1990-10-17

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians benefit from developments in science and technology: living standards rise, industries become more competitive, agriculture becomes more efficient, and new career opportunities evolve for our youth.
This week is National Science and Technology Week. Educational institutions, laboratories and museums are opening their doors, inviting us to renew our curiosity and to increase our awareness of Canada's many proud accomplishments in science and technology.
On October 20 the chemistry department of the University of Alberta is opening its doors to the public, and everyone is invited for a tour of its facilities.
The future promises great opportunities for Canada and our youth as we open the doors to explore, develop and build on the paths that science and technology provide for us.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton - Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, Monday and yesterday in this House the Minister for International Trade stated that the Minister of Agriculture should be ashamed of the $8.8 billion given to Canadian farmers as subsidies. That $8.8 billion is a fictitious figure. It is about 40 per cent higher than the actual figure.
For example, papers filed in Geneva on October 1 show that Canadian dairy farmers received $2.2 billion in subsidies, when in fact the only cash subsidy given to dairy farmers is $261 million and that goes only to industrial milk producers.
The $2.2 billion is a concocted figure, most of it being the difference between what United States farmers get for milk versus Canadian farmers, and then calling it a subsidy. This game of smoke and mirrors ignores the fact that Canadian farm inputs are much higher than those in the United States.
I ask the minister of trade to stop this charade and stop playing games. He must be honest with Canadian farmers and support them or resign.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, automobile manufacturers have just announced that they will offer a discount equal to the difference between the 7 per cent GST and the 13.5 per cent manufacturers' tax.
The offer seems generous, at first, but it is misleading advertising.
Basically, these are just end-of-year discounts.
Even worse, the promised reduction does not cover the $800 per vehicle, on average, consumers are supposed to save with the GST.
In fact, this so-called GST discount is based on the manufacturer's suggested price. That price is often unknown, falsified or inflated.
I therefore urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to investigate this case of misleading advertising. I also want automobile manufacturers to appear before the House Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, and explain why they should not be charged for spreading misleading advertising.

October 17, 1990


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, the inflationary pressures we have experienced during the past four years made it necessary for the government to maintain a strict monetary policy with very high interest rates.
Although it was necessary to fight inflation for four years, it is nevertheless a fact that the present economic slowdown is proving very costly for people in the Eastern Townships, especially in my own riding, Richmond- Wolfe, and of course for the entire country.
According to statistics provided by Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, the number of bankruptcies has increased substantially in my region, in Saint-Frangois.
For instance, the percentage in the business community is over 35.6 per cent and among private citizens over 14 per cent.
I hope that a carefully controlled reduction in interest rates will be feasible in the near future, which would, of course, produce immediate results. Lower interest rates would make it possible to start the recovery of businesses that are now stagnating. It would be an opportunity to consolidate existing businesses, and I am thinking of Bombardier in Valcourt, Camoplast and Fibres Donnite in Richmond and Shermag in Disraeli.


PERSONS AWARDS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, 61 years ago the much celebrated Persons case decision declared women to be persons.
In its decision the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled that where section 24 of the British North America Act refers to people it should be interpreted to include women.
Although section 24 referred specifically to the makeup of the Senate, the impact of that decision reached far beyond that chamber.
The ruling was an important initial step toward the attainment of fundamental rights for women in this country.
Since that time, there has been much accomplished in the name of women's rights. These accomplishments were largely due to the vital work done by individual Canadians.
Yesterday awards were given out by the Governor General to just such individuals: people who have demonstrated a commitment to improving quality of life for women in Canada. These women deserve our recognition, admiration, and thanks for their efforts.


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -StoufT-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to see an article in Maclean's October 15, 1990 issue make this statement about the newly appointed Senator Michael Forrestall: "As well as a Senate salary of $62,000 and perks of about $30,000"-wrong-"the new senator collects a parliamentary pension of $45,000"-wrong-"and a $65,000 salary as chairman of the Veteran's Appeal Board"- wrong.
I cannot believe that Maclean's would be so tardy. Why did it not check the facts? Why was it so eager to besmirch the reputation of Senator Forrestall and Parliament?
The facts are that an MP cannot draw a nickel of his or her pension while serving in the Senate. Second, Senator Forrestall resigned immediately from the Veterans Appeal Board upon being appointed to the Senate.
Shame on Maclean's. Where is the apology? Printing a letter from Senator Forrestall is not good enough.



Mr. Ken James (Sarnia -Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming more and more horrified by the apparent transformation of Canadian democracy.
October 17, 1990

In this seemingly new system it appears that a government of the day and its elected members have less of a role to play in determining government spending and policies.
What are the attributes of this new system? First, we have an opposition which forgets that it lost the last election. Next, there is a minority of appointed Liberal senators who want to set the agenda arbitrarily, who can pick and choose what bill should become law. Why not? They are accountable to no one.
Finally yesterday we have the Leader of the Opposition, who has not even been elected to the House of Commons, dictating when and if votes should be held in the other place.
Canadians are fed up with new system based on partisanship and opportunism. The time has come for responsible government to be restored.
Elections mean that governments have a right to govern. They do not mean a group of unelected individuals can set its own political and legislative agenda. The time has come to get on with it. Canadians deserve it.


NATIONAL STUDENT DAY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, today hundreds of thousands of Canadian students, many of whom are in the gallery, will be celebrating National Student Day. For many there is little reason to celebrate.
It is known that 30 per cent of Canada's students drop out of high school before graduation. The native communities have much higher percentages which go up to 90 per cent. Underfunding has reached crisis proportions in many post-secondary institutions.
For example, there will be 10 million fewer dollars transferred to provinces for education in less than a decade. Plant and equipment are deteriorating rapidly. There have been cuts in science and technology, and there have been reductions in the funds for research and development.
Student and tuition fees are going out of sight. In fact there has been a 3 per cent administrative fee put on the poor, those who need to borrow money to go to school.
The Canadian Federation of Students today released a report entitled Strategy for Change. In its report it has identified the major problems: no vision, no plan, no strategy, no focus; the same problems as in the government's agenda for economic, social and environmental development. It is the same problem.

Education is an investment in the future of our country. Where is this government's political leadership?


