1989-12-20

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT 38-39 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 20, 1989
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been very disturbed by the dictatorship of General Noriega and his continued refusal to acknowledge the results of the democratic elections that were held this past May. Our party has supported any international efforts toward a peaceful transition for Noriega for the rightful government.
Nonetheless, as Canadians we cannot accept the use of force by an outside party to change circumstances internal to a country. Canada is a signatory to the United Nations and as such we have always embraced the United Nations charter that explicitly prohibits the use of military force by one state against another.
To defend Canada's support for the U.S. invasion of Panama, the government has argued that in this particular case the lives of American citizens are at stake. We must remember, however, that a large US military presence already existed in Panama which could arguably have handled the situation without an outright military onslaught.
At both emergency sessions of the Security Council and of the OAS, I call on the government to state categorically that it cannot and will not support any violation of the principle of non-intervention which would include military invasion of Panama by the United States.


THE WORLD FREE-STYLE SKI CUP
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the beautiful riding of Laurentides will once again host an international event.
World Cup free-style skiing will take place at Mont Gabriel, in the municipality of Mont-Rolland, on January 5, 6 and 7, 1990, and will include three sections: ballet, moguls and jumps. Athletes from more than 20 countries will compete in a very high calibre event, during which the talents and skills of competitors will be stretched to the utmost.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, free-style skiing is attracting an increasingly large following, both in Canada and abroad. It is a very demanding sport that requires steady nerves, daring, flexibility, agility and determination.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the work of our volunteers and wish the athletes the very best during this competition.


THE SENATE
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal senators are at it again. They are attempting to delay Bill C-21, the unemployment insurance bill which this House passed six weeks ago.
They are doing it for purely partisan reasons. They are the same people, the same group of hacks, that refused to back Bill C-103. Remember that one, Mr. Speaker, the ACOA act back a couple of years ago? They nearly succeeded in killing that one, but they are not going to succeed on this one. Clearly, the Liberal senators care little for the men and women-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a point. However, I have to point out that it is not appropriate in this place to cast aspersions on the other place, and

December 20,1989
because I am bound by the rules I have had to interrupt the hon. member and I will have to go on.



Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, several months ago, the Liberal party, assisted by a non-elected Senate and for strictly partisan reasons, blocked the passage of Bill C-22, so that hundreds of Canadian researchers were unable to develop new drugs for the well-being of Canadians and thus create thousands of new jobs in research.
Today, we see the same scenario: the Liberals, with a Liberal non-elected majority in the Senate, have decided to block Bill C-21 and keep $800 million from being spent on much needed manpower training programs.
Mr. Speaker, are we really in a democratic country when this is the result of Liberal arrogance? Mr. Speaker, I deplore this perverse exercise. It is time it was stopped.



Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in the past I have spoken in favour of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21, and how they affect my riding.
Now Senator MacEachen and that Liberal bunch in the other place are denying my constituents those benefits. To the unemployed in my riding requiring retraining so that they can get back into the workforce, Liberals are saying: "wait". To those mothers who are experiencing problems during pregnancy and could use some additional benefits during the difficult times, Liberals are saying: "Keep working and suffer". To those families who want both mother and father to enjoy the birth of their child while allowing the mother to return to the workplace sooner, Liberals are saying: "Too bad". To the displaced older worker, who needs assistance to re-enter the workplace, Liberals are proving they really do not care. To parents who have waited a long time for
the opportunity to adopt a child, Liberals are saying: "You are not entitled to parental benefits".
I call upon the Senate to show some caring and compassion for those in Canada who truly need help.


THE LATE DR. HELEN CREIGHTON
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Dr. Helen Creighton, a native of Dartmouth and one of the most outstanding Nova Scotians of her generation, who passed away last Tuesday at the age of 90.
In her early years, during the 1920s, she worked as a social worker and as a teacher before her love of music and folklore became her vocation. Starting in 1928, Helen Creighton became a familiar figure throughout rural Nova Scotia, bouncing down gravel roads, arriving at isolated homes, and chronicling the songs and stories of the people who had passed them down from generation to generation.
Throughout her lifelong pursuit, Dr. Creighton gathered and recorded over 4,000 songs in English, French, Gaelic, Micmac, and German and she wrote extensively on her maritime heritage. As testament to their worth, her works can be found in the Library of Congress in Washington, the National Archives and, most important, the Public Archives of Nova Scotia.
Dr. Creighton was a prolific writer and a great listener, but most of all she was a visionary who saw the value of the treasure of Nova Scotia's music, culture and heritage.
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, probably the best known song of Dr. Creighton's collection is Farewell to Nova Scotia. Today, on behalf of all Nova Scotians, I say farewell to her. Our generation and future generations will enjoy her remarkable legacy of music and folklore for she has truly given us a record of our history.
On behalf of the people of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and Canada, I say farewell and Godspeed to Dr. Helen Creighton.


SENATE REFORM
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, as we look around us this Christmas, we must not forget that there is still an overabundance of war and hunger and disease in the world. Yet, this is also a special year.
December 20, 1989

This year, as never before, we are seeing freedom and democracy and hope lit in the politics of many countries where there was none before.
Unfortunately, this spirit has not made much of an impression on the Government of Canada. Unreformed politics remain part of our own political system, particularly in our Upper House. Senator Murray, on behalf of the government, travels from provincial capital to provincial capital, a living insult to Senate reformers, urging premiers to ignore the Canadian public's rejection of Meech Lake.
And what of the Senate? When the Senate uses its constitutional power, the Conservatives cry that it is undemocratic. When an attempt is made to democratize the Senate, the Conservatives then say that it is unconstitutional. Now the Minister of Justice has openly mused that maybe the Senate should be abolished, saying in the Vancouver Sun, "I have to be convinced of the need for (any) Senate".
The P.C. government has still not tabled its position on the Senate, as it said it would. But Canadians are certainly beginning to see what the agenda really is.


PAY EQUITY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, for another year in a row Statistics Canada reports that the pay gap between women and men is as wide as it was a decade ago.
The government says it wants full equality for Canadian women. But what does this government mean by "equality"? Equality means earnings which are only 65 per cent as much as men but paying 100 per cent of the grocery bills, 100 per cent of the rent, and 100 per cent of the cost of child care.
Equality means watching the government talk about pay equity and fair employment practices, but legislating its own female hospital workers back to work because they asked for pay equity with men doing similar work. When will this government realize that equality means paying your own women employees at 100 per cent of the rate that male employees receive? When will this government realize that equality for women has to be real, direct and complete?


S. O. 31 ROMANIA
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce the recent actions of the dictator of Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu and his henchmen.
As a Canadian of Hungarian ancestry, I have a special interest in Hungary, and in particular the brutal repression of the Hungarian minority of Romania, the largest ethnic minority in all of Europe. Ceausescu's terrorist police have persecuted Reverend Laszlo Tokes, about whom we have already heard in this House, and have now massacred people who have been caught up in the euphoria of freedom flowering in eastern Europe. Romania's actions are an affront to human rights, glasnost, and the very real thaw in the cold war. We must do more than protest on paper. I call on the government to immediately review our economic relations with the butcher of Bucharest. Let us do the right thing and back our words of protest with appropriate actions. Further, I call on the House to unanimously condemn the heinous actions of this political dinosaur.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, famine looms again for millions of people in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Tigre. The United Nations has announced a 100 per cent crop failure in the region where food production has long been disrupted by war.
The majority of those affected by the famine live in areas beyond Ethiopian government control, areas I visited in 1986. Ethiopia has been thwarting the international response to this situation. In November, diplomatic negotiations for safe passage agreements broke down.
This is no time for diplomatic niceties. Canada is moving too slowly to meet this challenge. Quiet diplomacy has become silent complicity as millions of people face death in the region today. CIDA has approved only half the food aid committed last year, which was a non-crisis year.
The worst fears of those of us who spoke out against the government cuts to development assistance are being realized. The result of Toiy deficit reduction is indeed people dying in Africa. Canadians opened their

December 20, 1989
Oral Questions
hearts in 1984. We must respond with equal urgency and generosity now.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the riding of Cumberland-Colchester, Nova Scotia is not an area of high employment and, in fact, has much seasonal work. Through the successful efforts of many groups of municipal development officers, provincial agencies, ACOA and other federal programs in co-operation with the private sector, this spring and summer we experienced the lowest unemployment rate in recorded history.
However, due to the seasonal nature of many of our jobs, it is absolutely essential that Bill C-21, now stalled in the Senate, be passed immediately. I call on the retiring Leader of the Opposition, as well as all the new prospective leaders, and all the Atlantic opposition members, to apply pressure on their colleagues in the Senate to quickly pass this legislation.
The senators involved need never worry about being out of work and requiring unemployment insurance, but the people in my riding do. A quick passage of this bill would provide a sigh of relief and a merry Christmas for the people of Atlantic Canada.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, there is considerable evidence out there to prove that the government has not been listening before or since making its cuts to VIA Rail.
A retired military man and his wife phoned VIA Rail in April, 1989 to reserve seats from Petawawa to Calgary to visit their daughter. They were told that VIA Rail through Arnprior, Pembroke, Petawawa, North Bay to western Canada was all booked up.
The Governor of Rotary International for District 704, who lives in Montreal, phoned VIA Rail about six weeks ago to make reservations two weeks in advance for a Paul Harris Fellow Night to be held at CFB Petawawa. He was told he would not need a reservation. Two weeks
later when he showed up at the train there was no room, so he had to cancel his visit and his speech.
The VTA Rail passenger service through the Ottawa Valley is so filled at times that people have to sit in the bar car because there are no other seats. The Ottawa Valley will be without passenger rail service because the government is cutting it out as of January 15, 1990. This is yet another cut to eastern Ontario. The Prime Minister said: "Use it or lose it". The fact is that it does not matter whether VIA Rail was being used or not, the government simply had it in its mind to cut. A public hearing into this issue must cover all these facts, because they have been unreal in many instances.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, low income, middle income Canadians and small business will be the victims of the goods and services tax. They are going to pay the price, and now they know just how much they are going to pay. Canadians are faced with high interest rates, a high Canadian dollar, lower consumer spending and a disaster in exports.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to tell the bare, unvarnished truth to Canadians? Is it the policy of the Minister of Finance and the government to drive Canada into a recession to ensure that there is high unemployment to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the Governor of the Bank of Canada for zero inflation? Is that what your policy is?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: The only straight answer I can give to that question is no, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to comment on what the member said in the preamble to his question. He said that low income Canadians were going to be the major people suffering from the goods and services tax. I do not know how he can say that when it states on pages 33, 34, 35 that a single individual over age 65 will be $139 ahead after the goods and services tax. A one-earner couple, with two children, earning $25,000 will be $395 ahead. A two earner couple, with two children, earning $30,000 will be
December 20, 1989

about $300 ahead. A single parent, with two children, earning in the $25,000 to $30,000 range will be ahead $267 to $346.
How can the hon. member stand up in the House and utter that nonsense when he knows that the statements in this document are saying exactly the opposite.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance is such a good reader, perhaps he would be so kind as to answer this question.
The minister told us yesterday that the deficit for this fiscal year should be about $30.5 billion, right on target. However, the minister did not produce figures on the deficit for the years to come. Will the minister confirm to the House today that the deficit for the current fiscal year will be maintained at $30.5 billion, and second, will he look in his book and tell us what is going to happen to the deficit in the years following the introduction of his GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm what I have said on a number occasions that the deficit for this current fiscal year is on track. I also said yesterday in my remarks, that the deficit next year is under some pressure, and it will probably require some expenditure reductions in order to bring it on track. That information will be made available to the public at budget time.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the spectacle of seeing the Minister swallow himself whole. He bit the bullet, he back-peddled, he listened to the pollsters, and he set a GST rate at 7 per cent. Now, I wonder if the minister is going listen to the consumers of Canada, to business, to bankers, to the unanimous recommendation of the finance committee- he often refers to the work of the finance committee- and to the recommendations of the ten premiers across this country.
Will the Minister of Finance, for the benefit of Canadians and in the spirit of Christmas, eat crow and reduce the interest rates in this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can see that my hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls is not here because I think he might be able
Oral Questions
to coach the hon. member a little bit better for his questions.
The hon. member refers to the work of the finance committee. I have a summary here which shows that the most common recommendation or statement that was made during the course of the finance committee hearings was that we should have a change from the existing 13.5 per cent federal sales tax to a goods and services tax. We have listened to that.
The hon. member makes these comments criticizing me for listening to Canadians. When I listen he says I am swallowing myself, and when we do not listen he says why are we not listening. We are listening, we have listened, and we are going to continue to listen.
I am not going to answer the question that he has just asked. I have answered that about half a dozen times over the course of the last three or four days. If he wants to get together with me, I will explain it to him chapter and verse. But I have given the House that answer many, many times.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance promised Canadians with tax reform a fairer tax system. Yesterday, he announced that he was at least temporarily setting the rate of the GST at 7 per cent. When he did so he asked large corporations and high-income Canadians for only $400 million while he was asking for $5.5 billion from everybody else including the lower-income Canadians, students, the elderly and small business.
Given that the sales tax is inherently regressive, especially since the credits to the poor are not indexed, would the minister please explain to Canadians what is his concept of fairness?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks-


An hon. Member:: Page 12 of the book?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Friends across the way wonder what page of the book I am reading from. They have not read the book because if they had read the book they would not be asking the questions.
The hon. member is being misleading-I am not going to say deliberately misleading, I am going to say misleading-in the way that he expresses his question. He knows that as we have dropped the rate by two percentage points, obviously we are able to reduce the amount of protection that we are providing for people who want to buy a new home or people who are in low-income brackets, and we can also remove the middle-income tax

December 20,1989
Oral Questions
rate reduction because people in low and middle-income brackets are going to be good beneficiaries of the drop in the rate.
If we had just left it at that, he would have had a reasonable question because the major beneficiaries would have been people in upper-income brackets. That is precisely why we brought in the upper-income surtax so that people throughout the country, whether they are low, middle or upper income, are all treated in approximately the same way, and in many cases better than they were, but very close to the way they had been treated under the 9 per cent proposal.


