermid: Go over and look. You are invited.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Yes, I intend to go next week. The Minister is afraid that I will not go and look at his arms show. I will be there.
I would like to know what type of arms they are selling. Assuming that they are selling it elsewhere in the world, I would like to know their policy. That brings me to the second point.
When I read last year that Israel was selling 12 war planes to the Cameroons in Africa, I thought that that was pretty extreme. What does Cameroons need with 12 war planes? I understood Israel's need to sell them. However, South Africa is a far bigger customer for Israel. I would really like to know what Israel is selling South Africa and whether it is selling nuclear technology to South Africa for the production of nuclear weapons. If I have the opportunity next week, I would like to ask some questions of the representative of this Canadian-Israeli company.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, the matter before us today deals with a bazaar, and the debate attached to it seemingly becomes more bizarre as the afternoon progresses. I would suspect that the next time a CF-18 patrols the skies of Canada for defence purposes that unless we hold a national referendum to disclose publicly the purpose of that aircraft in the air, the aircraft will not be permitted to take off.
Today is an opposition day. The subject the Opposition has chosen to place before us certainly leaves me, as it apparently has left many Members, not the least of whom are those who authored this motion, with a certain lack of interest. When given that opportunity, as the Opposition has today, and when looking at the essence of
Supply
the motion, one must certainly conclude what a wasted day it is.
We have a national debt problem that consumes 35 cents out of every dollar of revenue received by the Government of Canada. This is an ideal opportunity for the Opposition to place before the House some solutions. What do we hear? Nothing. This is an ideal opportunity for members of the NDP to put before the House some of their plans in relation to women's rights or equity in the workplace. What do we hear? Nothing.
Members of the NDP said that our plan for day care did not go far enough and that it was not comprehensive enough. This is an ideal opportunity for them to provide us with solutions. What do we hear? Nothing. Members of the NDP have stated in the past that perhaps the development of a long-term agricultural policy would be necessary. This is an ideal opportunity to present something to this House. There is no rain, just a lot of hot air. The problem is that members of the NDP have been in opposition so long that there is no air or thought of positiveness or constructive development in their minds.
I am pleased to discuss the issue of ARMX as has been done so eloquently by my fellow Members. ARMX has received much media attention in the past week. I have been hearing that ARMX is a Department of National Defence sponsored event which promotes the use of military violence. There is simply nothing that could be further from the truth. ARMX is not in the least linked to violence. In fact, ARMX does quite the contrary. It is a privately run trade show. I have been associated with many privately run trade shows, and there is nothing unique about this one. It is designed to bring industry and government together in the field of training and simulation technology.
All the nonsense we have heard points to a great need for the record to be set straight. I will endeavour to do that very thing. I would like to provide the House with another history in order that how and why ARMX was created might sink in and to explain the importance of ARMX to Canadian industry.
ARMX or the Armed Forces Training Technology Exhibition which is exactly what it is, is a biannual exhibition of training and simulation technology for the Armed Forces. It began in 1983 and it has been held every two years since. I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues that, as few as seven years ago, no trade show for the military even existed in Canada. One may or may not like spending money on the military. One may choose to object to equipping the