THE SENATE
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, never before in the history of Canada has the appointed Senate overstepped the bounds of tradition to defeat bills of such importance to the economic future of our country. Its actions should outrage everyone who believes in democracy and representative government.
Since 1984 this government has been committed to reducing the deficit and improving Canada's economic opportunities at home and abroad. In 1988 we reiterated that commitment.
Our efforts are hot having the desired effect because the Liberal dominated Senate is stalling the good work of this House by not passing our bills.
The unaccountable Trudeau Liberal senators seem to be afraid to pass the legislation of this House because they know that the effects of our legislation would prove to be so positive that they would work against the Liberals in the next federal election.


CO-OPERATIVES WEEK
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, this week is Co-Operatives Week in Canada, when we recognize the achievements of our 100 per cent Canadian owned democratic economic sector.
The history of co-ops proves that when we work together we as Canadians can achieve anything we want to. Why then has the government not put as much effort into supporting and promoting co-operatives in Canada as it has into helping big business?

October 17, 1990
Oral Questions
Instead of providing increased support for the co-operative housing sector the government has reneged on its commitment to help build 5,000 units per year and threatens to destroy the concept by creating low income ghettos.
Instead of building on the brains and talents of local people by supporting worker co-operatives, the government shells out billions to large foreign corporations.
Instead of treating co-ops fairly, this government proposes to bring in GST legislation which will discriminate against co-ops and and will make them uncompetitive.
We need governments with the political will to support the co-operative sector actively, not act as guardians of the interests of the rich and powerful.


THE SENATE
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, for three weeks we have been treated to an incredible display in the Senate, thanks to the Liberal senators, with the blessing of Jean Chretien. The Liberal senators' foolishness is already costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars in additional costs, this with the blessing of Senator MacEachen. MacEachen, Chretien and Trudeau almost brought this country to the verge of bankruptcy in 1980-1982. And now they want to finish the job and bankrupt the country altogether.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough! Canadians are sick and tired of this asinine behaviour. I want to ask the government and the Prime Minister to take whatever action is necessary to uphold democratic principles, stop this waste of public funds and make the Liberal senators stop their shameless behaviour.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, this week Amnesty International is celebrating its 29th year of campaigning on behalf of political prisoners with a Prisoner of Conscience Week.
Although organizations like Amnesty International are crucial in establishing world-wide values promoting basic human rights, it is the role of this government and others to challenge those countries which flagrantly and systematically violate the basic human rights of their citizens. We must be our brothers' and sisters' keepers.
The fight against human rights violations is led by many valiant individuals around the world who every day risk their lives. We should be proud today of the visit of such a distinguished individual, Nineth de Garcia, president of the Guatemalan non-government organization Group of Mutual Support, who will be meeting with an all-party delegation later today.
Mrs. de Garcia founded the GAM group after the disappearance of her own husband, to press for human rights in Guatemala and to support families searching for missing relatives. Mrs. de Garcia, like many other Guatemalans and Canadians, is asking the Canadian government to link bilateral aid to an improvement in human rights in her country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle - Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. On Monday the minister said: "It will not be good enough to do an environmental review after Rafferty-Alameda is completed. Construction must stop".
On Tuesday he reversed his position and said he would and could do nothing.
Mr. Speaker, the minister was right on Monday. He was wrong on Tuesday. The minister says he cannot act because Saskatchewan has not breached the original agreement. If violation of the review panel's terms of reference is not a breach of the original agreement then it is because the original agreement was a set-up. There is only one solution. Will this minister seek an immediate injunction to halt all further work on Rafferty until all questions about the government's ability to act have been determined?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat today what I said on Monday and Tuesday. I am under a court order to have a panel at work. I will comply with that order. I will meet
October 17, 1990

my obligation to appoint a panel as soon as possible to resume the environmental assessment work that was stopped last week.
I said on both Monday and Tuesday that at the same time, the government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Alameda project not proceed until a full and proper environmental assessment can be completed, according to the court order under which we are operating.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that it is very clear that for this minister the necessary steps are to see that project completed perhaps another minister will respond. My question is for the Minister of Transport.
The permit the minister refers to is under the International Rivers Improvement Act, but no permit has been issued under the Navigable Waters Protection Act which is required under the federal guidelines.
The Minister of the Environment refuses to act, refuses to take his responsibility. Will the Minister of Transport obtain an injunction to see that construction stops until he issues the requisite permit. Also, will he undertake today in this House not to issue that permit until the work of an environmental panel has been completed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, a number of options are being looked at very carefully. I will name a few of those options.
There is the possibility of a court action to seek an injunction as my hon. colleague is saying. There is the possibility to act under two statutes under the Fisheries Act. There is also the possibility of having an agreement to have work halted on the project. All three are options that we are pursuing very actively right now. [DOT]
I am sure my hon. colleague will agree with me that our puqiose in this House is to make sure that we do have a full environmental assessment of this project before any work can be done and that should mitigation be required, that those measures be clearly outlined so that we can deal fairly and equitably with the environ-
Oral Questions
mental concerns that many citizens have expressed. That is exactly what we are doing at the moment.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, this government defines mitigation as cash compensation after the damage has been done. That is not good enough.

My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. National unity means sharing common values. We believe in protecting the environment.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment flip-flops. The Minister of Transport refuses to act. There are allegations of an agreement between Tories. On Point Aconi, the minister has failed. On Alcan, the minister has failed. CO2 pollution, the minister has failed. Bill C-78, the minister has failed-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will please put the question.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: You have got to admit, Mr. Speaker, I am learning.


Mr. Speaker:: Not everybody would agree with you.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Why is this government sitting idle while this nation's reputation for environmental protection is being torn to shreds? Will he ask the minister to proceed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about our environmental reputation, I must tell my hon. colleague across the way that we have one of the very finest environmental reputations in the world.
We introduced Bill C-78. It is a bill that goes further than most bills anywhere else in the world. The Dutch have said publicly that we have a bill that could be a model for the industrialized countries of this world. We have moved on acid rain. We were the first government to be able to conclude an agreement with the U.S. on acid rain. We are finally developing the Green Plan. The Green Plan will be a model for most countries who are trying to achieve what we hope to achieve for the environment.