John Paul Manley: We continue to see the inherent regressivity. I notice the minister did not address that one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also promised a sales tax that would be simple and straightforward, but he plans to increase the number of businesses that are to collect and pay the sales tax from 75,000 to more than one million. Furthermore, he intends to impose a sales tax at two levels of government. Despite the changes announced yesterday, it is still a nightmare: too complex and too difficult to administer.
Would the Minister explain to Canada's small businesses what he means by simple?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that I did not address his point about being inherently regressive. What was inherently regressive was the sales tax that we inherited in 1984. There was no refundable sales tax credit to offset the impact of sales tax in the hands of low-income Canadians. We introduced that in 1986. We have increased it twice, and we are increasing it again in a goods and services tax credit which is a rebate, a cheque paid to low-income Canadians four times a year. Seventy-five per cent of people who are in seniors' families and families led by a single parent will be better off.
How can he continue to utter that nonsense about this being an inherently regressive tax? We have changed that. It was inherently regressive. It is now a progressive tax.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Early this morning we learned of the American invasion of Panama. We understand that President Bush telephoned the Prime Minister after the invasion was under way. I feel that Canadians have the right to know whether the Prime Minister expressed any objections to the President regarding that military invasion.
The Prime Minister stated this morning that in the OAS, Canada would not support any kind of action to condemn the invasion of Panama. Does the Prime Minister not think that the time has come when Americans no longer have the right to expect that they can intervene militarily in Latin America whenever they choose?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Is this the way for a civilized government to act in a civilized world? When is the Prime Minister going to communicate to the American government that Latin America is no longer the private backyard of the United States?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I received a telephone call early this morning from President Bush in respect of the actions in Panama. Following immediate consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Government of Canada issued a statement which says in part:
The Canadian government regrets the use of force by the U.S.A.
in Panama but understands and is sympathetic to the American
action in the circumstances, particularly given their concern over the
escalating threats to American citizens in Panama.
If my hon. friend believes that Canadians and/or Americans should be indifferent to a declaration of war against the United States by Mr. Noriega, by the murder of American citizens by Mr. Noriega and by his security
December 20, 1989

threats, and if my hon. friend, the leader of the NDP, believes that Canadians ought to remain indifferent to this callous abuse of liberty and life, the Progressive Conservative government is not among her supporters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is not Canadians who are indifferent to what happens in Central America. Canadians want to see peaceful solutions in Central America. They want to see us use the United Nations, the Security Council and the OAS for those purposes.
Mr. Speaker, we too find Noriega reprehensible. We too feel concerned that international efforts have to be made so that democratic government can be restored in Panama.
We also recognize that Noriega was a creation of the American government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Surely, it was when Mr. Noriega decided not to agree with the American government he became the object of the excuse for an invasion.
I wonder if the American government's actions indicate that this government believes that the U.S., or that any other country, should feel free to invade a country at any time when it disapproves of a government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party are so far removed from the mainstream fundamental values of Canadians, that she has just indicated why they will never, ever, be called upon to form a government in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Has the hon. leader forgotten that there was a democratically elected government in May of this year that was abused, beaten and terrorized by General Noriega and his thugs?
Has the hon. member forgotten that General Noriega is under indictment for drug running and corruption in the United States?
Has the hon. member forgotten that General Noriega authorized the issuance of a declaration of war against the United States, and subsequent thereto American citizens were killed?
Oral Questions
The United States of America acted to protect the interests of its nationals. Its conduct is governed by international treaties in respect of Panama. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said many times that intervention ought to be at all times as a last resort. We believe that in these particular circumstances, the United States of America and the President of the United States acted properly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, if Canada supports the actions of the American government, does this mean we believe the United States or any other nation is free to use force when it disapproves of a government? What is Canada going to say to the Organization of American States and the UN Security Council about these issues? What about the role of intermediary power that this government wanted Canada to play within the Organization of American States?
This government refuses to condemn U.S. support for the military in Salvador, and it refuses to condemn the American invasion of Panama. Does this mean it has no independent foreign policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the leadership of the New Democratic Party is the same in French.
General Noriega declared war against the United States. A U.S. citizen was killed by the general's forces and his wife was threatened. The United States intervened following this declaration of war, to protect American citizens living in Panama, and it did so legitimately, by virtue of an international treaty concluded many years ago.
But the New Democrats think there is something repugnant about this, even though the Secretary of State for External Affairs clearly said that this action was taken as a last resort-However, if after a declaration of war and the shooting of a foreign citizen, the leadership of the New Democratic Party still thinks the U.S. reaction is excessive, this government and this country will never be able to support her arguments or external policies.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a point that the Prime Minister

December 20,1989
Oral Questions
is making. But first of all I would like to make it perfectly clear that on this side of the House we do not like Noriega.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Christine Susan Stewart: However, Canada has always supported the fundamental principle of non-intervention as enshrined in international law and the UN charter.
In response to questions regarding Canada's position on the invasion of Panama, the Secretary of State said intervention by force in Panama by U.S. forces is a dangerous precedent. My question is to the Prime Minister.
Do we or do we not support the principle of non-intervention without exception? If we make an exception for the U.S. now, how can we expect to be credible when, in the future, some other country invades a sovereign territory on the same pretext?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite vital on this important matter that the House recognize the unusual circumstances that exist in Panama.
There are some 12,000 Americans in Panama by right of treaty. Those people have been directly threatened by a declaration of war by General Noriega that was then followed up by the murder of one of those troops and threats against the wife of that person.
As a student of affairs in Latin America, the hon. member would know there have been extensive efforts made to try to resolve this question by negotiation. Those efforts failed.
When I spoke this morning to the President of Venezuela, he made the point that one of the reasons that this action occurred was because Venezuela, and for that matter Canada, and other nations involved in the Organization of American States who sought to resolve the problem by negotiation were unable to resolve it. It could not be resolved by that means.
We had a situation where there were Americans in Panama by right of treaty. They were threatened. War had been declared against them.
My statement was very clear. We believe that that kind of intervention creates a dangerous precedent. It should only be resorted to when all else fails and when the circumstances are unique. The circumstances were unique. All else had failed. In those circumstances we think it was a justified action for the President and the Government of the United States.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the minister responds with his justification, good intentions for the U.S. invading Panama but can I remind him that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Canada is a new member of the OAS and has an important voice both in that forum and at the UN. Both organizations are convening emergency meetings today to address Panama. Will Canada make it clear that at these meetings we will abide by the principle of non-interventionism?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, at those meetings we will abide by the policy that has been enunciated by the Government of Canada today in the aftermath of those events and, indeed, by principles that have been enunciated by former governments of Canada.
Let me quote from Hansard, October 25, 1983, as reported at page 28311. The Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau responding to a question stated:
- there were American nationals there. The United States was certainly entitled to attempt to protect those nationals.
That had to do with a situation where the nationals were not present by right of treaty, as they were present by right of treaty in the circumstances in Panama. That happened in a situation where there were not the extenuating circumstances of extensive attempts to try to resolve this situation by negotiation, extensive attempts that had failed.
A number of countries that are members of the Organization of American States have responded to these events. The Foreign Minister of Costa Rica earlier today said, as we had, that they regretted the actions but that they would not enter into condemnation. There are other members of the Organization of American States as, indeed, there are countries around the world that are not about to take this opportunity simply to condemn the United States perhaps for other reasons.
December 20, 1989

Mr. Speaker, if you want to look at a list of those whose reaction was simply unqualified condemnation of the United States in this case that list involves Libya, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
This government's excessive, compulsive fixation with high interest rates is choking exports, it is stifling investment, it is driving up our deficit and it is costing Canadians jobs.
On top of all this, yesterday the Conference Board announced that Canadian industry plans a major cutback in research and development. Canadian business is losing confidence with this government's monetary policy. For Canadians high interest is not a level playing field, it is a quagmire of quicksand.
Will the minister admit to the House today that these cuts in R and D prove that his policy just does not work?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this government is very much aware of the importance of low interest rates. We ensured during the earlier part of the last Parliament that we would push very hard for low interest rates because we thought it was appropriate at the time. But we have seen in the last year and a half some upward inflationary pressures. Those pressures are still there.
If the hon. member wants us to ignore those pressures, then we will be right back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when we were in that huge recession which did such damage to the economy, to investment, and to research and development-all on a permanent basis.


An hon. Member:: There is no comparison.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. members say there is no comparison. I would just like to remind them that in 1976,1 think, the inflation rate was about 5.5 per cent, about what it is today. About four years later it was 13 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Internationally.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Internationally, he says. If hon. members want to look at what is happening
Oral Questions
in other countries, they will see that inflation is creeping up in a number of other countries. Interest rates in Japan have been moving up. Interest rates in Germany have been moving up. Interest rates in the U.K. have been moving up. So they are up in a number of countries in the world.
If we do not want to avoid this problem getting worse and prevent getting into a repeat of 1981-82, then we can follow exactly the course that the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party want to follow which will lead us into inflation at much higher levels and cause a permanent loss of the competitive position that is so important to this country.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. During the Finance Committee hearings, it was clearly shown that the GST will be an administrative nightmare for small business. My question is very simple: Why did the minister yesterday abandon small business when it will have difficulty collecting a consumption tax in Canada, which is the only country in the world to have 10 consumer tax systems? Why does the finance minister want to kill the entrepreneurial spirit of small business in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where this hon. member has been. He has been in the House since 1984.
During that time he has seen the number of things that we have done for small business, to encourage the small business community. These have been systematically opposed by the Liberal Party. First, there was the $500,000 capital gains exemption. Second, there is the substantial increase in the small business loan authority. Third, there is the increase in the refundability of research and development credits that are there only for small business-again, a very strong encouragement to the small business community.
In this particular GST proposal we have brought in a number of measures, streamlined accounting, a low-income threshold for those who do not have to report and just two weeks ago tomorrow I met with-

December 20, 1989
Oral Questions


Alfonso Gagliano: Can you define what is "streamlined accounting"?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member cannot keep his mouth shut while someone is speaking.
Mr. Speaker, it is a lot easier to hear if you keep your ears open and your mouth shut.
In addition to that, Canada has the lowest corporate income tax rates for small business. We reduced those in income tax reform in 1988.
The hon. member is shaking his head. These are all precise examples of how we have helped small business. If the hon. member keeps shaking his head he will not be able to hear anything and he will not be able to learn anything.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The members of this House are aware of a bill passed in the other place yesterday concerning the unemployment insurance program. The deliberate delay of Bill C-21 by an appointed body is an unacceptable frustration of the democratic process.
This government has put forward changes which will make this country more competitive and will give unemployed Canadians better access to job training. All reasonable Canadians will see that this game must not continue.
Could the minister advise the House of how the government intends to respond to this legislation?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to treat what has gone on in the other place as a frivolous and silly interference with the good policies of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me point out to the hon. members opposite, including those who were on the legislative committee, that the members of the Senate committee are now studying Bill C-21. They are studying
it one word at a time. We are not sure when they will finish.
The legislative committee heard 200 witnesses in four weeks. The committee in the other place has heard 15 witnesses in six weeks. This is not serious study as far as I am concerned.
What this bill that they have passed over there does is ignore all the other benefits, not just the variable entry requirements, but the benefits for older workers and the benefits for women. You hear the women over there all booing and hissing. What about the extension of maternity and adoption benefits?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: For the rural areas of Canada, what about the fact that our bill does away with the penalty for seasonal workers who repeat on unemployment insurance? They are going to be penalized.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Crosbie:: The Noriega lover is up.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg Transco-na has the floor.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the military action by the American government in Panama is a very serious matter. It is taken seriously by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, even if it is not by some of his back-benchers. It is taken seriously by the opposition.
It seems to me that there is a great deal of room for legitimate criticism of what the Americans have done and that is what we are engaged in here. It is not a question of anybody being a Noriega lover or any of the kind of heckling coming from members opposite.
No one approved of the Noriega regime. It is a question of whether the end, which we all shared in this case, the restoration of democracy in Panama, justified the means in this case.
We are suggesting that what the American government has done sets a dangerous precedent, as the minister himself said. We are asking the government, the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, to say whether or not they appreciate the full extent of what the American government has done at a time when the other superpower has been relinquishing the view that what happens in geographical proximity to it gives it this arbitrary right to intervene. What happens to the overall relationship between east and west when the United
December 20, 1989

States seems to be going forward into the past and using the same sort of doctrine that it has been employing for decades in Central America?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is an important issue. I agree that it is one that deserves to be examined with some care. As the Government of Canada said in our official statement, we are worried about the precedent. We think the precedent has to be very strictly contained.
The hon. member surely understands that it is inaccurate to describe this as an arbitrary action or, indeed, to make an equation with other things that might have been done by other countries in other places. What happened here had to do with a country in which the United States had 12,000 troops present by agreement, present by an international treaty. Those people were threatened by a deliberate declaration of war against their country that was then made more personal by the murder of one of those troops and threats posed against members of that person's family.
The other factor which the hon. member has followed with some care has been that the Organization of American States, and other organizations, over the last several months have been working extensively to try to find a peaceful resolution to this question. The Americans co-operated in that process.
As the President said early this morning, "There comes a time when enough is enough". They faced a situation where a declaration of war had been made against their citizens present in Panama under the protection and cover of international treaty. It was not an arbitrary act. We believe it does not create a precedent, but we certainly want to ensure that it is not seen as creating a precedent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, when the Special Committee on the Peace Process in Central America was in Central America we found that people on both the left and the right of the political spectrum were very suspicious of the view that the Americans took of their own role in Panama. I would be
Oral Questions
very surprised if in the following days we do not see a similar concern expressed by member states of the OAS.
I think the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are very mistaken if they think that Canadians do not share a general view of the way in which the Americans are very selective in their outrage about the deaths of Americans.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he recalls, for instance, the death of four American nuns at the hands of the regime in El Salvador, which did not provoke the same kind of outrage, did not provoke the same kind of military action. The problem here is that the rhetoric which surrounds the American invasion in this case is rhetoric which is not lived up to in many other circumstances.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this. Is he at least prepared to acknowledge that there are many other instances in which regimes attack Americans, attack their own people, attack their clergy, attack their human rights activists and yet Washington does nothing? If he would at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of American rhetoric in this case, he might have more credibility with the American people.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well acquainted with the revolutionary changes that have been brought to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, by the determination of Mr. Gorbachev, very eloquently, very persuasively, to encourage people to turn to new thinking and not to be the captives of old images of a former time.
We have had this discussion before. I suggest to the hon. member that it is time for him to put some of his prejudices against the United States aside, to judge what is done on the basis of the circumstances in a particular case. He should indulge in a little new thinking.



Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Bill S-12 which was passed by the Senate yesterday would extend

December 20, 1989
Oral Questions
the qualification period for unemployment insurance for 10 weeks into 1990 in those areas of the country where there is high unemployment.
This bill, S-12, is virtually the same as the Conservative government's bill which it introduced and passed in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. The Official Opposition is ready to give unanimous consent to pass this bill today without any debate.
Earlier this week the Prime Minister said that he did not want to hurt the unemployed in the high unemployment regions of this country. Will he agree to pass this bill today without any debate, immediately, and we will give our co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member and his colleagues in the other place who are hurting the people who are unemployed in this country. It is not 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 or 1988. It is 1989. It is time to make some changes in this country. It is going to be better for workers across Canada in the future. It is going to give them jobs for the 1990s. It will do away with the repeater provisions for seasonal workers. It is going to help women with maternity benefits and sickness benefits at the same time.
If the hon. member would take his head out of the sand, we could get somewhere on this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the government knows that Bill C-21 is not the answer. Bill C-21 cuts $1.3 billion from the unemployment insurance benefits. Bill C-21 terminates the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund which last year was $2.8 billion. Bill C-21 is not the answer to the unemployed. Over 200 witnesses-


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, I ask the member to put his question.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, over 200 witnesses want to be heard on this bill in the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: My question is the following: If the government is sincere in not wanting to hurt the unemployed, will it not agree to pass Bill C-12 today? We will give it our full co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying that Bill C-21 which was very thoughtfully put together by this government and very thoughtfully developed as a policy for the 1980s-


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: We are going into the 1990s.