May 19, 1989
Supply
forces we need to help to defend democracy. One may not deny that if we are to have forces at all for peacekeeping as well as to help ensure deterrence, we will need arms. If we need arms, why should we always have to buy them abroad?
The main force behind the first ARMX was the Canadian Land Forces increasing interest in the cost effectiveness of simulators for training. Simulators require no fuel, no ammunition, and less maintenance than tanks, artillery, and other equipment.
Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Northrup was given the formidable task of organizing the first ARMX. In his view, and I ask Members to bear in mind that he had great experience, a trade show format was the most effective way of putting the available technologies in front of the right people. Having decided on the venue, he now had to convince officials of the Department of National Defence to support and fund the project. It was the Commander of Mobile Command who first agreed to host this ground breaking event.
The army training technology exhibition began in 1983 when it held its first exhibition in St. Hubert, Quebec. Its focus was then, and remains today, on training and training simulation technology. Although ARMX initially offered simulator technology for the Army only, some 65 exhibitors from eight countries were present. They helped draw more than 3,000 military and civilian visitors.
The exhibition was created for no other reason than to permit members of the Canadian Forces to make contact with industry and discuss what training technology was forthcoming, and obviously to afford the industry the benefit of the user's view of current requirements. It also gave industry an opportunity to meet government officials at various levels and to inform them of the newest technologies available.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have deplored as I have the lack of contact between industry and government, the other two solitudes. I am sure that you will
readily agree that anything that helps bridge the gap between them is positive.
In turn, ARMX has provided government with an opportunity to compare all the newest technologies from all the companies in one place. For both industry and government it provided insight into which way the other was moving. Ideas could be exchanged formally, comparisons could be made not only among the companies, but also their countries. Naturally, this led to savings on both sides. As we all know, we can do with some serious savings in this country.
Two years later ARMX '85 was held at CFB Ottawa in the spring of 1985. Because of its success two years earlier, it expanded to include all three branches of the Canadian Forces, Army, Air Force, and Navy. ARMX had by now grown to include 251 exhibitors from 20 countries, who saw it as an opportunity for foreign country corporations to sell to Canada and for Canadian companies to promote export capabilities and their products to the Canadian Government.
When I mention exports, it must be clear to all who sit in the House that we have one of the most stringent policies in the world to restrict the flow of armaments, not only to countries involved or that could soon be involved in hostilities, but to states with objectionable records in the field of human rights. In a news release from the Department of External Affairs dated September 10, 1986 it states:
The Minister stressed that Canada will not allow the export of military equipment to countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population: "The new policy with respect to countries with serious human rights problems places the onus of proving 'no reasonable risk' squarely on the exporter".
That has to be underscored because there are those in this country who would have the public believe that we export indiscriminately, or that exporting helmets somehow amounts to arms sales. Unfortunately, some members of the Opposition have been known not to set the record straight when they have had the opportunity to do so.
Obviously, the other countries participating in ARMX '85 saw the benefit of participating in this type of trade show. They saw it as a way of gaining valuable information on Canadian security needs and in making contacts not only with Canadian industry but Canadian government officials.
May 19, 1989

That was about the time when the Department of National Defence decided that while the need for ARMX was valid, there were good reasons why the Department of National Defence should privatize it. I would like to repeat some of those reasons here today.
First, as the exhibition grew in size and scope, it required more and more DND staff. This did not seem to make the best use of the Department's already scarce resources. It did seem, however, to put to extremely good use the industries' resources. Second, since it had come to an industry led forum, it seemed only proper that industry should become the primary organizer.
Finally, it was apparent by now that if we were to continue to sponsor ARMX, this could be misinterpreted by the public. Apparently, that is so. Certainly, in recent years we have seen how the so-called peace groups, although tiny, have managed to grab the attention of the public simply by making a lot of noise and by clouding the fact that the largest of the genuine peace groups in this country is the Canadian Forces. Ask the United Nations. Ask the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
The most recent example of this which comes to mind is the very odd and, I must say, perhaps somewhat shameful decision of the Ottawa City Council to deny city owned sites for future ARMXs. Is it not a shame to think that we may be denied this great opportunity to deal informally with industry all because ARMX is misunderstood?
Mind you, if the City of Ottawa feels that ARMX should not be held there, I am sure that my riding could offer an equally, if not better, place for ARMX '91. Perhaps Canadian Forces Base Moose Jaw might be interested. Perhaps the Government should consider moving all military related functions out of Ottawa. Why not? It is apparently asking for that to happen.
At that point in 1985, an agreement was concluded between the Minister of National Defence and Defence Publications Limited, one of a group of companies directed by Baxter Publications in Toronto. This company, one of three that bid for the right to take over the ARMX name and run the exhibition, is well known to us through the publishing of the Defence Quarterly magazine. We should all be made aware of the significant
Supply
contribution Baxter Publications makes through its Canadian Defence Quarterly magazine.
There are few people with any knowledge of defence who do not read it regularly. I strongly encourage all Members opposite to do so as well. They may not enjoy all the articles, but they will learn a thing or two, thanks to the review's excellent coverage of Canadian defence issues.
In June, 1986, the agreement transferred to Defence Publications Limited the right to use the ARMX name and goodwill and to organize and run an exhibition which was to have as its theme training and training simulation.
Given the importance of this agreement and the recent attention ARMX has received in the media, I want to take this opportunity to read some of the more significant clauses:
It is agreed by both parties that the Minister of National Defence shall in no way be responsible for the promotion, operation or managing of ARMX.
It is agreed by both parties that the Minister of National Defence shall have no obligation to provide ARMX with any financial, logistic or personnel support, nor shall the Minister be obligated to provide any physical facilities and/or equipment for the operation of ARMX.
Defence Publications limited agrees to assume the entire responsibility for the promotion, operation and management of ARMX and to continue to so operate ARMX in the foreseeable future.
In summary, the agreement purely and simply absolves the Department of National Defence from all responsibility for the operation of the exhibition. I do not make this statement in an apologetic way. It also states absolutely clearly that there is no liability for cost, manpower or material unless such is asked for in writing by Defence Publications Limited and negotiated with the Department.
The first privately managed ARMX was conducted right here in Ottawa in June, 1987, at Lansdowne Park. I am not entirely sure why it did not draw the attention of the city's ever vigilant council at that time, but it certainly met the organizer's aims. Judging by the participation of industry, it has also met the needs of the creators of technology.
In introducing the motion, the mover made reference to "instruments of death in this industry of death". The question which must be asked, to which I can relate from a Saskatchewan perspective, is: Who are some of these manufacturers of instruments of death in this industry of death? The participants from Saskatchewan at ARMX