October 17, 1990
Oral Questions
The hon. member should be cheering the environment, not saying that we are not doing what we should be doing as a country.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Rafferty-Alameda is the acid test.
I have in my hands a draft agreement between the Minister of the Environment and the Saskatchewan Water Corporation which says that the minister will agree that the Rafferty dam can proceed to completion and that the Alameda dam can start construction.
Is this the deal on which the minister shook hands in his office on September 5 with Grant Devine? Is this the agreement that was faxed to his office on September 10? Is this the agreement that sold the environment down the river?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix quotes George Hill, president of the Souris Basin Development Authority and past president of the Tory party in Saskatchewan as saying:
I'm prepared to put it in affidavit form, I'm prepared to appear in court and swear on as many bibles as anyone wants to produce that that was the agreement and Mr. de Cotret asked the Premier to shake hands on the agreement.
My question is this. Who is telling the truth? Who is prepared to table the documents that will prove who is telling the truth?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be a little unbelievable that Mr. Hill made that comment because he was not involved in the discussion I had. He was not involved. He was not there.
We did discuss a number of issues-


Mr. Boudria:: Tories never cease to amaze me.


Mr. Nunziata:: Robert, you've lost it, you've lost it.


An hon. member:: You would think we were in the Senate.


Mr. Crawford:: You'll wish you were.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind hon. members that if we lose time waiting for order, they lose time.


Robert René de Cotret: I would just like to tell my hon. colleagues that I went to Saskatchewan on July 25 to meet with stakeholders, to meet with the proponent of the project, to meet with citizens, and to meet with the government. We have had ongoing meetings and ongoing conversations since that time.
There was no secret deal made. We always tried to reach agreement. Those conversations were ongoing until the panel resigned. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the truth of the matter. We have had a number of conversations on a number of occasions, either in person or over the phone. Unfortunately, the panel did resign. We are taking the measures that are required to ensure that we abide by a court order and ensure that the environmental assessment process is conducted properly.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and concerns the Rafferty-Alameda dam. This is a test for the minister. Now is the time for the minister to show Canadians that he is really serious and that his government is really serious about the environment. We are discussing a situation about an environment review panel. I quote briefly from a letter dated October 4 to the minister from the environment review panel, which has resigned, and refers to the agreement between Canada and Saskatchewan. It says:
While the agreement may be ambiguous regarding some aspects of the Project, it clearly states that no work on the RaffertyBoundary Diversion Channel or on the Alameda Dam and Reservoir-will begin, and that construction on the Rafferty Dam -
-will only continue after safety is ensured and the panel has made an environmental review. How can the Minister of the Environment stand in this House and say that he will appoint another panel? Who will he get to serve on this panel, when clearly the first panel was not able to do its work based on the very guidelines of his Cabinet?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have three documents that are very important in this issue. We have a court order which, by and large, is the most important of the documents; we have an agreement which signed in January of this year between the Government of Canada and that of Saskatchewan; and we have a licence that was issued in 1989 to the proponent of the project. And I intend to respect the letter of each one of those agreements and those documents.
October 17, 1990


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of the Environment cannot answer how he will get people to serve on this environment review panel when the last one had to quit because they were not meeting their own conditions.
When it comes to tough decisions about the environment, we know whose side this government is on. First of all, in the Point Aconi case, the government chose, not the people of Canada but Senator Buchanan. The government had to decide between proper environmental review of Hibernia-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party to please put her question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The government has also had to decide between Alcan and the people of-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put her question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My question to the Minister of the Environment is this. In each instance, the Minister of the Environment has chosen the side of his corporate friends. Whose side is this government on for the environment of Canada, the people or the coqwrate interests?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can be very clear. This government stands for the environment; this government stands for sustainable development; this government follows what the Brundtland commission report proposed; and, this government, in the case that is being raised right now, has stated very clearly that the government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Alameda project not proceed until a full and proper environmental assessment process can be completed. And that is exactly what we are going to do.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this country sees the environment as an absolute priority. So what does the new Minister of the Environment do? He hands out environmental assessment exemptions! My question to the minister is this: if he is
Oral Questions
unable to meet the expectations of the public, is he at least prepared to resign and let someone else take his place?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the present government is working on Canada's environmental agenda as quickly as possible, an agenda that will be the envy of the industrialized world. I can assure all members of this House that they will be very proud to see how Canada compares internationally in the next few years.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of the Environment based upon his statement today.
He said that he does not believe that the environmental review can proceed if construction is going on on the Alameda Dam. The Government of Saskatchewan indicated last evening that it intends to start construction of the Alameda project within a matter of a day or two.
Considering that fact, I want to ask the minister very specifically: Will he undertake a court injunction to ensure that there will be no construction on the Alameda project until that environmental assessment is properly conducted? Will he give the commitment that he will take that step today to stop that construction?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that we were looking at three options, all designed to do the same thing.
One is a court injunction and we are looking at that very closely. That has to be under the terms of the agreement, rather than under the terms of the licence. The other is a statutory action that we can do under some sections in the Fisheries Act. I am getting advice at the moment on that. The other one is, hopefully, to get an out of court agreement to not start work on Alameda.
I told the House yesterday, and I repeated it today twice, very clearly, that we will not accept the Alameda project proceeding until a full and prosper assessment is done from an environmental point of view.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister understands that he does

October 17, 1990
Oral Questions
not have the time to dither because the construction will be starting in a matter of 24 hours or so.
Going back to the question of the agreement, somebody is not telling the truth. The Government of Saskatchewan and its officials claim that there was not an agreement. The Government of Canada, through the minister, says there was agreement.
Because Canadians need to know the truth about this vital issue, will the minister undertake to table all the memoranda, minutes, documents, and correspondence relating to his meetings with Premier Devine and the Government of Saskatchewan?
More importantly, will he undertake to have the committee on environment invite Premier Devine to appear before the committee so we can hear his allegations against the government and get to the bottom of what this is all about?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement made on January 26, 1990. It is an official agreement. It is signed by Saskatchewan Water Corporation and signed by the then Minister of the Environment. This is an agreement. I will table this agreement. It is a public document and this is the agreement under which we are going.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
On national television last night, the minister showed no compassion for people in the refugee backlog who have been separated from their children or their spouses for three or four years. The minister still insists that her ill-conceived refugee backlog clearing process is working.
Would she reconsider her position and give speedy clearance to those refugees who are separated from their children or their spouses?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are several points I would like to make to the hon. member.
The first one is that he is making an assumption that some other form of process would be faster. I would point out that the last time we had an administrative
review it took us two years to clear 26,000 cases. That is not any faster than what we are doing today.
The process that I have set in place is moving ahead. It will be done within a reasonable time-frame and it is very important that people coming to this country all come under the same rules.