Barbara Jean McDougall: It had hearings across the country and heard 200 interventions in four weeks. What the hon. member is now saying is that that which solves the problem is not good for them. It is their fault that the people are going to have 14 weeks instead of 10 weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, on December 11 the Minister of Finance stated: "I think I understand the tax". He may understand how the tax is constructed, but he does not understand how Canadians will be penalized by it.
The minister has been convinced by his own propaganda. All Canadians will pay more. They will pay a tax on distance and on transportation costs. They will even pay a tax on heating costs.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Diane Marleau: Absolutely nothing in the proposed changes addresses the regional impact of the GST. Why has the minister once again ignored the needs of Canadians? Why has the minister again ignored the needs of the regions of this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not ignoring the needs of the regions of this country. That is one of the key benefits of the goods and services tax. Over-all, the regions of the country are the major beneficiaries.
If she looks at the economic data that is in the technical paper she will see that in those regions of the country where they have resource development, major capital intensive industries or industries that are export-oriented, similar to the industries in her home town, they
December 20, 1989

are the ones that will benefit from this because the tax is removed from exports. It improves the ability of new mines to be opened. It will ensure that old mines which might be closed are kept open a little bit longer to allow for them to continue employing people in her own backyard.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I think it is safe to say that the people, particularly the unemployed in Atlantic Canada, are not interested in the spitting match between this place and the Senate. They are not interested in the lover's quarrel between the Conservatives in the government and the Liberals in the Senate. What they are really interested in is being able to collect their unemployment insurance benefits under the variable entrance requirements.
The unemployed in the Atlantic are not statistics. They cannot be played with in politics. They are human beings, flesh and blood and bones.
Why are you using the Liberals to play politics on the backs of working class people who are unemployed? Why do you not extend the variable entrance requirements now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, if there are any lovers in this House, it is between the two parties on the other side.
Let me just say that in terms of the workers of Canada, the workers of Canada deserve better than an old-fashioned unemployment insurance bill which does not help them prepare for the future. What they deserve is training money. What they deserve is the repeal of the repeater's provision. What they deserve are sickness benefits, along with maternity provisions, all that and the variable entrance requirements. The variable entrance requirements in our bill are much more sensitive to the workers in his region than is this bill. I will wait for my bill, thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to respond to a point of order that was raised by the member for Lambton- Middlesex, as reported at page 7060 of Hansard for December 18. He was asking Your Honour to make a decision about withdrawing a remark that I made when I indicated that he was misleading when he suggested that the projected drop in farm income was the deliberate result of government policy. I indicated that that was not the case. I used the word "misleading". I did not use the words "intentionally misleading", which I know is unparliamentary.
He also indicated that the government was responsible for the drop in the price of grain since we came into office. I indicated to him at that time that we were concerned about the drop in incomes in 1990, that we had a process in place to review some of the existing policies, that we were monitoring the situation, and that if there was need for interim assistance as the situation unfolded we would be prepared, as we were in previous years, to look at the situation.
The government has no control over the price of commodities established in the international marketplace nor do we have any significant control over rainfall. Under these conditions we always monitor the situation and respond. I would simply say, in response to your indication that you wanted assurance that implicit in my answer was not the intention to accuse the member of deliberately misleading, that that was not the intention. I used the word "mislead". I think it is parliamentary. I did not use the words "intentionally misleading", therefore I do not believe it would be appropriate to have the word withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. minister. I shall consider it and report back to the House if appropriate.

December 20, 1989
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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 response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Marcel Danis (Vercheres):: Pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the official visit of a parliamentary delegation to Morocco from November 12 to 18 and to Portugal from November 19 to 21, 1989.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and in doing so, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the following remarks about this report.
The public accounts committee today tables a report dealing with a serious problem in the management of the tax system. Substantial losses in revenues-$2.4 billion from the federal sales tax-have been incurred because of a tax avoidance procedure involving marketing companies.
The problem has become much more serious since 1986 when a court decision struck down earlier applicable tax rulings which had limited the avoidance activity. The committee pointed out that the leakage of taxes was and is continuing.
Although two complex proposals were developed by the Department of Finance to deal with the problem, neither proposal was implemented. The committee noted the effects of tax avoidance on the integrity, equity and effectiveness of the tax system and recommended that the government act expeditiously to deal with tax avoidance problems.
Other key recommendations in this report call upon the Department of Finance to monitor tax avoidance closely and to develop quickly workable remedial measures based on a careful analysis of costs and benefits.
The Minister of Finance has been requested to respond to the committee's recommendation by March 31, 1990.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 28th report of the Striking Committee.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee of External Affairs and International Trade regretting and condemning the death threats received recently by the family of Miss Karen Ridd, condemning in the strongest possible language we can muster the introduction of death squad activities exported from El Salvador to this country, and requesting immediate government intervention in this matter and a report to the House.


NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS -INTERIM REPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, an interim report from the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
December 20, 1989

Routine Proceedings
This interim report is aimed at ensuring Canada's Armed Forces have the ability to monitor and to respond to threats to our maritime sovereignty. Although tensions between east and west have subsided dramatically in recent months, it should be borne in mind that Warsaw treaty nations retain a formidable military capacity and that Canada remains committed to collective security with our North American ally and with other members of NATO.
Just as important, our Armed Forces are essential to protect against contemporary and increasing threats to Canada's sovereignty. We must defend against the traffic in illegal drugs that weaken the fabric of our nation. We must assure the security of our fisheries and other ocean resources. Canada must protect against foreign and domestic polluters who disregard Canadian environmental regulations and we must have a capacity to defend Canada from illegal immigrants.
We should note and be prepared for the fact that most international terrorists are trained in military procedures and use military equipment. Canada must always have a capacity to undertake surveillance of these activities and respond in the name of sovereignty.
Some of these challenges are new. Nevertheless they threaten our sovereignty and Canada must have a capacity to respond effectively.
To counter these threats and others that may emerge in the future the committee believes that Canada should have the capacity to monitor and react to incidents on our coasts, not just with surface ships and helicopters now being acquired, but also with underwater detection capability and a sufficient number of maritime patrol aircraft to provide adequate coverage to our vast ocean territories, the world's longest national coastline.
The committee firmly believes that the dedicated men and women of our Armed Forces should have the tools to do the job Canadians expect of them, protecting our national sovereignty, thereby securing our future which is an essential role of our Canadian Armed Forces.
Finally, all members of the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has certainly made the point that the committee wished to make, and probably has said it in a longer way than is usually needed in the House.
[Translation)


PRESENTATION OF FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON MULTICULTURALISM AND CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Multicultural-ism and Citizenship concerning the 1991 census.


PRESENTATION OF SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Jean-Pierre Hogue: I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
The committee's unanimous report recommends adopting legislation on the status of the artist. The legislation would give associations of performing artists such as ACTRA, Actor's Equity and the Union des artistes the right to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of their members.
This report was prepared by the Sub-Committee on the Status of the Artist which I have the honour of chairing. I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank all members of the sub-committee and those of the standing committee for their totally nonpartisan co-operation. I would also like to include the staff by whom we were so well seconded.

The committee requests that the government provide a comprehensive response to this report in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109.


Mr. Dorin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in response to remarks made a moment ago by the chairman of the public accounts committee in presenting his report. He suggested that two complicated solutions had been put forward and not been acted upon by the government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the reason they were not acted upon is that another committee of this House, the finance committee, found them to be unworkable and reported that back to the House and that view was shared by all three parties and it is a misleading-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not so sure that is a point of order.

December 20, 1989
Routine Proceedings YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-58, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-59, an act to amend various acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-60, an act to amend various acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and to provide for other related matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Divorce Act (barriers to religious remarriage).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act (drift-net fishing).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, this bill asks the government to consider entering into negotiations with the international community to bring it to enter into an agreement prohibiting drift-net fishing in international waters and to impose sanctions against any country which refuses to enter into such an agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: First reading of Senate Public Bills.


POINT OF ORDER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I wish to advise the House that the government will be voting against first reading of this bill. It offends Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Standing Orders state that:
The House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or
bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue that has not
December 20, 1989

been first recommended to the House by a message for the Governor
General, that is, a royal recommendation.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I think that I should have had the opportunity in the first place to move the first reading of the bill as you called it on the Order Paper.
I would so move first reading of Senate Public Bill S-12.
In response to the minister's statement, if you wish to hear argument, there is considerable argument that the Senate, as the House of Lords in England, can introduce such bills. They were in fact introduced under previous Conservative governments under the government of the right hon. member for Yellowhead. The hon. Senator Flynn introduced a similar type of bill and in the 1920s when the Meighen government was in power similar bills were introduced.
We put to the House Bill S-12 as sent to this House by the Senate which will extend the variable entrance requirements for unemployment insurance in high unemployment regions.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has made a point of order. I shall proceed with that, of course. The Speaker is in a position where I recognized the Minister of Justice who made a statement, not an argument.
I now must put the motion by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace to the House.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
William Warren Allmand: that Bill S-12, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the first time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you would find that there is unanimous agreement for the approval of the following motion which I would move, seconded by my colleagues from Northumberland and Winnipeg Transcona: That this House, noting that:
-authorities in Romania have directed their armed forces and police to attack the unarmed civilian population of Timisoara in contravention of all humane principles of conduct,
- the citizens of Timisoara were peacefully advocating democratic principles and human freedoms, as is the right of all peoples of the world and
-hundreds of citizens of Timisoara have been killed and injured as a result of the immoral attack,
unequivocally condemns this brutal use of force against the population of Timisoara and other Romanian communities and calls upon the authorities of Romania to cease this senseless killing and violence and to begin to respect the human rights of all its citizens.

These immoral attacks have killed and injured hundreds of people.
It unanimously condemn the excessive force used against the people of Timisoara and other Romanian communities.
It insist that the Government of Romania stop this massacre and this senseless violence immediately and that it respect the rights and freedoms of all its citizens.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just add to the words of my colleague across the floor in the condemnation of Romania for its actions in that country of late, particularly as against the citizens of Timisoara.
Canada has had trade relations with Romania in the past. I think that these trade relations must be reassessed in light of what is happening to these people. Romania has signed a human rights convention with the Community of Economic and Development Co-operation in Europe but has taken every opportunity to personally abstain from abiding by the convention which it has signed.
I think that this government, and we as a nation, should do everything we can to approach the governments of the region in a bilateral fashion including trying ourselves to negotiate with the Government of Romania to try to bring to its attention that we disapprove of what it has perpetrated against its own people and that we ask it to change its ways.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, last night, members of all three parties had an opportunity to participate in a vigil held outside the unfinished human rights monument in front of the courthouse on Elgin Street. At that time we had an opportunity to meet
December 20, 1989

Routine Proceedings
with members of the Hungarian community here in Canada. One of the things they very strongly desired was that the House of Commons might find a way to express unanimously its condemnation of the actions of the Romanian Government, and I am very happy that the House has been able to do this. I hope that it has the desired effect on the Romanian government.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. Minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will also find consent for the following motion as there has been discussion among the three parties. I move:
That, immediately following the vote on Bill C-28, the Right Hon. Secretary of State will make a statement concerning events in Panama and that his statement shall be followed by one speaker from the Liberals and one speaker from the NDP; that both speakers from these two parties will be given adequate time to respond to the statement and will not be restricted by the usual restrictions which apply to ministerial statements;
and that, following these three statements, the following adjournment motion will be deemed adopted:
That, when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until one o'clock p.m. on Monday, January 22, 1990, provided that the Speaker may recall the House at anytime before that date for the sole purpose of Royal Assent; and
that, the number of allotted days in the period ending not later than March 26, 1990, be reduced from nine to eight; and
that, the mid-winter break week for 1990, when the House will not sit, be from the time of adjournment on Friday, February 23 to one o'clock p.m. on Monday, March 5, 1990.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House. If I could ask consent, there is a further motion regarding the sitting hours for Mondays. Unfortunately, the House leader has that motion with him and I do not have a copy. If we could have consent later in the afternoon to come back to that, I would be happy to move the motion at that time.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the motion that we adopted to adjourn the House later this day states that when the House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until 1 p.m. Monday, January 22, 1990.1 take it that the House knew what it was doing then and that we would not have to come back and do anything else but comply with the adopted motion as agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The motion as I read it was passed to the table officers. I do not have a copy in front of me to verify the wording. Of course, what we were looking for was to come back at the usual time on Monday, January 22, 1990, for the usual procedures.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the confusion. It may have something to do with the Christmas recess that seems to be coming upon us and certainly has come upon me.
It may help if I also move the following motion:
That, effective on the first Monday the House sits in January,
1990 and on each subsequent Monday until further Order, the hours
of sitting and the arrangement of business for Mondays be as
follows:
1)	The House to sit at 1.00 p.m., with Private Members' Business
following Prayers, until 2.00 p.m.;
2)	Statements by Members at 2.00 p.m.;
3)	Oral Questions at 2.15 p.m.;
4)	Routine Proceedings at 3.00 p.m., followed by Government
Orders until 7.00 p.m.;
5)	Adjournment Proceedings at 7.00 p.m.; and
That the appropriate changes be made to the next printing of the
Standing Orders by the Speaker and the Clerk.
I believe that takes care of all of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there agreement to adopt the motion?