May 19, 1989
Supply
include SBC Case Ltd., a producer of transportation cases and containers. Those are terrible devices. Another is SciTech, scientific analysis. Should we not be allowed to develop scientific analysis in this country?
There is SED Systems, computer high tech systems design, purely a destructive industry.
What about International Road Dynamics, producers of road signs? This is evil. How will we fight a war if we do not know which back lane to turn down?
The Saskatchewan Department of Trade and Investment assists in attracting defence contracts to Saskatchewan, including the attraction of high tech and other related industries. Instruments of death indeed.
I would not want anyone to think that the Department ceased to take any interest in ARMX once it turned it over to the private sector. The Department does not manage the operation of ARMX, but it does assist Baxter Publications in some limited ways. For example, it encourages military personnel to attend. It will maintain a booth, as the Minister referred to earlier, and I understand that the booth is provided free. Among other things, businessmen can find out how to bid for government contracts.
It also will assist in validating seminar subjects and by providing the keynote seminar address each day.
The Department of National Defence is more convinced now than it ever has been that there is a significant purpose to be served by ARMX in assisting the Canadian Forces to acquire the most appropriate, affordable technology required to enhance future training efficiency and increase the cost effectiveness of training. For a Department that has just contributed $2.74 billion to deficit reduction in the coming five years, anything that can increase cost effectiveness is nothing short of a Godsend. I think it is to the credit of the Department of National Defence that years before these cuts, it was already sponsoring ways, such as ARMX, of ensuring that each taxpayer's dollar was producing the most effective results possible.
How does ARMX contribute to cost effectiveness? It does so by offering to display modem military equipment and training technology devices; by providing Canadian
and international industries with an opportunity to discuss equipment and training requirements in an informal environment; and by fostering industry to industry relationships between Canadian and international sources of training devices and equipment, thus providing a forum for potential investment and co-operation with Canadian industry.
Most important, I want to stress that enhancing future training efficiency through trade shows like it, ARMX contributes to developing our defence industrial base. I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, nor Members of the House, how vital the defence industrial base is to Canada and indeed all western democracies and the world as a whole. What would we do in the face of aggression without an industrial capacity responsive to operational military requirements?
This is no longer 1939 or 1940. In 1989, as the military put it, if war breaks out you go as you are. There is no time to create an industry. More specifically industrial preparedness provides us with an assured source of essential defence materiel, services and technical capability. It also provides a strategic source of essential defence materiel to meet our defence needs under peacetime, crisis and mobilization conditions.
I could go on and on, but I feel I must now conclude. If I may, I want to emphasize and reiterate, because it will never be said often enough, that without ARMX we would not have this very unique opportunity to have industry and government meet informally to discuss one of the most important priorities any country has. That is to say, to become aware of the newest technologies known to man in our quest to maintain not only Canadian sovereignty but peace and security.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for his presentation this afternoon. It was very thoughtful and informative.
I have been listening with great interest both to the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. It is my opinion that neither Party has its act together and cannot decide whether or not they are in favour of this particular show. We heard from the Member for Papineau-St. Michel (Mr. Ouellet) and the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken). One was opposed to it and