An hon. member:: That's right.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That is what we have established and that is what we will continue to uphold.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, when the minister announced these programs, she said they were temporary and would remain in place for two years, to clear up the backlog of 85,000 refugee claims. That was two years ago. Today, about 20,000 claims have been settled, and of those 20,000, only 608 were rejected. What is the minister afraid of? Why doesn't she admit her policy is unfair and inhuman and prevents family reunification of refugees who have been waiting for four or five years?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely regret-categorically-the hon. member's assumptions. First, people come here because this is a good place to come. I do not notice that people have stopped coming to our borders because of this terrible human rights crisis to which the hon. member refers.
Second, if people want to speed up the process, it would help considerably if lawyers did not have as many as 17 adjournments on a single case.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
As the minister knows, the churches' report to the United Nations accuses Canada of torture in its treatment of refugee claimants in the backlog, those who came before 1989. According to the churches' study, 58 per cent of them have suffered declining mental health because of the government's years of delay in processing their claims. They have suffered in the countries they fled, and now they are continuing to suffer at the hands of the government that prevents them from getting jobs,
October 17. 1990

creates anxiety about their futures, and denies them their right to be reunited with their families.
I ask the minister, what steps is she taking to end this torture?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the vocabulary that has been used, let me say that we have put some steps in place that I think will make the process faster. We have done that in the last few months. Fifty per cent of the cases have been opened, and the process is moving ahead more rapidly. We, too, want to ensure that people's futures are settled.
I would also point out that people can work in this country as soon as they have had their first hearing. There are many countries in which people who are refugee claimants cannot work at all, can never bring their families, and can never become citizens. I think the hon. member should maybe turn his attention to where the real problems are.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been promising fast action for 21 months. She has failed to deliver. Furthermore, she has taken so many of the regular immigration staff out of normal immigration work that Canadians now have great difficulty in getting action on their sponsorships.
Will the minister stop the torture and stop blocking immigration by declaring an amnesty, that is, land the people in the immigration backlog?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised to hear this hon. member, for whom I have a great deal of respect in the refugee field and who is really concerned about refugees, raising some hysteria about torture. That is unlike him and is unworthy of this Chamber and is unworthy of the people-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has looked at our system. The head of our refugee determination system, Gordon Fairweather, has been in communication with him because our system is regarded as a model, aspects of which may be applied in the rest of the world. That means that we are doing this in a fair and humane way.
Oral Questions ENERGY


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The price increases in heating oil and gasoline are a crisis for millions of Canadian homes and businesses, yet the Conservative government cancelled over a dozen programs that Canada had in place to encourage energy conservation. Now Canadians are seeing the result.
Will the minister reconsider the programs cancelled, such as the incentives for converting from oil to natural gas? Will the government also reinstate the cancelled programs, such as the ones at the National Research Council, for developing alternative energies to fossil fuels?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, the answer is no. On the second question, the answer will be in the Green Plan.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I attended the minister's news conference this morning where he gave his blessing to a further 10-cent-a-litre increase for the price of gasoline based on present world prices. I think Canadians will be grateful to him to have that blessing.
How much of a price increase for home heating oil is he prepared to give his blessing to in light of present world prices?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we had a good federal-provincial meeting. We went through the various aspects.
I was asked whether or not the price increase on crude post the August 2 invasion by Saddam Hussein of Kuwait had worked its way through the Canadian pricing system. I said, no, that there was a mathematical formula which would relate to about 0.7 cents per litre of increase for every dollar increase on WTI.
What I find incredible is that that member was a member of a government which, at this time, wanted the price of oil to be $116.63 a barrel. He wanted the Montreal reference price to be $78.73. In other words, he wanted Canadians to pay $78.73 for a barrel of oil,

October 17, 1990
Oral Questions
plus $40 a barrel in tax, greater than the price of crude is today. What is he really for, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The government has a duty to ensure that Canadians are not being taken advantage of by price gouging as a result of companies using the Persian Gulf crisis as an avenue to boost their profits.
Is he prepared, along with the Minister of Energy, to request immediately oil companies to provide the government with a detailed report to justify the gasoline price increases that have occurred across Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House before in a statement on September 27, I expect the oil companies to act responsibly.
We went through the various pricing mechanisms today with the ministers of energy. The hon. member will note that the increase in the price of energy relative to crude price increase as against increases in the price at the pumps is roughly half at the pumps as against crude prices.
He will also have to take note that there are some provinces which, through the public utility boards that they have set up, are looking at the type of monitoring for their provincial pricing.
The third point I make to him is that we are monitoring the pricing through the Petroleum Monitoring Agency on a weekly basis. If there is any evidence of gouging, I, along with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, would under the legislation take the proper action.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

The Consumers Association of Canada wants an investigation of the petroleum industry in connection with unacceptable increases in the price of gas. Will the
minister order an investigation today, one that is crucial for Canadian consumers?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, has answered that question quite clearly. I think the hon. member-


Some hon. members:: No, no!


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, if I were given a chance to reply-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Blais: The hon. member is aware that we have a Bureau of Competition Policy that is able to check what is happening in the oil industry. The director told me he is following developments very closely. I believe that this morning, he attended the federal-provincial meeting to find out what is happening in the oil sector.
We are concerned, and I am as concerned as anybody else about the increasing price of gas. On behalf of consumers-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am as concerned as the next person, as all Canadian consumers are, about the increase in the price of gas. However, we must find out what the reasons are, and what we can do to intervene.
In fact, that is what we have done. The director of the Bureau of Competition Policy is doing his job, and my colleague, the Minister of Energy, is doing his. We will watch very closely what happens during the next few weeks. I believe that together with the provinces, we have a responsibility to keep a close eye on developments in the price of gas in this country, Mr. Speaker.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Students' Day and I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board on behalf of Canadian students. Many of these students have incurred quite huge and onerous debts as a result of the Student Loan Program, some quite a good deal more
October 17, 1990

than $15,000. Because of that burden, many have defaulted. This government has imposed a 3 per cent surcharge on those loans in order to discourage default.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: My question to the minister is this: Will he explain how increasing the student debt load can possibly be designed to cut down on defaults?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Miilticulturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, students are the future of this great country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: That is precisely why the Prime Minister indicated education is such a high priority.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our record of achievements.