December 20, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition with some 100 names. This petition, however, represents petitions with some 25,000 names from all parts of Canada collected by the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. Once these other petitions are certified, they will also be tabled.
The petition I am presenting today, like these other petitions, calls upon the government to abandon its clawback of the old age pension and the family allowance and I hope the government will listen to this plea of tens of thousands of Canadians.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from many people throughout the Ottawa valley who protest the removal of the train travelling from Montreal through Ottawa to Arnprior, Pembroke, Petawawa, Chalk River, North Bay and on through to western Canada because this train has been proven to be widely used. In some cases passengers have been put in the bar car because there were no seats left, and the Prime Minister said use it or lose it. These people are saying that the service is being used and that it should be kept on and they want this passenger service to continue. They are very upset and they also feel that when VIA Rail is phoned for reservations it is not giving the truth to the Canadian public. VIA Rail is saying that the train is overbooked and it is turning down bookings, then it turns around and says the service is not being used. As a result, the train is being taken off as of January 15. I strongly protest on the petitioners behalf the removal of this train and I strongly protest the kind of information that VIA Rail is giving out to potential customers-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member has made his point.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions on behalf of a number of people, well over 200,
from the lower mainland of British Columbia, New Westminster, Burnaby and Surrey.
These petitioners are upset about the cuts in VIA passenger rail service and they say that passenger rail service is essential for many Canadians and has been a part of Canada for well over 100 years.
They feel that these cuts will result in serious reductions in the passenger rail service and threaten maintenance, safety and jobs. They are asking this Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, to upgrade the VIA equipment and to guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its real mandate to provide passenger service for Canadians on trains.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex, particularly constituents in the Park Hill and Nelson Craig area, who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.
I also have two more petitions from people from other parts of Ontario that I wish to table at the same time.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of several hundred Chippewa and Patawanamee natives of the First Nation and other residents of Kent who are agonizing over the government's blatant disregard for their rights. I call upon Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities to hundreds of thousands of Canadians and Americans living along Lake St. Clair and stop the dredging off Seaway Island and dumping the potentially hazardous sediment into the open waters of Lake St. Clair pending the findings of a full and public environmental hearing.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today as I have many times before with a petition given to me by a number of farmers from the province of Saskatchewan who are concerned about the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board by this government. They feel that there was not prior consultation with the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee or major farm organizations in western Canada. They feel that farm marketing boards are essential to the orderly marketing of farm products in this country and
December 20, 1989

should not be weakened but be strengthened. They call upon this government to replace oats under the Canadian Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection that wheat has under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand before this Elouse today. Pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have before me quite a number of petitions signed, and for the sake of saving time, I shall not present them one at a time. I will present them as a lot.
There are some 3,305 signatures from the residents of my riding of Timmins-Chapleau who are absolutely appalled at the government's proposal for this goods and services tax. They are asking that the government reconsider this goods and services tax and abolish it; to go back to the drawing board and start again, not lower it, as was proposed by the government, but to scrap it and start over again. The message from the constituents of Timmins-Chapleau is very clear. They are saying, "Ebenez-er Wilson, it is not too late, change the tax".


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today tabling three petitions which reject the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. The signers, from the isolated community of Lebel-sur-Quevillon in Abitibi, are concerned about the recommendations of this as yet unfinished report.
Mr. Speaker, the final report of this task force makes no mention of the Cree-Naskapi James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the final report on regional disparities of isolated posts made by the Government of Quebec in October 1989.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the privilege and duty to present petitions signed by over 11,000 residents of Hamilton Mountain
Routine Proceedings
adding to the total of more than 20,000 from Hamilton Mountain that we have already presented.
These petitioners have spoken out overwhelmingly against the proposed goods and services tax. They believe that the tax is unfair, that is places an unnecessary additional burden on low and middle-income Canadians. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House to reject the goods and services tax proposal.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the First Royal Canadian Regiment celebrates its one hundred and sixth regimental birthday. CFB London has been the home of the first RCR for 106 years. It has been an integral part of not only this country but our municipality for 106 years.
The petition is from some 5,000 people from all ridings in London. This is in addition to the 7,000 who have already petitioned this government to change its mind with respect to moving one RCR and closing CFB London. The costs have moved from $30 million to $110 million to essentially move those troops and I suggest that the government rescind its action.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition with some 5,000 names from people throughout southwestern Ontario, in addition to the 10,000 I previously submitted from London and southwestern Ontario, calling on the government to rescind its actions with respect to the cutbacks on VIA Rail which will be initiated and instituted on January 15, 1990.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present 93 petitions containing the names of 2,675 residents of Stormont-Dundas who oppose the Conservative government's goods and services tax.
They believe that the GST is totally unacceptable as it would cause serious and unfair hardship for low and middle-income Canadians and create an onerous burden for small businesses in Canada.
The petitioners therefore call upon this House to reject this tax.

December 20, 1989
Routine Proceedings

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table ten petitions containing the names of 300 residents of Stormont-Dundas who are opposed to the GST because it unfairly hits popular and affordable recreational sports in Canada. They believe that taxing participatory sports is a basic mistake because it places an unfair burden on working men and women, seniors, young people and the disabled who participate in recreational sports on limited incomes. They therefore urge the House to reject this insidious tax.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 36, considering that this is the last opportunity to address this matter in the House of Commons before the closure of the VIA Canadian line on January 15, I am pleased to present the last in a series of petitions. These two petitions, signed by 108 constituents from the city of Revelstoke in British Columbia, point out that the city of Revelstoke will become a truly isolated community should VIA Rail passenger service be discontinued because the Trans-Canada Highway experiences winter closures due to avalanches and there is no scheduled to air service to the community.
They further point out that this discontinuance of rail passenger service will put more vehicles on the Trans-Canada Highway through the Rogers Pass. The highway is already close to capacity in the summer months and will require twinning at great expense to the people of Canada.
They also point out that the discontinuance of rail passenger service will put more vehicles on the highways passing through Glacier and Mount Revelstoke National Parks causing greater environmental damage to these ecological reserves.
Finally, they ask Parliament to proceed in such a way that passenger service will not be discontinued through this community and, before any such service cut takes place, that public hearings be held across Canada to investigate ways in which passenger rail service can be preserved and enhanced throughout the country.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present, on behalf of a number of citizens, ten petitions signed by citizens of my riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt and the riding of my colleague from Saskatchewan, the Minister of National Defence.
These citizens call upon the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system to make sure that it is a system which is not regressive and does not harm the ordinary Canadian.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition that is signed by about 200 residents from such places as Ottawa, Nepean, Sault Ste. Marie, Richmond, Kanata and Calabogie. These people are concerned with the proposal to discontinue so much of the service of VIA Rail which will injure small towns, youth and senior citizens.
They therefore ask Parliament to reject any proposed reductions or eliminations of VIA Rail, to modernize the existing equipment and to build a high-speed passenger train between Montreal and Windsor.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from 100 residents of Toronto and Vancouver concerning the low-level flights being conducted in eastern Quebec and Labrador and the proposal for a NATO-NORAD base there. They ask Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada in opposing the use of their lands for NATO-NORAD attack training.
They demand that the low level flight training cease and that the government cease to ask for a NATO base in Labrador and that the funding for the Canada's NATO-NORAD operations be redirected to enable Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and for promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to present a large number of petitions-so large that I can
December 20, 1989

hardly hold them-from residents of my constituency, all of which I want to draw to the particular attention of the Minister of Finance.
The petitions are signed by 1,763 residents of this area, including the communities of Beauval, Dorintosh, Good-soil, Loon Lake, Makwa, Pierceland and Rapid View. Included in that number are 1,137 residents from the community of Meadow Lake alone.
The petitioners note that the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas fails to recognize the higher cost of living affecting residents in these northern designated areas and, therefore, call upon Parliament to reject the recommendations of the task force on northern benefits and call on the minister to develop a fair and equitable tax benefit program recognizing the financial needs of people in northern and isolated areas.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a large number of petitions on two subjects this afternoon. First of all, I have 1,445 signatures of people from the Ottawa area, mostly from my riding of Ottawa South, objecting to the imposition of the goods and services tax as proposed by the minister at 9 per cent, and even at 7 per cent.


John Paul Manley: In addition, I have a collection of petitions from residents of Canada from places as disparate as Regina, Yorkton, Moncton, Prince Albert, Creston, British Columbia, Kitchener, Kingston, Winnipeg and Windsor, all objecting to the pernicious clawback tax on family allowances and old age pensions.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present eight petitions containing 287 signatures of residents of the Similkameen Valley and the boundary area of the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In addition, I wish to present a further 658 names from throughout British Columbia, from Edmonton and from Saskatchewan. These people are petitioning Parliament to reject the
Routine Proceedings
proposed goods and services tax and to bring in a tax fair and equitable tax Canadians.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity- Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege, under Standing Order 36, to present petitions from 54 residents of Elliston. The first signature is, I believe, that of the mayor of that town. The residents of Elliston are very, very concerned about the effect of the goods and services tax. They note that the government, in saying it is going to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, has raised it from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent in its time in power. They are also cognizant of the other hardships imposed upon them as a community and as Newfoundlanders as a result of other measures taken by this government.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to please reject this proposed goods and services tax at any percentage, nine or seven. They want it at zero.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise pursuant to Standing order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbians. I wish I did not have to present this petition. I was hoping that the government would have announced before Christmas that it planned to abandon the goods and services tax. But, alas, it has not. So I must read the petition and hope for more sense in the new year.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the government a list of reasons why they believe the goods and services tax is a cruel and mean tax that discriminates against low-income families and against those people living in western Canada due to the tremendous cost of transportation. They are asking the government to reconsider proceeding with the goods and services tax.



POINT OF ORDER


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the fact that in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, a mailbag containing family allowance cheques was lost today. People are being asked to reapply for those cheques. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader if he could look into the matter and see if there is something that can be done for those many families who

December 20, 1989
Routine Proceedings
are going without those cheques before Christmas. Many of those families are dependant on those cheques to make their Christmas.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her representation. I can assure her I will bring it to the department's attention and to the minister's attention to see what can be done, taking into consideration the Christmas spirit and the concerns that I am sure all members and these families will feel.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; Nos. 130, 143, 158, 172 and 173.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Has Nordion International or its corporate predecessor supplied radiation equipment or materials to Delmed, a company located in El Salvador and, if so (a) what (i) kinds (ii) quantities (b) on what dates (c) has Nordion International monitored, inspected or serviced this equipment or material and, if so, (i) on what dates (ii) what is done on such occasions?
2.	Is the government aware of any accidents at Delmed involving radioactive material and, if so (a) on what dates did the accidents occur (b) what happened at each event?
3.	Has Nordion International accepted any legal or contractual responsibility for the safe operation of equipment it sells to foreign operations?


Charles Joseph Clark: In 1975, the predecessor to Nordion International Inc., Commercial Products Division, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, supplied a Cobalt-60 medical products sterilizer to a firm in El Salvador. The present owner is Delmed SA. An equipment failure in 1975 resulted in the supplier returning to repair the facility. No injuries or radiation exposures occurred. Normal
procedure is for the owner to request the Cobalt-60 source to be renewed every few year, at which time Nordion checks and refurbishes the equipment where needed. The civil war in El Salvador prevented this. Nordion did keep up telephone contacts with Delmed over the years and issued them product bulletins as they were produced. The Government is aware of an accident at Delmed on February 5, 1989 in which the radioactive source became jammed. Three Delmed staff members entered the irradiator contrary to all procedures. To do so, they had to override safety features and systems. The operators in fact, had modified the plant so the built-in safety features did not prevent their entry. They received serious radiation over-exposure resulting in one death and the serious illness of two others. Nordion was called on February 10 and rendered the plant inoperable. Immediately upon learning of the injury to the operators, Nordion notified the appropriate authorities. The safe operation of the facility is the responsibility of the operator subject to any applicable governmental requirements in El Salvador. Canada has no authority over the plant or its operation. There is no fault or liability to Nordion, which has acted as responsible supplier throughout the history of the plant and the incident.


Mr. Boudria: At the present time, in the National Capital Region, is the government leasing any office space for the administration of the proposed goods and services tax and, if so (a) what is the number of square metres leased by each government department (b) for each building containing such space (i) what is the address (ii) what is the number of square metres leased (iii) what is the cost of leasing the space (c) what is the total estimated cost of preparing the spaces for occupancy, including (i) design and building improvements (ii) installation of furniture and office equipment, including any computers purchased, leased or rented (iii) any other expense incurred?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Taxation
No, at the present time Public Works Canada is not leasing any space on behalf of Revenue Canada Taxation for the administration of the proposed goods and services tax in the National Capital Region.
December 20, 1989

Customs & Excise


[Stage Direction]
RE: PLANNING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION)
Yes, the government is leasing limited office space in the National Capital Region to be used in planning for the administration of the proposed goods and services tax. (This space also conforms to a long-range plan to consolidate excise offices, currently located in five sites throughout the city.)
a)	Public Works Canada has leased for Customs and Excise 11,447 M2 which is currently being prepared for occupancy starting in January 1990. Temporary accommodation has been provided through short-term leases and previously leased space.
b)	i) All the space is located in the Place Vanier Office Complex at 25 McArthur Avenue, Vanier, Ontario.
ii)	11,447 M2.
iii)	Annual rental cost of the leased space is $2,209,271 (subject to final confirmation upon occupancy).
c)	i) Design and construction contracts awarded by Public Works Canada total approximately $1,542,381 (including approximately $192,341 funded by Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise for data cabling installations). PWC estimates that it will incur additional costs of approximately $1,855,960 (excludes Customs and Excise telecommunications costs, furniture, equipment, etc.).
ii)	Estimated costs for furniture and office equipment (including computers) $2,698,473.
iii)	$45,000 for telecommunications.
Mr. Caccia: For each province east of Saskatchewan, what is (a) the economic loss, on an annual basis, attributable to acid rain damage for (i) commercially logged tree species (ii) maple syrup production (iii) agricultural crops (iv) salmon spawning grounds (b) the effect of acid rain damage on growth rates and productivity for (i) commercially logged tree species (ii) maple syrup production (iii) agricultural crops (iv) salmon spawning grounds (c) the effect of acid rain on the annual growth rate of major tree species?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am
informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Oceans and Forestry as follows:
Routine Proceedings
(a)	i) Trees that are currently being harvested have matured in a relatively pollution-free environment and, therefore, are only slightly affected by acid rain. Annual losses are estimated at $2.5 million (1983 dollars) for Quebec and Ontario and about $.5 million for the Atlantic provinces, accurate estimates for Manitoba do not exist but it can be predicted that they will be less that $10,000.00 a year.
ii) iii) Direct effects of acid rain have not been demonstrated. For provinces east of Saskatchewan, there is no specific economic data available for economic loss, on an annual basis, attributable to acid rain damage for maple syrup production and agricultural crops.
iv)	Based on the biological assessment, the annual impact of the reduced salmon stocks on the economy of Nova Scotia is $190 thousand in terms of net foregone expenditures by salmon anglers.
(b)	i) Commercial logging is carried out in mature or overmature stands, in which growth potential is very limited. Young stands and those in the development stage are most seriously affected by acid rain, but will not be logged for several years. Therefore, current commercial harvests are affected very little by acid rain. However, it can be anticipated that future harvest will decrease, as a result of acid rain damage.
The most sensitive species, in order of importance, are: Eastern White Pine; Silver Maple; Red Spruce; Black Cottonwood; and Beech.
ii) iii) There is little conclusive data on the effect of acid rain on growth rates and productivity for mapple syrup and agricultural crops.
iv)	Nova Scotia: 13 rivers in which native salmon runs are extinct;
18 rivers in which salmon populations are considerably reduced;
13 rivers in which salmon still live but in which reduction in populations has been noted; some of their tributaries no longer support salmon populations;
16 rivers in which salmon populations are not affected by acid rain.
Nova Scotia has a total of 38.7 sq km of accessible (to salmon) habitat. Of that accessible salmon habitat, 20.5 sq km are considered to be vulnerable to acid rain.
Acidification of habitat has caused an estimated 50 per cent decline in Atlantic salmon production in 22 rivers for which good angling statistics are available; the decline in all of Nova Scotia has been 33 per cent.