the other supported it if we showed him the list of exhibitors and invitees.
The New Democratic Party is using this motion to talk about its philosophy as far as defence is concerned, which is convoluted at the best of times.
My colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Collins), has provided me with a brochure on an air show in Abbotsford, British Columbia. This is a show demonstrating aeroplanes of all makes from around the world, along with associated equipment.
Does the Hon. Member think that this air show in Abbotsford would be in violation of the policy of the New Democratic Party as it was presented to the House today in connection with the ARMX show?


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I thank the my colleague for the opportunity to speak again. This is a subject in which I have an interest, which I think can be described as a realistic interest.
As I sat in the House this afternoon I sensed a lot of "nimbism", I think, that is to say: "not in my backyard, I think. We are not really 100 per cent sure of what is going on but at the risk of making a mistake let us condemn ARMX for something that it may be". As a result of that we seem to have this debate taking place when we could have so many more productive things before us.
With direct reference to the air show at Abbotsford, I cannot help but think that if members of the NDP were to sanction the event they would be doing nothing short of developing hypocrisy in the opinion of the individual who would in fact express that point of view. An air show, while it is intended to show the defence mechanisms our country has available to us, at the same time shows equipment that is used for attack purposes. It is extremely hard to develop a piece of equipment that can offset the impulse of an aggressor without at the same time providing some degree of attack in the same breath. I do not know how anyone for a minute could sanction the public display and the costs associated with it for that matter of defence and military equipment that we have which on the one hand provides us with defence while, on the other, offers us with a form of offence.
Supply
For anyone to say that the NDP who are promoters of peace at the same time can promote the Abbotsford air show and object to ARMX which features an ideal opportunity for the display of modem high-tech is biting his tongue because he does not mean everything that he says.


Mr. Volpe:: Mr. Speaker, I am going to share the same type of confusion that Members opposite are expressing with respect to ARMX. My confusion comes from the responses we have been receiving from the Government. I must accept, as my Party has always accepted, that the Government cannot ignore its defence responsibilities. There is no question that we do have responsibilities to safeguard our borders and our population and to protect our interests world-wide.
Where we do have a problem is in the discussion that has developed over the course of the day on ideology. We have a problem because the Government has indicated through its Ministers over the course of the debate that it is encouraging, participating, contributing, and involving itself in all manner of fashion in the promotion of ARMX. We have seen contradictions as stated by Ministers and Members on the government side about, first, a list of invited guests, and then about the confidentiality of such a list. I dare say there has been contradiction with respect to the type of promotions the Government must engage in, in order to ensure the success of what the Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDermid) referred to as a business enterprise, a commercial venture that would be of benefit to Canada economically.
There is nothing wrong with any venture that will assist the Canadian economy. What we would propose, though, is that the same type of enthusiastic vigour be addressed to conflict resolution on ideological grounds which is precisely the cause for a great deal of conflicts world-wide.
I would like to propose a question to my hon. friend. Perhaps he can seek the assistance of the Minister of State for Privatization to respond to it. The entire premise of the Minister is that this particular bazaar or bizarre, or whatever it is going to be, is to promote the commerce and well-being of the Canadian economy. I thought it might be appropriate for us to know which Canadian companies would be receiving assistance. I jotted down a few notes by way of question. I will go slowly for the Hon. Member.