An hon. member:: Yes, sir.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: In particular, since 1984-85, we have doubled the Canada Student Loans Program from some $200 million to over $400 million. Unfortunately, the debt, the defaults have more than tripled within the same period. So it was more than natural to begin an analysis to see what methods can be implemented to help with the administrative costs of some of those debts. The small administrative fee which is repaid at the end, when they are already in the work force, did not seem like much of an obstacle in the shared responsibility of education between the two levels of government, the parents, the family, and the students themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair in asking the supplemental question to which he is entitled will be very clear to dissociate himself from the demonstration that we have just had in this Chamber.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there is no member of this House who would reasonably assume that I was in any way responsible for any of-
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Dairy farmers in Quebec and Canada are worried. Is the Canadian offer tabled at GATT likely to reassure them?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position tabled Monday at GATT- I personally met leaders of the Quebec agricultural industry on Monday, and this morning, in the newspapers, I found that most Quebec agricultural organizations and most Canadian organizations have come out in favour of the Canadian position at GATT. We feel that our position is balanced and represents the interests of all Canadian farmers, and I am particularly proud that Canada will be able to count on the support of all Canadian farmers in defending their interests in Geneva.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have disavowed any responsibility for the actions in the gallery. I look at the other side for someone to disavow responsibility for the government's side behaviour.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Mr. Shields:: We don't believe you, Howard.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would help the Chair and put his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Students has protested the 3 per cent surcharge. The government's own advisory committee on student financial aid has also disapproved of it.

October 17, 1990
Oral Questions
My question to the minister is: Will he not withdraw this stupid surcharge and act constructively to, instead of increasing the financial barriers for students, help to cut them down?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, those young people are not typical of the bright, vigorous, vibrant young people that I have come to meet from coast to coast.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: They'll pay the deficit.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The member will know that the current program is undergoing an internal review as well as an external examination to see how much more effectively it can meet the very pressing needs of those students who require assistance.
This government has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of its contribution to post-secondary education. In 1984-85, $4.2 billion was contributed versus $5.7 billion in 1989-90. We have increased spending, as I said, under this program. We have established 15 networks of Centres of Excellence involving over 30 universities. We have increased funding for the three granting councils from $500 million in 1984-85 to $800 million in 1989-90.


An hon. member:: Speech.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: We value education. We value our contribution. We are going to continue all we can do to be helpful to make Canada the most competitive society in the world.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the court's confirmation of Canadian women as persons, but sadly, today we also see a tremendous upsurge in the murder rate against Canadian women.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. What program does the minister have to assist Canadian women who are living in terror, and what does she plan to do to end this scourge?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer the hon. member's question, which was put to me very' recently by one of her colleagues.
The government's family violence program is shared by a number of departments, including those of my colleagues, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Solicitor General, but I would be very pleased to review what the Department of Justice is doing to this end.
We have, first of all, engaged in a reform of the Criminal Code in the law governing sexual violence, which was amended in 1983. We are now assessing the impact of those changes.
In addition, we are analysing measures to deal specifically with violent pornography. We fund research to such projects or through television programs to inform the general public about the existing law of sexual assault and an evaluation of programs for men who batter their spouses or lovers.
In policy development, we have set up a departmental committee to develop policies relating to women, especially violence against women. We have participated in the interdepartmental committee developing a policy on family violence.
Finally, with respect to the administration of justice, we have provided support for conferences and seminars designed to sensitize justice professionals on sex equality issues, especially as they relate to violence against women.


An hon. member:: Speech.


A. Kim Campbell: I am sure the hon. member as a member of the legal profession may be aware of the programs sponsored by the Canadian Judicial Centre for the Canadian judiciary to sensitize them to issues with respect to violence against women as they appear in the court.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, assessment, research and development are all very well and good in their place. But, two weeks ago a 16-year old girl was murdered in the shadow of these Parliament buildings. This is a war and women are dying.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. Not long ago in Montreal, over a period of only ten days, seven women were killed by their husbands. As a woman and as the person responsible for law enforcement at the national level, what does the
October 17, 1990

Minister of Justice intend to do to help women who are victims of violence?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we have a very extensive program to deal with the matters to which the hon. member referred. It is not a simple matter. In fact it is a very complex one. However, attitudes, not just men's but also women's attitudes, are very important. They are the basis for the changes that are necessary in society. We have initiated programs that deal with the attitudes at the root of these problems. As I said before, we have a very extensive program, and, in my opinion, a very effective one to deal with these matters.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The current nursing shortage has forced many nursing homes to rely on medical service companies to provide their nursing and support staff. As a result most of the labour cost of these homes will be subject to the 7 per cent GST. Nursing homes expect to have no option but to pass this cost on to their patients.
Now that the Canadian Council on Social Development and other national social policy organizations have issued an indictment of this government's current funding policies regarding medicare, I ask the minister if his government will continue to allow the GST to be aimed at the pension cheques of the chronically ill.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stretches rather far in trying to link the various allegations that she makes.
She knows full well that sitting before the Senate right now is legislation that would allow cheques to go out to millions of low income Canadians as part of the GST tax rebate. If her colleagues who are barricading that in the
Point of Order
Senate would get moving, those Canadian families earning less than $30,000 a year would benefit.
What we need from the other side is its co-operation in order to get these cheques into the hands of these Canadians.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the recipients of this year's Persons Award: Geraldine Bailey, Mrs. Jean Scott, Mrs. Helen Hnatyshyn, Madame Therese Dall-aire-Laplante, Mrs. Irene Grant, and Madame Delie Gallien-Chiasson.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Richard Thornburgh, U.S. Attorney General.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I am obligated to say something to the House and to one of our hon. members.
When I made the remark that I would hope the hon. member in putting his supplemental would make it clear that he was dissociating himself from what took place here, that may have implied a presumption which was not proper for me to make. I say to the hon. member that I did not mean to leave that presumption, and I hope the hon. member will accept my apology.


POINT OF ORDER
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period when the member for Windsor-St. Clair was dissociating himself from the demonstration that took place today, unfortunately I said to him: "We don't believe you, Howard". I wish to apologize to him most sincerely.


An hon. member:: We don't believe you.


Jack Wendele Shields: It was most unparliamentary and I realize that.
I also wish to apologize to all hon. friends in the House, my colleagues. I wish to withdraw that remark.