December 20,1989
Routine Proceedings
New Brunswick: There are 134.9 sq km of accessible Atlantic salmon habitat and none of that habitat is considered vulnerable to acid rain.
Prince Edward Island: There are 2.8 sq km of accessible Atlantic salmon habitat and none of that habitat is considered vulnerable to acid rain.
Newfoundland: There are 211.1 sq km of accessible Atlantic salmon habitat and 25.6 sq km of that habitat are considered vulnerable to acid rain.
Quebec: There are 319 sq km of accessible Atlantic salmon habitat on the North Shore and 113 sq km of that habitat are considered vulnerable to acid rain.
(c)	There is no scientifically proven relationship between acid rain and annual tree growth. The best estimate of growth losses comes from a scientific opinion survey which states that atmospheric polluants are reducing the rate of annual growth by 5 per cent in Quebec and Ontario and by 3.5 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and they have no effect in Manitoba.
Experts believe that within thirty years, forest productivity will decrease by 11.5 per cent in Quebec and Ontario, 8.4 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 1.6 per cent in Manitoba. However, control measures that reduce air pollution by 50 per cent in terms of 1984 levels could increase forest productivity in the long term by 1.7 per cent in Quebec and Ontario, and by 1.2 per cent in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Kilger: 1.	Has the government provided federal funds, by way of
sustaining grants, to Planned Parenthood Canada in the fiscal year
1989-1990 and, if so, what amount?
2.	Since 1969, has the government given grants to Planned
Parenthood Canada and, if so, for all types of grants, what amount?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am
informed by the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows:
1. In fiscal year 1989/90 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has provided a contribution of $95,000 to the Canadian Planned Parenthood Federation to support delegates from developing countries to attend the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) Members' Assembly.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has provided a sustaining grant to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada for the fiscal year 1989-90 in the amount of $146,000.
Since 1969, contributions by CIDA to the Canadian Planned Parenthood Federation have totalled $936,422.
Health and Welfare Canada made the following contributions
Health Promotion Contribution	$ 519,872
Program (1983/84-1991/92)
Family Planning Division	$5,976,200
(1972/73-1985/86)
Sustaining Grants	$ 738,200
(1986/87-Present)
TOTAL	$7,234,272


Mr. Kilger: 1.	Do government funds go to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) through (a) other federally funded agencies that are involved in Third World development (b) United Nations family planning programs (c) unilateral or multilateral agreements and, if so, what amount?
2.	Do government funds go to population and "reproductive health centres" in China and, if so, does the IPPF have any involvement in these programs and, if so, are government funds made available to the IPPF either directly or through other agencies such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and, if so, what amount of funding is directed to such activities through these agencies?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister of External Relations):: 1. a) Government funds go to the World Bank for their development programming. The World Bank has, in the past given contributions to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) based on agreements between the World Bank and IPPF.
b)	Government funds go the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) for their development programming. UNFPA has undertaken joint programming with IPPF.
c)	Government funds have contributed and are contributing to IPPF directly via the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). In fiscal year 1989-90, the approved grant totalled $8.2 million.
December 20, 1989

2. On a bilateral, or govemment-to-government basis, CIDA does not provide funding to the population sector in China.
The China Family Planning Association, an autonomous, non-governmental organization (NGO) is a member of IPPF. In 1988, IPPF contributed US $920,000 towards the programmes of its China affiliate, most of which was spent on audio-visual equipment and infor-mation/educational materials of the Association's information activities.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I had the privilege of rising in this place to address a motion which would have deleted the clawback provision of Bill C-28. In the course of my speech, which dealt with a very serious matter of great concern to thousands of my constituents, I was repeatedly interrupted by the hon. member for Burlington who used expressions that I trust Your Honour will find unparliamentary.
They can be found in the Hansard of yesterday, Tuesday, December 19, on pages 7216 and 7217. Even if the Chair were to find these expressions permissible, I feel that they have impugned my seriousness as a
Routine Proceedings
member of Parliament and prevented me from properly representing the legitimate concerns of my electors. I would ask that the member for Burlington do the honourable thing and withdraw his remarks.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Burlington, maybe we could ask that you reserve on this. We will speak to the member for Burlington and see what can be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes. Usually when we have a question of privilege raised, the members involved are in the House. I realize this could be the last sitting day for another month and I know the member was anxious to get it on the record. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will bring it to the attention of the hon. member for Burlington.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the Chair aware that all parties were aware of my intention to raise this matter. Notification was given. Due, I suppose, to the various happenings between three o'clock and the present time, the hon. member for Burlington may have been unable to attend due to other duties, but he was aware of it, as was the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Burlington is on the Board of Internal Economy and I know they are meeting.


JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Albert Glen Cooper: I have been informed that there have been discussions among the three parties concerning the Standing Committee on Justice and that there would be unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General be authorized to travel to Washington for the period from Sunday, January 21 to Thursday, January 25, 1990, in order to participate in an international conference on criminal code reform and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
December 20,1989
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we carry on with further business, Mr. Speaker has advised me that he would like to have all hon. members join him at 6.30 p.m. in Room 216 for his annual reception.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-9, an act to amalgamate the two corporations known respectively as the Governing Council of the Salvation Army Canada East and the Governing Council of the Salvation Army Canada West, and to make necessary provision regarding the charter of the amalgamated corporation to which the concurrence of the House is desired.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I sent notice to you earlier today that I would rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent and pressing concern.
We have every indication now that the Senate will not pass Bill C-21 before the new year, and the government has not indicated any willingness to pass the annual variable entrance rates bill, as we have seen earlier today. As a result, in a few weeks, when the House is not sitting, the unemployed in depressed regions of the country will suddenly become ineligible for benefits. This means that the battle between the government and the Senate over the unfortunate amendments to the UI act will have significant civilian casualties, namely, the unemployed in the most hard-pressed economically hit areas of the country.
I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that unemployment insurance is provided in a fair and equitable way throughout Canada. I find it totally irresponsible for the government to engage in this game of brinkmanship with the Senate when the consequences will be felt, not by the members of either of these chambers, but by the thousands of Canadian families who will be deprived of the benefits to which they would normally be entitled.
For that reason, I am asking for an emergency debate on this later in the day.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all I want to apologize to the hon. member for Kamloops for not being in the House. I was watching his presentation and I understand fully the content of it and, of course, have considered his application in writing which was given to me and was procedurally sound.
The matter is, of course, an important matter but I must advise the hon. member that, at least in my view, it does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. It is an important matter and I thank the hon. member for bringing it to the attention of the Chair.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and a related act, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-28.1 can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in the spirit of parliamentary co-operation and also in keeping with the holiday spirit, I will not take up too much of the House's time so that other members will also have a chance to make their comments. Besides, I made a fairly elaborate presentation on this bill on second reading.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-28 arises from the budget brought down last April by the Minister of Finance and is in response to the objectives pursued by this government.
December 20, 1989

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this country's national debt is a major problem. When we were elected in 1984, it was nearly $200 billion.
Thanks to the budgetary and monetary policies that have been part of the Conservative government's economic policy since 1984, we have been able to reduce our deficit each year, but nevertheless, we are still struggling with the problem of a growing national debt.
Mr. Speaker, during the past five years, spending has been cut back, and last week the President of the Treasury Board announced spending cuts totalling nearly $1.4 billion.
Mr. Speaker, if we want a healthy Canadian economy, we must bring our national debt down to acceptable levels and our revenues or income must be commensurate to those levels.
The April budget introduced additional taxes on individuals and, more specifically, a surtax on individuals with higher incomes. Mr. Speaker, as we saw yesterday in our discussions about the goods and services tax, when we have spending commitments, we must also have the income to balance our budget. And where do we get that income? We get it from higher income tax payers, from corporations, and also through a tax that will replace a federal sales tax that no longer reflects the economic realities of 1989 and that next year will be replaced by the goods and services tax, a modern tax that will reflect the competitive spirit Canada has and indeed must have at the international level.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-28 also contains a measure which provides that certain payments received by Canadians 65 years old and over with a gross income of $77,000 or more-this means that all Canadians who age 65 who are listening and whose annual incomes are below $77,000 annually are not affected.
Mr. Speaker, according to this provision, part of the old age security pension payment they receive will be paid back in income tax to the federal government, again, provided their gross annual income exceeds $77,000.
Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the House, they are criticizing this measure because according to them, this is going to eat away at people's incomes every year and
Government Orders
because of inflation, the net incomes of individuals with a gross annual income of $77,000 will go down. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to you the comments made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), one of the best finance ministers Canada ever had, who has said several times that if indexing should be reviewed, it would be done in due course to ensure that the taxable level, which is $77,000 gross annual income in this case, would retain its value in real terms.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is important for the economy and the finances of the country. If we want to continue the excellent work done since 1984 in terms of revenues and expenditures, we must pass Bill C-28 as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House, in the co-operative spirit of Christmas, to make their speeches short and of course in support of Bill C-28.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on this legislation which is a very comprehensive piece of legislation touching on many aspects of the Income Tax Act.
I come to this third reading debate having participated in the legislative committee and having been a witness to the very arbitrary process that was applied at the legislative committee stage of this bill. Two factors caused that arbitrariness. The first factor was that the government did not want to hear witnesses who had views to express on the key elements of the legislation that is contained in Bill C-28. That process, the opportunity for Canadians to be heard, was thwarted by government members who consistently refused to expand the number of witnesses that could be heard.
The other way in which that process was arbitrary was the manner in which the government, in, I believe, a rather incompetent fashion, introduced the notice of Ways and Means that gave rise to this piece of legislation. By including the bill as part of the Ways and Means motion, the government made it impossible for amendments which were in order to be made. Early in the committee process we had presented to us a package of amendments. Many, many provisions in Bill C-28 were attempted to be amended, not by the opposition but by the government, by representatives of the ministry of

December 20, 1989
Government Orders
finance. This package of amendments, which is as thick as the bill itself, was found to be entirely out of order. They were entirely rejected.
As they say, this is no way to run a railroad. If the government cannot introduce a bill that covers the points that are necessary, surely it is incumbent upon it to withdraw the bill, and start over and do it properly. What we have in this case is a very important piece of legislation, tabled and debated in the House of Commons, which needed, according to the government and the departmental officials themselves, many amendments to it.
Either these amendments were superfluous and did not need to be presented in the first place, in which case they should not have been, or they were necessary, in which case the bill should have been removed from the list and reintroduced in the proper form. I think it is a demonstration of the incompetence of the government that it would present such an important piece of legislation in such a shoddy fashion.
The fact that we have spent this time debating it without having these amendments is a shame. What is going to happen, of course, is that these amendments are going to be presented in a new bill early in the new year and the only beneficiary of that process is going to be the publishers of income tax acts who publish them in great quantities every time the act is amended.
The bill presents many points for discussion. The most important for many Canadians, of course, is the proposal contained in it to claw back family allowance and old age security benefits. But there are other things, things that came up very briefly in correspondence received by members of the legislative committee and otherwise. I will refer to a couple of these.
We received very strong and worth-while submissions from representatives of the leasing industry on the adverse impact that provisions contained in this bill and which are proposed for regulations under the Income Tax Act will have on the leasing industry. It was pointed out to us that the government's approach to leasing as a business under the Income Thx Act is totally at variance with the way it intends to treat leasing under the new
proposed goods and services tax, an inconsistency which should not exist.
These matters could not be discussed or considered in the committee. They were out of order. For that matter, the very fact that so many important items are proposed to be changed by regulation 1100 in the Income Thx Act, instead of putting it in the act itself where it can be fully considered and debated in Parliament, is wrong in principle.
We had submissions on the government's large corporations' tax, which the government takes such pride in flaunting, which is a minor variance of the income tax system to try to ensure that at least some taxes are paid by Canada's largest corporations. Even in doing that, they could not get it right.
Representatives of the large corporations came to us and said that the tax, as proposed, unfairly benefited the revenues of foreign governments because Canadian large corporations were not going to be entitled to a foreign tax credit in foreign jurisdictions for their large corporations tax. A minor change could have corrected that, but such amendments were not in order because of the way the government had presented the bill. Foolishness and incompetence.
There is the matter of the surtaxes. Bill C-28, which should remove the surtaxes that the Minister of Finance told us were temporarily awaiting the imposition of the goods and services tax, makes them permanent.
Yesterday we were told in this House that not only are the surtaxes being made permanent, but they are being increased. This kind of lack of honesty in the presentation of financial matters to the country as we have had in the presentation of phase 1 of tax reform, followed by Bill C-28, which makes that surtax permanent instead of removing it, can only lead to the discrediting of members of Parliament on all sides and politicians in general.
The principal points to be made about Bill C-28 relate to the issues of the clawback of family allowance and old age pension benefits.
The government would have us believe and has tried to convince Canadians that what is happening in Bill C-28 is not anything to do with universality. Universality has been the basis in many ways of our social programs in this country. Universality is based on the concept that all Canadians, wherever they live, whatever their status in
December 20, 1989

life, whatever their income may happen to be, are entitled to some basic minimum level of social programs.
Today we are talking about old age pensions and about family allowances. We could equally be talking about education. We could be talking about medicare. These are things that we in Canada recognize should be for the benefit of all Canadians.
The government has recognized this in some of its own work. A consultation paper issued in January 1985 by the then Minister of National Health and Welfare stated on page 5:
The concept of universality is a keystone of our social safety net. Its integrity must not and will not be called into question.
The concept of a means test to determine eligibility for selective benefit programs is not appropriate. Eligibility for these programs, such as the child tax credit and the Guaranteed Income Supplement will continue to be determined on the basis of taxable income.
He talks further about an approach to reform in Chapter IV entitled "The Government's Current Approach to Reform" where he states:
A special surtax on Old Age Security payments to recover more of the benefit paid to upper income pensioners would seriously disrupt our retirement income system, both for current pensioners and those now planning for retirement, and would unduly penalize those most affected by reason of retirement income resulting from private savings in earlier years.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in January 1985 the Minister of National Health and Welfare had it right. He was dead right. Why the government is now reneging on this commitment to Canadians is a mystery to me. Of course, the government does not admit that it is reneging. It says that this is not touching universality. If we put the old age pension into the right pocket and then fish it out from the left, we have not affected universality. We have just taxed it back.
At least somebody over there is willing to call a spade a spade and as usual that is the hon. member for Mississauga South. He is quoted in The Ottawa Citizen on September 23, 1989, as saying this:
We have decided to eliminate universality and we do that in a sense by the clawback in both family allowance and the old age pension.
As you know, it has been a Conservative philosophy for some time that distributions from the state ought to go essentially to those in need. While the clawback may be unfair and sneaky, it is there.
Government Orders
At least he tells the truth.
If we are going to change that principle of universality, at the very least Canadians should be able to participate in a discussion of the policy underlying it. Surely if we have had the principle of universality for many years in our country and we set about changing it, we ought to do it through a consultative process and not as part as a budget bill.
This point has been made by the Canadian Council on Social Development and others who have looked at this and said that surely we should have a discussion in Canada on universality. The time has come. Instead of doing that, this change is put in sneakily through the back door, through an amendment to the Income Thx Act, without hearing Canadians across the country on the issue that it is raising. Here we are under time allocation being forced, as a gift to our seniors and to our families in Canada, to see the adoption of this retrograde measure without full debate and consultation with Canadians.
The process that was started in January 1985 by the government across the way is one that should have been followed and should have been applied. This consultation paper ought to have resulted in a thorough study of the principle of universality so that Canadians could say what they thought. It is an important principle. It is important for a number of reasons.
It is important because of the nature of the programs that we have in Canada. Surely we do not want to move to a system where our social programs are only targeted to the poor because then they become poor people's programs. If we have a system of health care for the poor, the rich will buy the good health care and the poor will have what is left. If we have an educational system that is for the poor, then the rich will pay for a good education and the poor will get what is left.
When we start to whittle away at universality, where we end up is a system where our social programs are only for the poor because they are the only ones that have to accept them and the wealthy can buy what they want. Universality is also a reflection of the collective responsibility that a society assumes for its members. Old Age Security and family allowances are not meant to be transfers from the rich to the poor. They are meant to be transfers to those who are working and to those who are retired. They are meant to be transfers from those