May 19, 1989
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to conclude as we are running short of time?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
Which Canadian companies are presently receiving Defence Industry Productivity Program payments? Are there any other forms of subsidies or support payments provided in connection with the Defence Industry Productivity Program? Are there any specific tax benefits provided to companies which participate in arms production contracts that are participating in ARMX?


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member read the question slowly so that I could understand it. What he did was he simply wasted the amount of time that other Members have to make statements and ask questions.
The Hon. Member knows full well that there is a parliamentary process to get a specific answer to the specific questions he has asked. If he simply wants a flippant, off the cuff answer, then that is all he will get in this forum. If he truly feels that he has a question that bears some merit, then let him put it through the parliamentary system and ask for the answer.


Mr. Funk:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Regina-Wascana, a fellow Saskatchewan colleague, whether or not he shares at least the general concern that was not brought to the attention of North Americans first by any raving socialist but by Dwight Eisenhower when he warned against the emergence of the military industrial complex.
We see the dangers that have been pointed out regarding the militarization of the world economy, a trillion dollars a year, 27 days of which expenditure would feed, clothe and house every person on earth who now does not have access to those types of services. The Hon. Member mentioned some Saskatchewan companies in his remarks. It seems ironic that at the same time we are cutting back regional development programs that would assist those companies to get into domestic types of production and that in fact we are encouraging them to get into military types of production.
Does the Hon. Member have a line in his mind with regard to when an economy has gone too far done the road of militarization? Does he not see any kind of danger like that existing at all?


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock I will try to hurry along as quickly as I can.
Certainly, it would be silly for anyone, any good Canadian, any freedom loving Canadian, to make the assumption that peace can simply either on the one hand be obtained by sticking one's head in the sand or, on the other, by flogging millions, billions and trillions of dollars. There is a path, a logical progression that seems to be on its way at the present time. I do not think that we can be blinded by the fact and the reality that this currently exists.
I would like to make a statement with respect to a comment made by the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadi-na which is false. He says that there is military equipment that has gone to Chile and therefore we have allowed the export of weapons to be used where a military population represses the civilian population. This is false. Permits have been approved for Chile, but they are related to military equipment such as bomb disposal suits or communications equipment. I say that so it will not be left on the record unchallenged.
There was a term used that we should all dream for a better world. Indeed, I am sure when we go to bed at night we wish to dream for a better world. However, dreaming will not get that for us. We need only ask the Silver Cross Mothers on Armistice Day the price that they have paid for peace. Ask those who have fought in the wars what price they have paid for peace. It did not consist of dreaming. One cannot gain peace by dreaming. One gains peace by logical intervention. We gain peace by some show of defence and perhaps some position of sovereignty as related to one's abilities to equip oneself in such a way that one cannot be taken for granted.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, as usual, I know that I will not have much time left to speak. Since I have time only for a few remarks, I would like to conclude with the following sentence which struck me and reminded me of this whole debate.

I wish to quote the words of someone who said: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and not clothed". So said General Dwight Eisenhower, President of the United States. If one does not dream of peace then it will never be achieved.
I believe that peace will be achieved if we really work within the two great institutions that we have. We must believe in disarmament. To achieve disarmament we
May 19, 1989

must keep our unity in NATO. We must be an extremely activist country within NATO. If we are not, we will never achieve true disarmament. We must not get out of NATO. That is one of the comments that was made earlier. If we left NATO, if we tell it to go its own way and we in Canada have our own personal policy on disarmament, then it cannot function.
As a last comment, I think that what is important is to work toward global disarmament within the institution that we have at our disposal.
Second, we must make sure that we start thinking of how to restructure the economies of the western world watching, of course, the economies of the eastern countries. We must restructure what has been for so
Supply
many years a military type of structure in order to create jobs which will lead to a new restructuring of the economy of the countries of the world. That is a debate which could go on for quite a long time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 3 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the proceedings on the motion have expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 28, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 23, at 11 o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 23,1989