October 17, 1990
Point of Order
Unfortunately it cannot be taken off the record. For that I am truly sorry and I wish to extend my sincere apology.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair and indeed all members of our caucus were impugned today by the government members trying to intimate that we were associated with the demonstration in the gallery. As leader of party, I want to say that we would-


Mr. Siddon:: It wouldn't happen by accident.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development now says it would not happen by accident. I want to say to the minister and to all members on the other side that I dissociate myself, but I should not have to say that as members of Parliament we do not condone that kind of demonstration. We have never condoned that kind of demonstration, and we should not have to say we dissociate ourselves. It should be assumed that members of Parliament do not appreciate that kind of behaviour from the gallery.
I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker, and the comments of the previous speaker about withdrawing his comments; but I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister who has left, or someone speaking on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, to offer to withdraw the remarks of all of the government members on the other side.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, part of our role in this Chamber and as officers of this House, as Whips, is to try' to maintain decorum in the House.
I have been rising in this Chamber since I became aware of a situation last week about statements made by the House leader of the New Democratic Party about members of the government caucus. Those comments are untrue and they are known to be untrue, and they have not been apologized for. There has not been an adequate opportunity for me to argue the question of privilege, and that is partly what has gone wrong in this House. It began on October 11 on a very serious issue with-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may be referring to an argument which he commenced by way of a question of
privilege. That argument will of course be heard as soon as the hon. member for Kamloops returns.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. The cards that were thrown on the floor of the House were all signed. Perhaps the government could answer each one and tell these people this is not the right way to communicate with Canadians.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand how easy it is for members to say things that they might think is a statement in levity that can nonetheless have the effect of departing from the practices of this House.
My friend, the hon. member for York South-Weston, in response to the apology that was just uttered by my colleague from Athabasca, said that he did not believe that statement. It may be that the statement was uttered tongue in cheek, as is suggested. That may be the case.
I have been in the House, Mr. Speaker, for 16 years-


An hon. member:: Eighteen years.


Charles Joseph Clark: Eighteen years. I have been travelling a lot. I know, Sir, that the standards of this House when they decline, decline gradually. People do not intend that they decline but they decline nonetheless.
I think the hon. member for York South-Weston is a serious parliamentarian who would want the standards of this House to be respected. I would consequently ask him, one colleague to another, if he would stand in his place and withdraw those remarks.
Mr. John Nun/.iata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker, I just wish to indicate that I fully subscribe to the standards as advocated by the member who just spoke.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point as the hon. member for Yukon rose on.
I have not yet heard from the government side an indication of whether it felt it was appropriate for not
October 17, 1990

just one, not just two, but many members including cabinet ministers to drown out the member for Windsor-St. Clair when he attempted to put his supplementary question.
I believe, Sir, that that was impugning the motive of the member for Windsor-St. Clair. I think it is a matter that you should reflect upon, review the tapes and review Hansard to see in fact if the privilege of the member has been infringed upon.
Second, at the time when my leader rose, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said: "That was no accident" with regard to the matter of the demonstration and its so-called relationship to this caucus.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you could review the "blues" and, if you find that those words were recorded, take the appropriate steps to ensure that the minister withdraws those remarks.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: First of all, Your Honour, I would like to express my appreciation for your gracious remarks with respect to a statement that you made that could have been misunderstood. I thank you very much for that, Sir.
To the hon. member for Athabasca, let me express my appreciation for his apology for a remark that I did not myself attach a great deal of significance to.
I do not think that there could have been any serious suspicion or inclination among the vast majority of members of this House that I would have had anything to do with behaviour in the gallery, such as was unfortunate to have taken place, as we all agree.
But I have to say this: when people have watched this House on their television sets it will not be the ill behaviour of those students that they will remember; it will be the ill behaviour of the members on the other side.
We have a considerable problem in maintaining the trust and respect of the people of Canada. There is little doubt that our status has decreased still more when we see near bedlam on the government side that is inappropriate to this House. I hope that I never have to experience it again.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe - Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order that has been raised,
Routine Proceedings
the only question that ought to be before the House is whether or not the House, in the event of any incidents or demonstration here, would ever want to make the mistake of presuming the involvement on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any member, whether he or she is an independent member, a member of the New Democratic Party, a member of the Liberal Party, or a member of the Conservative Party.
That is the only issue. Does this House make an automatic presumption of involvement of a member in a demonstration from the gallery? All members reject that kind of behaviour.
I think the Speaker today has served this House well with the remarks you have made, Mr. Speaker. I think most other matters subsequent to your comments are matters of debate and partisanship. We ought to quit while we are ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all I want to thank the hon. member for his comment and I want to thank other hon. members for the support on both sides of the House for that.
I will consider carefully what has been said. If it is appropriate to come back to the House and report, I shall do so.
I think it is clear to all of us, not just to members here but to the public that is watching and listening, that we have an obligation to maintain as much dignity and civility in this place as is possible, given the fact that it is not a tea party and it is a vigorous place of debate.
I think that that is the general mood of all hon. members and I think I am accurately expressing that mood.
We will move on to Routine Proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
51ST REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 51st report of the Striking Committee.

October 17, 1990
Routine Proceedings


FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment with the title No Time to Lose: The Challenge of Global Warming.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response within 150 days.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, for those who have followed the work of the committee, we have had more than a year of meetings, heard some 60 witnesses and more than 200 submissions.
We are tabling an interim report at this time in advance of our final and full report because of the very important second world climate conference that will take place near the end of this month and early in November at which our government will be called upon to play a key role.
We believe that the matters to be addressed there are so urgent that literally, as the title of this report says, there is no time to lose. We anticipate the 17 recommendations put forward by this all-party committee will be very seriously considered and acted upon with respect to our leadership at that important conference.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


ALL-NUMERIC DATES AND TIMES ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-338, an act to establish a national standard for the representation of dates and times in all-numeric form.
He said: The designation of dates in a numeric form can be very confusing as it is often difficult to tell which number is the day and which number is the month. After the year 2000 we can see a situation of 02/03/04, not knowing what is day, month, or year.
International standards organizations are pressing for the universal adoption of a non-confusing process for giving dates and times. Standards have been agreed upon and recommendations have been made. The order would
be year, month, and day. There is no specific federal legislation or agency responsible for or with jurisdiction over such matters now. I believe this bill would end much of the present confusion.