December 20, 1989
Government Orders
without families to those with families. They recognize the fact that our collective needs must be taken care of by everyone in Canada.
What many seniors find most objectionable about the clawback of the old age pension is the fact that this is something they feel they paid for over the years. I have gone back in Hansard to see what was being said in this Chamber in the years in which the old age pension was being implemented. In Hansard on October 25, 1951 the Minister of Finance, when talking about the legislation that created the old age pension for the first time as something that could be paid without a means test, stated::
The legislation to be introduced will establish-a special fund to be called the old age security fund. Pensions will be charged to this fund and the revenue from certain taxes will be credited to it. The taxes in question will be specifically levied in the old age security legislation rather than in the ordinary revenue acts which authorize the raising of funds for general governmental purposes.
Perhaps it would be useful in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding if a few words were said about the basic principles on which the Canadian plan as set up will operate. It has been described as a universal pay-as-you-go system as distinct from old age assistance such as we now have, or from a system of old age insurance such as has been adopted by some other countries. The plan here proposed has also been described as a contributory system in the very real sense that certain special taxes are to be imposed and earmarked to support the fund.
That is the principle upon which the old age pensions were established.
In 1971, when it was proposed to simplify the income tax system and eliminate the special old age security tax, the concerns about whether this would lead to the end of universality were expressed very eloquently by a number of members at the time. For example, the then member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Hon. Stanley Knowles said in the House on December 20, 1971, and by coincidence, today is the anniversary of that date:
There are one or two further points I should like to make. The minister states he has no intention of getting away from the present practice. I wish he would confirm the statements which have been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the right of entitlement, which has been based on the taxes the way they were, still hold? The Minister of National Health and Welfare has declared
that it was because the taxes were earmarked there was a right which people could assert. Will that still hold?
The then Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, responded:
The right is given to the pensioner by Parliament. The only way of changing this would be for the government to amend the Old Age Security Act in order to change the amount paid to people. I can assure the hon. member that we have no intention of changing the universality of the basic pension.
Here we are, 18 years later, faced with this legislation with time allocation ending that right of senior citizens.
The 1971 T1 General Tax Guide, at page 17 states:
(3) Old Age Security 'Ihx-All taxpayers whose "Taxable Income" is over $500 are subject to the Old Age Security Thx. The tax is 4 percent of "Taxable Income"-maximum $240.
These people have bought and paid for their old age pensions. They do not deserve to be treated as they are by this government having them clawed back, taxed back, whatever their income level is. This tax is a discriminatory tax, a tax based on age. No other group in this country is going to be asked to pay a tax rate of 100 per cent on any kind of income, but the seniors of this country who bought and paid for their old age pensions are being asked to pay a tax rate of 100 per cent of their old age security, if they are in the category that it applies to, and it is totally unfair.
There are other problems with it. The superannuates came to the committee and they reminded us of how they had negotiated in good faith with the government of the day the amendment of the provisions of the Superannuation Act for federal public servants at the time that the Canada Pension Plan was being introduced. They told us of the discussions that went on at that time when they were promised that their old age pensions would not be affected. For that reason, they agreed with the integration of their superannuation benefits with the Canada Pension Plan.
Is this government offering to go to the federal superannuates, to the unions that represent them today and renegotiate the superannuation so that it could be done on the terms on which it was introduced those years ago? I think not, regretfully.
We heard about those who benefit from defined benefit pension plans whose pension plans provide that the amount they receive will be reduced by the amount of their old age pension. What this ridiculous clawback system, which is a badly disguised version of an assault on universality, says to those people is: "First you get your
December 20, 1989

pension, reduced by the old age pension because you get that as well, but then we are going to tax back the old age pension. Sorry, but your pension plan does not provide for your defined benefit plan to come back into full operation."
Therefore, those people are clawed back twice. The government did not really have time to think about any of those problems. They did not even want to hear about them. They did not even want witnesses to come to the committee to talk about it. When they did talk about it, they could not fix it because of the incompetent way in which they had presented the bill. Then some of them have the incredible audacity to come into the House of Commons and try to tell us that the seniors really don't mind. The seniors don't mind.
They do mind. I have in front of me a number of press releases and other items issued by groups like One Voice Seniors' Network where they talk about how their views were represented to the people of Canada.
On May 16,1989, One Voice Seniors' Network released a statement which stated:
Seniors Deplore Ministers' Remarks
Monique Vezina, federal Minister of State for Seniors, raised the ire of the powerful seniors' movement with comments she made last week concerning their reactions to Michael Wilson's budget.
"We don't appreciate having our views taken out of context and distorted to suit the government's public relations machine," said Jean Woodsworth, President of One Voice -
That rebuke was not enough. Earlier this month in this House the Minister of Finance tried to suggest that One Voice Seniors' Network supported the clawback. Again, One Voice had to issue a press release dated December 6, 1989:
Seniors were appalled yesterday to see their words twisted to support the government's controversial clawback legislation. Jean Woodsworth, President of One Voice, the Canadian Seniors Network, claims that their pre-budget brief is being used against Canadians in an underhanded way.
"Mr. Wilson invited us to consult on the budget while it was in preparation. At that meeting, he specifically promised us he promised us he would not touch universal social programs, but then he went ahead and proposed this awful clawback. That was a real betrayal. But now he's taking our own words out of the context of our brief to make it look as though we agree with the clawback. This simply is not what we
Government Orders
said. Mr. Wilson has aggravated the anger and mistrust seniors are already feeling".
This was raised in the House of Commons, and a response was made by the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs. He had to receive a letter then from One Voice Seniors' Network. This is what they said to him:
Your reference to our organization and to my supposed comments in particular as supporting the clawback have created a mistaken impression in the House.
That had to be raised and the minister confronted with it. Mrs. Woodsworth had the following to say:
It has been the consistent position of One Voice that the clawback is a serious threat to universality of Canada's social benefit programs, and we have never supported the measure. I know that I personally never made such a comment.
We have contacted the Economic Council of Canada and they have been unable to locate any report which makes a reference to the clawback or the $50,000 threshold.
What concerns us more is that the clawback was not announced until the budget was released in April. We wonder how discussion of the clawback or the $50,000 threshold could have taken place in February before it had been announced in April.
That is what this government has been doing to distort the words of seniors, and they will not even listen to these people. That is why they closed the hearings on universality and on the clawback.
I would like to suggest that we have been listening. We, on this side of the House of Commons, have been listening and we have been hearing a lot. I have heard members on the other side say in this House that nobody out there was concerned. I cannot believe that they are not getting some of these same letters.
The following letter comes from one of my constituents, Normand Anctil who states:
I retired from the Public Service last month after over 31 years of service in the public sector including over 24 years in the Navy. I have been working hard and looking forward to this time in life for many a year.
Throughout my service I have accumulated some savings in the form of RRSPs which coupled with my superannuation, CPP, OAS and good health I felt would provide me with the means to live with dignity, independence and a good quality of life.
But, what do I see on the horizon? More increases in taxes and the one thing I have been paying for during my service to my country, in fact during all of my working life, the one thing I considered as part of

December 20, 1989
Government Orders
my security for the future, "My"-YES -"My" -Old Age Security benefits are jeopardized. The OAS is mine, I paid for it, I count on it, it is part of my rights and the government is stealing it from me.
Another constituent, Mr. Lloyd from Featherstone Drive in Ottawa wrote and stated:
- as a retired senior and as a veteran who served with Bomber Command during the Second World War, I am appalled by the threatened attack by Mr. Wilson on the financial stability of my retirement years by his planned tax-back proposals on our old age pensions.
Although not a wealthy individual by any means, I do receive in addition to my OAS and CPP a superannuation for 27 years of Air Force service-and I can already envisage that eventually the cut-off level for pay-back will reach me, as it is not fully indexed to inflation -
Mr. Hibbard from Fox Run Lane, and Captain Small who lives on Willowdale Avenue have written. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have seen some of these letters yourself, again and again, people feeling that they have been attacked unfairly. This one was received by my colleague, the hon. member from Belleville and Picton, from Mr. Cundy, at "Leeside Retreat", Sheba Island, Picton, who stated:
I feel that I have been betrayed by the Finance Minister, Michael Wilson and would like to convey to you my utmost disgust. I look back at the time his so-called leader Brian Mulroney lied to his own mother, stating on national television that seniors would never have their social benefits touched while he was in power. How despicable. How despicable can a son be.
It took me over 40 years to achieve my retirement aims. To establish a good pension, I worked hard and turned my back on many tempting luxurious items. At the same time I paid many thousands of dollars in taxes which I assumed would have a bearing on my old age pension.
Now, on the eve of Bill C-28 being passed, I will have all of my old age pension taxed back.
Over the years, my family have voted Conservative, however, I can assure you that we will all turn to Liberal at any future election.
At least there is some good news in this.
I do not want to miss the opportunity to speak a bit about the family allowance as well and still afford some time for my colleagues to speak.
The family allowance is a different matter in a sense in that it in no way has been a contributory scheme and no one receiving family allowance disputes the fact that they receive it out of the consolidated revenue fund and have not paid for it.
What is of concern is the fact that over the years of this government being in office the tax burden has more and more been imposed on families in Canada. According to the Canadian Council on Social Development the net tax increase-and this does not take into account the goods and services tax, nor does it take into account the clawback-for a one-income family with two children, those at the poverty line of $23,639 since 1984 has been 61.3 per cent; for the average income at roughly the $45,000 level, an increase of 29.3 per cent; for the upper income of $100,000, a net tax increase of 7.7 per cent. It is clear that there has been a shift in the burden of taxes to families.
The Vanier Institute on the Family wrote to the legislative committee on Bill C-28. Even this prestigious organization was denied the opportunity to speak before the legislative committee on these important measures. It wrote to the committee and pointed out that the burden has been shifted more and more to families.
The government party in election campaigns certainly in my area made much of family values. The Conservatives talked about family values, but when the rubber hits the road, when it comes to dealing with support for families, that is where they look to cut. That is where they look to hurt people.
I do not think anyone can satisfactorily explain to me why in imposing the clawback on family allowances the government refused to index the threshold fully. No one on that side has been able to explain to me why the clawback is to be calculated on an individual's income and not on family income. Two individuals with children who have a combined income of as much as $99,000 will not face the clawback, whereas the single income earner supporting children will face the clawback starting at $50,000.
Furthermore, what do members of the government propose to do with the savings it will gain from the clawback? They do not propose to use them for social programs to redirect them to low income people. They propose to add them to government revenue so that they can waste them, spend them. That is what they propose to do with them, and the Vanier Institute points out the difficulty that will be felt by families across Canada and the failure of this government to make adequate social policy provision for support for families at whatever level of income.
December 20, 1989

What concerns me most of all-and I wish to give others an opportunity to speak-about this bill is the essential dishonesty that underlies it: dishonesty in presenting a change in social policy, the most important in a generation in the context of an income tax bill where it cannot be debated or discussed as it should be; dishonesty because it represents as complete turnaround by a government that went forward in the election campaign and promised not to touch social programs.
The Prime Minister stood on an election platform and asked in the company of his mother whether anyone would believe that he would cut benefits to her. The Prime Minister stood up in one of the hardest hit areas of our country in Nova Scotia and said that as long as he is Prime Minister benefits for the elderly would not be reduced but would be improved. The essential dishonesty has to cause revulsion in Canadians across the country, and it has to cause them to think of all of us. Who can we believe when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance can glibly make promises like that and within a few short months of being re-elected turn their backs on them and tear them up? Who can we believe?
This is a sad day for Canada. This is the day that universality ends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I promised my colleague from the Liberal party some time at the end. I was hoping that the time allotment would be shared somewhat more equally, but I guess those are the breaks of the political scene.
I should comment on the amendments at first, the 125 that my colleague has mentioned. I have good reason to believe after some searching that there are consequential amendments included in these government amendments to the bill which indicate indeed that the bill is flawed with the amendments and without the amendments.
The government should have done the honourable thing and brought back the bill in the new year with the appropriate amendments. They are consequential. There is something really unusual going on behind the scenes with these amendments. As has been indicated to
Government Orders
me, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. This is unprecedented. I cannot find any precedents for this kind of action having taken place. It is indeed sad. There is something seriously wrong within the system. Perhaps it will be addressed once again in the new year.
This is the final discussion on clawback, Bill C-28, the end of universality, a concept of caring, something with which our country identifies, a watershed of social policy. The government has changed the watershed. Social policy has been swept away. It is a sad day for Canada. This is a debate that has focused on clawback, seniors, family allowances, and $50,000 thresholds.
Every once in a while when I am looking for enjoyable reading I turn to one of my books written by the hon. Prime Minister before he was Prime Minister. I understand that that is a big mistake. Never write a book until you are finished your political career; never before. I quote the Prime Minister:
When I look at Canada today, there is nothing I see that is more painful to me, as a citizen of one of the most blessed nations on earth, than the continual fighting and bitching that is going on among and between just about every major group in our society.
I will skip a few lines:
It is a continuous fight card in which it is difficult to find winners and easy to identify the loser-Canada itself. It seems the phrase "the common good" has been struck from our vocabulary.
That is what universality is all about. The common good has been struck. How prophetic the Prime Minister was. He was ahead of his time.
He has been the author of the end of universality and this will breed cynicism among Canadians. I received a call not two hours ago from a constituent saying: "I just do not believe this. I don't think we want to participate any more in the system simply because if we are going to contribute and not receive, why participate?" We have been saying this all along. Canadians will begin to become very cynical and say: "If we cannot participate in the end, then why participate during the process?"
As to the consultative process of the government and the committee, it is well-known now. It has been well documented. There was consultation beforehand, but not consultation during the process at first and second readings, report stage and third reading. I will not repeat what my hon. colleague said, but I would like to read from the consultation paper dated January 1985, specifically the third point found at page 6 which states: "Any

December 20, 1989
Government Orders
savings which may result from program changes will not be applied to reduction of the deficit".
That is exactly what the government has proffered as the reason for this movement. "We can reduce the deficit with these $300 million that we will realize". One can read all through this consultation paper and see that the whole thing has been scrapped. Once again, Canadians will become cynical and say: "Why consult us, because you will not listen anyway? You have betrayed seniors. You have betrayed young families across this country. You have betrayed all Canadians in the country". '
This country is fragmented, fractured into winners and losers. Acrimony has never been at a higher level. We are becoming leaner and meaner. We are emulating our American neighbours. We are harmonizing not only our laws but our social programs. We are going to become less caring for one another. We are overrun with the big devouring the little. We see our national dreams fading.
The sad part of it is that it is part of an over-all agenda. I think a lot of members do not understand that there is an agenda in place because they do not feel that they are active participants. By their passiveness they are participating in the end of Canada as we know it.
The spectre of free trade hangs over our heads on each and every day. Even members of our party and I sometimes say: "Well, let's not mention it because they will bring out the old sparrow routine". Every sparrow that falls will be blamed on free trade. I am suggesting we are not talking about sparrows, although I am sure the government could care less about sparrows. This is about people.
The suggestion was that if I were to vote for free trade the jobs in my community would be preserved. The biggest employer said that as part of the over-all agenda. They got the free trade and they are being laid off with great regularity.
The Americans talk about free trade and protectionism. They said: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". That is what they told me when a group of us went to Washington. "You people keep quiet in Canada. You have got all you are going to get from us".
With respect to social programs there is no secret. We have to harmonize, they suggest, but the better word is compromise. This government is compromising us to our knees, be it in terms of UI, GST or universality. It is part of a much larger agenda. If any of the members really cared, they would have accepted just one of those amendments that we proposed yesterday, the one that would tie the $50,000 threshold to inflation, but they totally ignored that.
The reality of what they are after here is to get their foot in the front door. Just give them a little leverage and they will continue to attack social programs. They did not dare make it a frontal attack because they would not get away with it. It is an around about approach.
I want to wrap up so as to allow my colleague from Windsor to finish up. The opposition to this bill is growing by leaps and bounds each and every day. It is most unfortunate that probably much of the opposition will not be recognized or heard.
As far as the level of threshold, the Minister of Finance says that it will be reviewed periodically and adjusted as appropriate. We do not believe that for a moment. It will not be monitored. It will not be adjusted. If it is monitored and adjusted the same way the free trade agreement is monitored and adjusted, we do not want it. It is not a monitoring process at all.
I will end by again reading from the government's consultative book with a chronology of social programs and in particular old age security programs. It is a glowing report starting in 1927 with the introduction of the old age Pensions Act which provided for cost sharing with the provinces of a means tested pension for residents of Canada 70 years old or over. It was improved in 1948,1951,1966,1967, 1971 and 1972. The improvements continued in 1978, 1979, 1985 and 1989. That is where it ends.
This has not been written in the book yet but I think the epitaph should be written and will be written. It will state: "1989: The day universality in this country was removed by the Conservative government".


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are coming to the end of a debate that has been all too short, in view of the way the government has intended to make
December 20, 1989

fundamental changes to the social security system of the country.
Surely a debate of this importance should not have been brought to this abrupt conclusion by the imposition of time allocation by this Conservative government. The fact that this has been done by this government shows a fundamental lack of confidence by it in the validity of its ideas which underlie the proposal in this bill to claw back the old age pension and the family allowance from increasing numbers of Canadians.
In a few minutes the House will be compelled to vote on third reading of the legislation. I call upon the Conservative members to give serious thought to the implications of voting for this measure, to search their hearts and consciences and to decide, at least this once, not to vote with their party.
If Conservative members do not want to listen to me, perhaps they will at least listen to their own Prime Minister who said on November 8, 1988 in Sydney, Nova Scotia:
As long as I am Prime Minister, social programs, especially those for the elderly will be improved, not diminished.
If Conservative members do not want to listen to me, I hope they will listen to the words of their own government in its consultative document. In it, in the case of seniors, according to the National Council on Welfare the federal government publicly rejected the idea of a clawback or surtax on old age pensions as late as January 1985 on the grounds that it would, and I quote:
-seriously disrupt the retirement income system -the clawback changes the rules of the game without their consent. The elderly have already paid for their old age pensions through a lifetime of paying income taxes.
Earlier today I tabled the first of a large number of petitions from The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. This group represents some 500,000 retired Canadians. These petitions state:
WHEREAS the federal government in its April budget, has proposed to tax back Old Age Security and Family Allowance benefits in part or in their entirety, depending on the recipient's income, and
WHEREAS this tax, in the opinion of your petitioners, would undermine the principle of universality of Canada's social programs
Government Orders
and will, as a result, create a potential threat to the income of future pensioners,
WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to abandon this proposed measure,
Again I say to Conservative members: if you are not going to listen to me or members of my party or members of the party of the spokesman for the NDP who has just had the floor, at least listen to the voice of 500,000 retired Canadians from one end of the country to the other. Their president, Les Batterson of Windsor, in a letter to the Prime Minister on June 23 wrote:
- our position is that the tax back is age biased, grossly inequitable and has serious implications with regard to universality.
We view this proposal as a serious breach of faith by our government and an insidious effort to undercut the Social Security Programs that you have on numerous times stated are a sacred trust.
The number of people represented by The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation demonstrates that opposition to this measure is not simply opposition on behalf of a relatively small number of well-off Canadians. The number is going to grow to millions because of the lack of indexing of the $50,000 threshold.
I regret that the choking off of debate by the Conservative government means that I must end now by once again by making a fervent plea to the hearts and consciences of the Conservative members to ask them to vote against this measure to protect the interests of senior citizens and of people with families.
Please, I ask the Conservatives, have some feeling for the families and the seniors of this country. If you do not, they will not forget you in the next election and you will not be back again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to Order made Monday, December 18, 1989, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

December 20,1989
Government Orders


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


POINT OF ORDER
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 108. I will be very brief.



December 20, 1989

My point of order is to the effect that the Standing Committee on Finance this afternoon passed a resolution:
That a subcommittee of five members be struck to conduct an
inquiry and hold hearings early in 1990 into the question of
government spending and measures to control its growth.
I humbly submit that this action by the Standing Committee on Finance is ultra vires its mandate and I would respectfully request direction from the Chair with respect to this matter.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I think I am obliged to deal with the matter. The hon. member has raised a point which is certainly of interest and it goes to whether or not the sub-committee which the committee has appointed today has embarked on a study of something which is beyond the mandate of the committee.
That is an interesting point but I have to come back to what I have had to say in the past. It is that the committee is the master of its own affairs and I think the hon. member will have to refer back to the committee to deal with it. If the committee should deal with the matter in such a way that it was appropriate that it be brought back to the House as a question of the committee, that is something else again, but at the moment the matter is in the committee's hands.
I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. [Translation]


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there was agreement among members of all parties earlier this afternoon that it would be appropriate for the three parties in this House
Statements by Ministers
to have an opportunity to express their position on the events in Panama.
I have the honour to present a ministerial statement which is a little untraditional. I apologize for not having circulated advance copies to my hon. colleagues in the House but they will understand the circumstances that prevented that.
I thought I would try to do three things. First, report upon the situation in Panama as we know it at this stage; second, review the chain of events which led to the American decision last night; third, present to the House some observations about Panama. That includes the possibility of developing a stable, democratic system in that country, a country and a region which, with less drama than we see in eastern Europe, is setting a remarkable example of democracy and of economic courage. It is important that parliamentarians in this House and countries like Canada help Panama assume its rightful place in that invaluable process.
First I will deal with the situation in Panama as we know it. The House will perhaps know that there are 131 Canadians who are registered as resident in Panama. Some of those are Canadians of dual nationality. We have been in touch, or sought to be in touch, with all of them by telephone, either through our honorary consul in Panama City or through the embassy headquartered in Costa Rica. To the best of our knowledge and our most recent consultations all Canadians are safe. None is in danger.
An official of the embassy based in Costa Rica will be going in to Panama as soon as conditions allow that to be done effectively. Fighting is falling off in Panama City, although there has unhappily been an outbreak of looting now. Perhaps that is a natural consequence of the kind of disorder that can arise in those circumstances. Forces loyal to General Noriega have moved into the countryside. Noriega himself has not been captured.
If there are further developments I will try to have them brought to the attention of members who are interested or will establish a system over the period of the recess in which either members of Parliament or certainly Canadians who have family or interests in Panama will be able to be kept informed.
[Stage Direction]
As a founding member and signatory of the United Nations Charter and as a recent signatory of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Canada fully
[Stage Direction]
December 20, 1989
Statements by Ministers
and unreservedly subscribes to the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States. The use of force is clearly a very serious matter. The Canadian government has already clearly expressed its regrets with respect to the U.S. intervention in Panama. However, we must not forget the pressing reasons that forced President Bush to authorize the intervention of U.S. troops.
Over the past two years the world has been witness to one of the most systematic betrayals on record. It is a betrayal in Panama of those democratic values which we hold dear in this House and, indeed, which are respected by most of our neighbours in Latin America and in the Caribbean. Even before that, the governments of Presidents Barletta and Del Valle were very much subject to the whims of General Noriega as commander-in-chief of the Panamanian Defence Force.
Canada has not traditionally maintained the most cordial relations with those successive regimes, which we regarded as being democratic in name only, but we were able to carry on correct business-like relations with them based on mutual interest. In 1987, when General Noriega was indicted by an American court on narcotics trafficking charges and the United States imposed an economic embargo, we did not follow suit.
When the May 1989 elections were called, we held out some hope that the Panamanian people would be permitted to express their democratic will at the polls. When, however, it became obvious that those elections were going decisively against Noriega's chosen candidate, the regime abruptly had the process declared void.
Canada condemned that denial of free elections. All of us were shocked by the images of the violent public beatings of the leaders whom the people of Panama had chosen to govern them. It was a temptation then to respond with violence. That temptation was strong and outspoken among some in the United States. It was resisted, it was resisted everywhere including, principally and most importantly, by the United States administration.
Various efforts were launched to achieve a peaceful solution to this very difficult problem. Some of them were bilateral, some of them were individual efforts by
leaders of other countries. One of the most important was through the Organization of American States. On July 20 of this year, the Organization of American States passed a formal resolution which called for a transfer of power, taking effect on September 1 this year, from the Noriega regime to the people who had been elected in the May elections.
The OAS also launched a diplomatic mission headed by the foreign ministers of three of its member countries who travelled extensively and worked hard to try to find a peaceful way in which this transfer of power could be achieved. What is lamentable, but evident, is that that peaceful solution did not work.
There was, as we all know, recently an aborted coup. In the past week there have been developments that were particularly alarming, would be to anyone in this House and were to many of us, including the statement by General Noriega that Panama is in a "state of war" to us his words, with the United States.
That declaration unilaterally by General Noriega was followed by harassment of Americans stationed, by treaty, in Panama. Indeed, it was followed by the murder of an off-duty member of the American services and threats to the family of that individual.
It is important here, Sir, to emphasize two facts which distinguish the situation in Panama from that which might exist in other parts of the world. One of those facts is that the United States presence there is a result of a treaty. It is not a presence that is the result of an occupation. It is not a presence that is the result of an uninvited presence by the United States in that country. The American troops are there as the result of a legal agreement. They are there as the result of an international treaty. They have a right to be there and they have a right to be protected while they are there. That is one distinguishing factor and feature about the situation in Panama today.
A second fact that I want to underline is that peaceful solutions had been sought and peaceful solutions had failed. In fact, what was remarkable for so long was the willingness of the Bush administration to put its faith in mediation, to put its faith in negotiation, to put its faith in peaceful processes. The response to that was the declaration by General Noriega, unilaterally, of a state of war. The response to that was the murder of an off-duty American stationed there. The response to that
December 20,1989
[Stage Direction]
was threats to Americans who had a right to be there and who had a right to be protected while they were there.
The Government of Canada today, in my name, issued a statement that made essentially two points. The first is that the government regrets the use of force by the U.S. in Panama, but understands and is sympathetic to the American action in the circumstances, particularly given the legitimate American concern over the escalating threats to American citizens in Panama. People have a right to be there and had a right to be protected.
Second, we made the point very clearly that intervention by force is a dangerous precedent and we note that the United States relied on force only in the last resort, only after the failure of attempts to resolve the situation in Panama peacefully.
The question is: What now? What now occurs? What now should be done? I want to mention three things that I think should be on our minds as we try to look forward. One is that we have to work and use all of the influence and standing of Canada to ensure that intervention not become a precedent. There were unique factors here and if they can justify actions that were taken early this morning by the United States, it is the uniqueness that justifies them. There is not a precedent established here that this Parliament or this country would approve in other circumstances.
I think that, Sir, is a particularly important assurance to be given to the people and to the Government of Nicaragua, where elections are imminent and where every effort must continue to make those elections free and make those elections fair.
Second, we believe it is important that we help the government that was elected in May in Panama to establish stability and democracy in that country. That was the theme, I can tell members of the House, in many of the consultations I had today by telephone with Latin leaders of the Organization of American States. They are interested in taking advantage of the opportunity that has been created now to try to sink some of the roots of stability and a democracy that will be important if Panama is to assume its place of significance in a region where those qualities have come to be more evident and more valued.
Statements by Ministers
We intend to send a team of Canadian officials to Panama as soon as that would be productive to see if there are specific ways in which Canada can contribute to that process.
Third, I think there is a lesson here of the real need to strengthen the regional institutions in Latin America, particularly in Central America. It is clear that the Organization of American States, despite its efforts, did not work in Panama. They were not able to achieve the peaceful solution that they sought and that others sought.
But I think it important to note that the OAS made a serious attempt to succeed and that, Mr. Speaker, was a change in itself. It demonstrates a new resolution among members of the Organization of American States that Canada can push forward and, in our judgment, must push forward.
The point to underline, Sir, is that Central America is not anybody's backyard. Central America consists of sovereign countries, with ambitions of their own, histories of their own, qualities of their own. It is a region which is remarkable for the will that has been demonstrated by its leadership, particularly in the last two and three years, the will to work together and the will to work together against quite extraordinary odds, including the pull of their own history in that region.
Traditionalists have asked, why would Canada want to focus on Central America, why would we be in the Organization of American States, why would we play the active role that we are in ONUCA, the United Nations Peacekeeping and Verification Agency, that is playing a potentially critical role in the region, why would we maintain our aid and development assisted relations with the five countries involved in the Esquipulas arrangement? We do that, Sir, because Central America and Latin America as a whole are changing, changing by their own will.
Carlos Andres Perez, the President of Venezuela, repeated again to me this morning when I spoke to him to talk about the events in Panama, his profound belief that Canada has a crucial role to play in that region, both because of who we are and because of who we are not. The role, in his judgment, can be critical if the institutions and the instinct to reform that had been evident there are to become as effective as they can be.
[Stage Direction]
December 20, 1989
Statements by Ministers
We have a role to play in helping to prevent Noriegas. We have a role to play in helping to provide alternatives to intervention because our presence can strengthen initiatives and institutions like the Organization of American States.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In a calmer part of the Question Period today, I had the opportunity to say to my friend from Winnipeg Transcona that I think it is time for all of us to engage in some new thinking about international events, and I meant that. I think he shares that view, as do others in the House. That means that we have to move away from stereotypes, whether those stereotypes are about the Americans and their motivations or whether they are about proud countries which we cannot dismiss simply because they are small.
For anyone interested in the future of Central America, interested in the principles of democracy, this has been a hard day for anyone concerned about this hemisphere. It involves a situation which we in the government believe is unique. We think, Sir, that we Canadians have a responsibility to make the most of the new situation which has been created by events in Panama, and that is the intent of this government.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, when a country holds an election and its leader is chosen by the will of the people, that leader must be recognized and respected as the people's choice because that leader was elected by the most powerful authority, the authority of the secret ballot. Unfortunately, General Noriega refused to acknowledge the results of the democratic elections and the direction in which they were going in Panama this past May.
Our party did not recognize General Noriega as the leader of the Panama and we supported any international efforts toward a peaceful transition from a dictatorship to a democratically elected government.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned in his comments that efforts were made through the OAS toward a peaceful resolution to this problem and we applaud those attempts. I think this perhaps highlights why our Prime Minister should not have rushed into joining the Organization of American States. Maybe we should have listened to the Canadians who put more stringent conditions on becoming a member of the OAS,
because when one member of OAS attacks another member of OAS without consulting with its members, what is the point of having such an organization?
Canada's foreign policy must be based on certain principles. One of those is upholding the principles of the United Nations charter, especially the article of non-intervention. No country has the right to change circumstances internal to another country by military force without the consent of that country.
Guided by this principle, we expressed our strong disapproval of the United States invasion of Grenada in 1983. The Prime Minister of the day, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in response to a question posed by the then Leader of the Opposition, underscored a very important question which I wish to highlight with a quote from Hansard of October 25, 1983. The Prime Minister of the day then said:
The United States was certainly entitled to attempt to protect those nationals. Whether it used the only available means and the proper means to protect them is something that we do not know the answer to, because we are not in possession of the facts.
Did the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs obtain facts to determine whether this invasion was the only means to protect the American nationals? Had President Bush called our Prime Minister before the invasion, the Prime Minister would have every right to ask as a member of OAS whether the United States used the only means and the proper means to protect American nationalists in Panama.
Did the killing of one soldier warrant killing dozens of others? We hope that in the future, the President of the United States will consult with its closest neighbour and ally prior to taking drastic action rather than placing a call after the fact.
In the Grenada situation, Canada was allowed to evacuate our nationalists. In the Panama invasion, our neighbour did not give us that courtesy. In his comments today the Secretary of State said that intervention by force is a dangerous precedent, and we note that the United States of America relied on force in the last resort. We on this side of the House agree with the right hon. member's statement. The question that analysts and historians will want to answer is, was this the last resort.
December 20, 1989