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

Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Routine Proceedings to seek the unanimous consent of the House to put the following motion. I move:
That this House establish a special committee of members and empower them to travel to the Middle East region, consult with members of the Canadian Armed Forces, observe all aspects of their operations and report its findings and recommendations back to this House at the earliest opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


PETITIONS
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
This petition is from 63 of my constituents. They are from the Port Blandford area and another distinct area of my riding; Perry's Cove, Salmon Cove, Carbonear and Harbour Grace.
These petitioners are very concerned that they now need 14 weeks instead of 10 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance in Newfoundland for the whole of the year. They note that the unemployment rate in Newfoundland, as I think everybody in this House knows, is the highest in the country. Therefore, the petitioners-and I am very pleased to note that the minister relevant to this is in the House today-humbly pray and call upon Parliament in the loudest possible voice to introduce the variable entrance requirement
October 17, 1990

without delay. This will enable them to qualify for unemployment insurance in 10 weeks instead of 14.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present to the Elouse further petitions supporting the previous petitioners who object to the Tory government imposing the 7 per cent GST on books, newspapers and magazines. Such a tax on printed material is a tax on literacy and has never been imposed by any federal government since Confederation.
On behalf of the petitioners I thank the other House for refusing to pass the GST legislation.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present three petitions signed by residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance.
The petitioners, in certain assurance that this honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the government to hold our Canadian marketing systems up as an example to the rest of the world, and protect them in their entirety at all costs in the current round of GAIT negotiations.
These dairy and poultry farmers come from Ontario communities such as Kerwood, Watford, Alvinston, Pre-tolia, Croton, Forest, Camlachie, Strathroy, Inwood, Cambridge, Woodstock, and so on. They are representative of the province of Ontario.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the House from members of the Canadian poultry industry, mainly those in Ontario.
The petitioners call upon this Parliament to reject any proposals involving tariffication of a supply managed product, any increase in minimum import provisions and any increased access to the Canadian market involving poultry products as now being discussed by this government at the GATT negotiations.
These petitioners do humbly pray and ask this House to follow their petition.
Routine Proceedings GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I want to introduce six petitions from citizens of my riding expressing strong opposition to the GST and supporting the Senate in their actions.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36.
It is my duty to present this petition. I will say ahead of time that I do not agree with its contents but as the member of Parliament for Brant I feel obligated to present it.
The petition says wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the pre-born child. This petition is from the anti-abortion people in my riding in Brantford, Paris and so on.
As I say, I do not agree with the content of it but I am presenting this petition.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by many Canadians who are appalled by this government's new foray into taxing books.
The petitioners indicate that they believe that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy. In this particular day and age when so much talk and effort has been put into creating a literate society, it seems that the GST legislation is going in the opposite direction.
These petitioners humbly pray that this government sees fit to listen to some sense and to withdraw the GST legislation.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of residents of southern Ontario, whereby they recite the importance of newspapers, books and periodicals to a functioning literate democracy.
They call upon the government to not tax these articles under the GST.

October 17, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by hundreds of pensioners and organized by the CN Pensioners Association. Mr. Speaker, your petitioners say that a parliamentary sub-committee representing all parties was formed by an order of this House on April 17, 1985, to examine the various aspects of the Canadian National Pension Plan.
Mr. Speaker, your petitioners call upon Parliament to table a bill ordering Canadian National Railways to implement immediately all the committee's recommendations on pensions.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which points out that whereas the railway passenger service in Canada has been carried on by VIA Rail, it is essential for many Canadians, and has been a part of Canada for more than 100 years, it notes the savage cuts of the Conservative government in funding for VIA Rail.
It points out that this could result in a serious erosion in national passenger railway service in this country. Therefore, it calls upon Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger service.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present one of the hundreds of petitions that I have received from constituents in the city of Vancouver, as well as from the municipality of Burnaby, concerning the Minister of Finance's proposed goods and services tax.
They point out that it is an unfair and regressive form of taxation because of its lack of regard for taxpayers' ability to pay. It points out that the government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
The petitioners urge the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system in this country so there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and a truly progressive system rather than this destructive and regressive goods and services tax.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present a petition signed by numerous residents of the Toronto area in the province of Ontario.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax in so far as it applies to books, newspapers, magazines and periodicals.
The thing that surprises me, if I may say so, is that no members on the other side of the House from the Toronto area rise to present such petitions. One can only assume that their constituents are appalled at their support of this tax and are delivering the petitions to us to file in this House because of the failure of their members to stand up and reject this tax.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to table a petition signed by several Canadians. It deals with the important subject of books, magazines, newspapers and this government's plan to introduce a tax on magazines, books and newspapers. This is a tax on learning.
Literacy is the cornerstone of democracy, culture, and education. The productive end of all this is that we have a better educated population. It is wrong, in view of these petitioners, to tax Canadians on their books, magazines and newspapers.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, today, I have the honour of tabling a petition concerning the GST on books, periodicals and newspapers. I think it is shocking that this government does not support education, literature, libraries, reading, heritage languages and, both official languages, and discourages people from learning more by cutting the public's available income by 7 per cent, as a result, of the GST.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by a number of Canadians.
October 17, 1990


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition, under Standing Order 36, signed by native residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior, more specifically from Moose Factory, Long Lake, and Geraldton, Ontario.
On behalf of these 200 natives, I request the federal government to deal in a just manner with the struggle of all aboriginal peoples in Canada to have their land claims and rights properly addressed. Inaction on the part of the federal authorities will only continue to antagonize race relations in Canada and provoke dangerous and ignorant acts of racism.


Réginald Bélair: I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker. I present it on behalf of some 450 residents of Hornepayne, who are asking the federal government to cease all efforts to locate hazardous waste sites in the township of Hornepayne.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of Canadian citizens who protest against the government's attempt to apply the goods and services tax to magazines, books, and newspapers, which they say will inhibit the dissemination of the printed word as a corner-stone of democracy, culture, education, and a literate and productive society.
The petitioners ask Parliament to exempt books, newspapers, and magazines from the said goods and services tax and that the tax be defeated.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition under Standing Order 36. It deals with the goods and services tax.
The petitioners, all Canadians, ask Parliament to reject this tax on books, magazines, and newspapers as it is a tax on learning. They humbly pray that Parliament will do so.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to present a petition,
Routine Proceedings
probably one of the largest petitions or the one containing the largest number of signatures ever presented in the House.
There are about 16,000 names on this petition, representing every one of the seven federal ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador, the five held by members on this side of the House and two held by the gentlemen from St. John's West and St. John's East respectively.
I am grateful to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers' Union for co-ordinating this petition. It is a petition that affects literally tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders, hence the interest in it.
It addresses the issue of the variable entrance requirements and points out the need for the government to introduce such a resolution, a motion to get the requirements back down to 10 weeks. The petition goes on to point out that the change to 14 weeks has occurred at the same time as substantial reductions in fish quotas which have reduced the amount of work available to many thousands of fishermen and fish plant workers.
I believe the petition speaks eloquently for itself and for the 16,000 people who signed it, as well as many other thousands they represent. I have great pleasure in supporting the prayer of the petition and would hope that the government would see fit to act on it, and act on it soon.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table in the House today. The first is signed by residents from the Lower Mainland area, Maple Ridge and Mission area.
They call upon the government to get moving and sign the forest agreement so that we can promote more effective and sustainable forestry practices, increase spending on reforestation, and promote genuine sustained yield management of our forests.