The Secretary of State quotes President Bush as having said that the United States had to ensure the safety of the Americans in Panama. That is not grounds for us to justify or condemn the action. Were there other ways of ensuring the safety of the Americans other than by invasion?
Again I quote the former Prime Minister of Canada from Hansard of October 25, 1983, when he says:
I do not know why invasion was necessary. The Leader of the Opposition goes on to quote President Reagan as saying that the invasion was also intended to maintain the democratic system. The Leader of the Opposition said that should suffice for me. Obviously it is sufficient for him. I would ask him what would happen if the United States gave itself authority to invade any country where the democratic system did not exist?
The Secretary of State said that the Latin American countries are no one's back yard. Congratulations for making that statement in this House.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State, considering that Nicaragua now has its troops on full alert, what will his response be if tomorrow morning the United States decides to move into Nicaragua's back yard?
Unless the United States provides information which will demonstrate that this invasion was necessary to protect the safety of American nationals and unless there was no other means of doing it, then the intervention would seem unjustified. Let us remember that prior to the invasion, the United States had 12,000 troops in Panama. Could 12,000 troops not protect themselves and other American nationals?
I go back to the comments I made earlier in this House today and I call upon the government to use our membership in the Security Council, use our membership in the OAS to categorically state to our American friends that we cannot and will not support any violation of the principle of non-invasion, as the Secretary of State himself said, so that this incident is not precedentsetting.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day when I thought that the Secretary of State for External Affairs might not be making a statement in the House, we filed for an emergency debate. It was on the basis of an understanding reached between the parties that the minister would be able to make the
Statements by Ministers
statement he just made that we withdrew that request for an emergency debate.
I am glad that we had an opportunity to push the House toward an occasion like this one in which the minister was able to give the government's view and we are able to say what we have to say about the situation in Panama.
I would like to begin by referring to the language of precedent. This could be a dangerous precedent. The problem, as we see it from our side of the House, is not that this is a precedent-never mind a dangerous precedent-but that it is more of a continuation of a way of relating to Latin America that the United States has had since the establishment of the Munro doctrine in 1823. Since then there have been many precedents, almost all of them dangerous, of American action in Central and Latin America. It is to this American tradition of intervention in Central America that we feel compelled to address ourselves in this situation.
Despite its arguable uniqueness, it has a lot in common with many other American actions in that area of the world. Of course every situation has its uniqueness, but there is a thread which runs through all of them, that is the persistent view held in Washington that when push comes to shove, when the United States cannot get its way and if it feels that it can be militarily successful, this is an option which it reserves to itself and which it expects its allies if not to approve of at least not to condemn.
Over the years it has been a problem, it seems to me, for Canada and for many other allies of the United States and NATO in other ways, that this expectation to be allied with the United States in one context is to be expected to approve of its actions in every other context, and this has brought discredit on a great many multilateral institutions, this American expectation.
The minister started out by saying that Canada supports non-intervention. You either support non-intervention or you do not support non-intervention. You cannot just support non-intervention and then when the United States decides that, in its judgment, the time has now come to violate this provision of the UN Charter and other accepted norms of international law that Canada will respect that judgment. I do not know if I would approve, but I would certainly have felt much better if the United States had sought the opinion of the

December 20, 1989
Statements by Ministers
international community or the United Nations or someone else as to what should be done about this situation.
The fact of the matter is that we do not have a mechanism in the world for dealing with the existence of corrupt and undemocratic regimes. We need that kind of mechanism and we are not going to get that kind of mechanism until we have a reform of the mandate and the authority of the United Nations, which is something that Canada should be seeking, to get over this problem that presents an opportunity for superpowers to act in the way that the United States has just acted. It is not the right way to deal with these problems, to have the United States or, for that matter, any other superpower decide that they shall take the law into their own hands, which is exactly what the United States has done here. They have taken unto themselves the right to break international law when they so judge.
If we are trying to move to a world where we operate with any sort of genuine sense of international law, these kinds of things are more dangerous for that notion than they are for anything else. That is why so many of us over here are offended by it. We are not offended that General Noriega is no longer in power in Panama. We have had no use for General Noriega or his regime, or for that matter many other regimes that have existed down through the years in Central and Latin America. We have a record of opposing and being critical of those regimes which is second to none in this House. It strains credibility, frankly, for Conservative back-benchers today and indeed for the minister, unfortunately, to suggest somehow that because we have questioned the American action in this case, we are supporters of Noriega or this sort of thing. I would put the New Democratic Party's record of opposing undemocratic military dictatorships up against the record of the Conservative government, or for that matter, Liberal governments, any day of the week. We have nothing to apologize for.
I think it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said something with respect to some tinpot dictator somewhere that the United States was supporting. In answer to one of his advisers who said that this guy was a real son of a bitch, FDR replied: "Well, he may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch".
What happened in Panama was that there was a son of a bitch who decided that he was his own man. This was not part of the plan. This has not been part part of the American plan for many years.
Did we hear whining and see crocodile tears about democracy in Panama for the 20 years of the military regime that preceded the elections that everyone is so concerned about now? Did we hear anything about that? Did we hear whining and see crocodile tears about democracy when the Somosa regime was in power for decades in Nicaragua? Did we hear about Duvalier in Haiti? The list goes on and on of military dictatorships which the United States has actively supported through military and economic aid and political comfort for many years.
That is the problem with this invasion. It is not that General Noriega has been removed from power. It is that we are asked to believe that the United States is acting out of some high morality in doing this. It is the rhetoric that surrounds the event which is as offensive as anything else.
What is truly offensive or disappointing, I guess, is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not seem to have a sceptical bone in his body about this. Perhaps he should have given just the slightest hint that maybe he does not believe everything that he is told and that maybe the United States does not have a record in Central America that deserves the kind of credibility which he has given it by his comments on this action.
The minister said that we need to have new thinking. I agree. I do not think that we can always be captive to historical events. It is not always a question of trying to assign blame for things that happened a long time ago. You give that up when you feel that the people who have been part of that history have changed their thinking. You do not just give it up for the sake of having a new thought. You give it up when you think that the people who have a record of acting in a certain way have changed their behaviour.
Frankly, it is very difficult for us here and for a great many Canadians to think that the Americans have changed their way of thinking about Central America when we have been treated over the last little while to American indifference to human rights violations in El Salvador, for instance.
December 20, 1989

Just today we tabled in this Blouse a report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade which abhorred the threat which has been made on the family of a Canadian aid worker in El Salvador, Karen Ridd from Winnipeg. Just today we tabled that report which abhorred not just the threat but the reality of assassinations, murders, bombings and everything else that goes on in El Salvador and yet the Americans do not seem moved by this. They say this is all part of the struggle for democracy, to speak of democracy in a way that I cannot fully comprehend.
Our point here, which I think is shared by a great many Canadians, is that there is an overwhelming sense of hypocrisy that sweeps over us when we listen to the American justifications for these actions. This is not to diminish the life of the American serviceman who was killed, or the value of his family or anyone else's family. People are being killed in Central America all the time, but they are not Americans. Even when they are Americans, they do not seem to count.
I recall the murder of the four nuns in El Salvador. This did not provoke an invasion by the United States. I am not saying it should have. I am just saying that there is a selectivity in the outrage that Washington displays from time to time with respect to human rights violations that is hard for us to swallow and hard for a great many Canadians to swallow. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be well advised to show that he shares some of that skepticism. I do not know why he cannot do that.
The minister mentioned Nicaragua, and I am glad that he did. In committee a couple of weeks ago we asked him questions about Nicaragua. We asked questions about why the Canadian government had not spoken out against American funding of the opposition in Nicaragua. Certainly we would find it offensive if we knew, or if we could prove, that American money was being funnelled in to support opposition, or government, or anyone else for that matter, in a Canadian political election. Yet this is the kind of thing that the minister is not prepared to criticize and condemn.
We line that up alongside the government's unwillingness to show the same kind of courage that Canadians
Statements by Ministers
like Karen Ridd have shown in El Salvador by putting its political and diplomatic weight between the United States and the people of El Salvador. We get the sense that the government is reluctant to speak the truth about what is going on in Central America. It is not because we are anti-American. I know the minister likes to say this, but it is because we share the views of a great many other Americans about the role of their government in Central America.
Perhaps the minister wants to maintain that a great many of the churches in the United States are antiAmerican, that a great many other non-governmental organizations, trade unions, members of the House of Representatives who have criticized American policy in Central America are also anti-American, that the minister knows more about being American than they do.
It is a very simplistic, childish and offensive claim that people who make these criticisms of the United States are anti-American. We are not. As Canadians we are friends of the Americans and as the country of Canada and we have a responsibility as their friends to tell them the truth about themselves and what they are doing in the world. That is what friends are for. You expect that it will be your friend who tells you the morning after the night before that you acted like an idiot at the party, or that you were rude to someone, or that you should improve your behaviour with respect to this or that element of your personality. That is our obligation to the United States. It is not our obligation to keep letting them think that they are doing okay when we know full well that they are not. That is the definition, at least in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of a great many other people who know something about friendship. That is what friends are really for and that is the role that we ought to be playing with the United States.
The minister mentioned the Organization of American States. I think in a way he was saying that it was the failure of the Organization of American States to arrive at a negotiated settlement which set the context for the Americans having to do what they did.
There may be a grain of truth in that. The grain of truth is, of course, if the OAS had succeeded in reaching a negotiated settlement, then there would not have been the context in which the Americans could have decided to do this.

December 20,1989
Statements by Ministers
But it seems to me that one of the things that Canada could have done in its new role as a member of the Organization of American States was put off this situation by becoming more actively involved in trying to reach a settlement. But I do not expect the minister to work miracles overnight in the Organization of American States. We thought it was an organization in which we are not even sure ordinary things can be worked, never mind miracles. That is why we were skeptical about Canada joining. I think that many of the members of the Organization of American States may be more skeptical about Canadian membership after this when they see the uncritical attitude taken by the minister.
It may also be the case that they will be muted in their criticism of the United States because of a sense that they failed to solve the situation. I would not be surprised if publicly they were muted in their criticism of the United States, whether this would come out of a sense of their not having dealt with the situation properly or out of a sense of what we have always said about the Organization of American States, that in the end it was an organization dominated by the Americans. This is a judgment one will have to reserve as we hear more from the leadership of the OAS and as we learn more about the situation.
I regretted the view that was taken earlier in the day by the minister and by some of his colleagues, many for that matter on the other side, who tried to caricature the debate as us being somehow pro-Noriega. Nobody in his right mind thinks that this is the case. What we are debating is whether the end in this case justifies the means, whether the means has significance far beyond Panama and far beyond Central America, whether or not it might for instance damage the process of the improvement in east-west relations. I hope it does not. I hope
that the Soviets will have a bigger picture of what is going on and that they will not let this get in the way of the steps that they are taking.
I hope that the Americans will show a similar attitude toward their geographical back yard, so to speak, that the Soviets have taken toward theirs, and relinquish the view that in the final analysis, everything that happens there is something that is their business in a way that entitles them to intervene. That is really what is at stake.
Finally, what is at stake is the need for the world to develop a way to get beyond the United Nations Charter, as it now stands, so that the internal affairs of corrupt and undemocratic regimes is something that is within the reach of the international community. We need to get beyond the notions of national sovereignty that protect nations which violate the human rights of its citizens, and the way to do that is not to approve and justify the licence of superpowers. The way to do that is to work a real reform of the United Nations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being seven o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Monday, January 22,1990, at one o'clock p.m., providing the Speaker may recall the House at any time before the date for the sole purpose of Royal Assent.

A Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year-

May you all have a happy and a prosperous New Year. God bless.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.59 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 21, 1989