Brian L. Gardiner: The second petition, Mr. Speaker, from the same wonderful communities in British Columbia, is a petition related to deregulation in the airline industry. It is particularly relevant, not just for the lower mainland of British Columbia, but in light of recent announcements by Canadian Airlines reducing their service to northern B.C. I dare them to reduce the service to Prince George.

October 17, 1990
Routine Proceedings
These constituents and petitioners are concerned about deregulation in the airline industry.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise, under Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by 2,650 residents, principally of Calgary but, as well, other parts of Alberta and indeed across Canada.
The petitioners' prayer has to do with prevention of and punishing of acts of obscene cruelty to animals. The prayer states:
WHEREFORE the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to recognize society's abhorrence of acts of cruelty and violence against animals and amend the Criminal Code of Canada to change Sections 401 and 402 into hybrid offences within the absolute jurisdiction of the provincial court judge, thereby allowing the Crown the option of proceeding by indictment; and raise the penalty for such offences to a maximum of four years' imprisonment.
These people are speaking to the House from the heart. I pray we hear them.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first one is with respect to the goods and services tax and is signed by a number of residents from the northern area of my riding, including the communities of Viscount, Young, and Watrous.
The petitioners indicate that they are opposed to the goods and services tax. They state that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
The petitioners call upon the government to withdraw this tax and to ensure that, if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this reform not be an opportunity fort the government to impose a massive tax-grab.


Rodney Edward Laporte: I also have a petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by a number of
farmers from Saskatchewan who are very concerned about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
They are upset that the government has chosen to remove oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and call upon the government to reinstate oats under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection that wheat now enjoys, namely that neither of the commodities could be removed unless removed so by Parliament.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions signed by a number of people in my riding.
The petitioners point out that it is the first time since Confederation that the Government of Canada proposes to tax the printed word and argue that uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a corner-stone of democracy, culture, education, and a literate and productive society.
The petitioners pray that Parliament will reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax-free status for the printed word.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, the fight goes on. I have had the pleasure of presenting petitions from coast to coast against the goods and services tax, from my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and many other areas of Canada.
This time I rise on behalf of the people of Kapuskasing to implore the government to see the error of its ways, as asked by the petitioners, and scrap the goods and services tax, bringing in a tax that is fairer to all Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
October 17, 1990


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how the government operates on Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, but they are dealt with only once a week. The government gets lots of notice that these things are going on the Notice Paper and then they appear.
I have two on that are quite straightforward. The material that is asked for should be readily available. It must be prepared and submitted by this time, and I have just asked for it. I do not know why the delay.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary, who I know wants to co-operate with the House, would not perhaps be more forthcoming and say: "Yes, we would agree to that," and table the return. Even if he promised to table it in two weeks, we could adopt the motion. Yet, we are constantly delayed on these things.
I think it is not a reasonable way to proceed. It is certainly not the spirit and the intention of the rule that we proceed in this way. The intention is that we deal with the motions expeditiously. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary does not know that word, but it does mean quickly.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member's motions are not answered at this point. The only assumption I can make is that with each of his requests, we take them seriously, we do a great deal of research, and we want to make sure that the answer he receives is nothing but of the highest quality.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have a motion for production of papers, Motion P-29, which humbly calls upon the government "to cause to be laid before this House copies of all letters exchanged by His Excellency and Her Majesty the Queen concerning the application of Section 26 of the Constitution Act".
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, this is not terribly complicated. If there is no correspondence, they can say so! But if there is for Heaven's sake please release the letters, because we have a crisis on our hands in this country. There is a crisis in the Senate. It might help us understand what is going on.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and, encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the United Nations Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2 and for the despatch of members of the Canadian Forces to take part in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula; and
That, upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):
That the motion be amended after the words "Canadian Forces" and read:
enforce these United Nations resolutions;
That this House censure the government for not recalling Parliament at the earliest opportunity to fulfil its legitimate function of consultation and debate as to what role Canada should play in the resolution of the present crisis; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
and the subamendment of Ms. McLaughlin:
That the motion be amended by adding the following after the word "resolutions"
[Stage Direction]
October 17, 1990
Government Orders
And further, that Canada work at the Security Council to seek assurances that no country will undertake offensive military operations against Iraq unless they are under UN command and explicitly authorized by the Security Council.
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I did not have to wait any longer than I already have to enter into the debate on this very serious issue.
In my riding of Dartmouth since the beginning of August, there has been one over-riding issue. I know many times that things such as the government's unconscionable GST, its regressive social programs, and its destructive economic programs take the forefront.
I come from a fairly special riding. My riding borders the shores of Elalifax Harbour. It is a riding, the city of Dartmouth, that has a very strong military tradition. It is a riding which looks out on the Bedford Basin where the allied convoys used to assemble before they went over to fight that great war for liberty and freedom, the Second World War.
My riding of Dartmouth has grown accustomed to standing on the shores and to waving good-bye, then to her men, and today to her men and women who have chosen to give and dedicate their lives to the service of the country through the Canadian Armed Forces.
I am pleased to rise in this debate today, because perhaps nowhere else in the country is a single riding more affected by the actions of the government when it decided to send the three naval vessels-HMCS Atha-baskan, HMCS Terra Nova, and HMCS Protecteur- into the Middle East, than the riding of Dartmouth.
On those three vessels, there are about 924 men and women. My colleague from Halifax and I sometimes disagree on the split, but of those 924 men and women, probably at least 50 per cent, and perhaps about 60 per cent, live in the riding of Dartmouth. Most of the rest of them live in the riding of Halifax.
I want to say from the outset that I support in principle, the Canadian government's actions in condemning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, by joining later with the United Nations and nations from around the world to say: "This type of activity cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Canada will do the right thing and will participate in the naval blockade of Iraq." I support that.
It is in the finest of traditions of the Canadian Armed Forces, when called upon, to go to protect sovereignty of states and to protect freedoms. But, there was a problem. The problem was when this unprecedented action was taken because of unprecedented circumstances in the Middle East.
When Iraq decided to take over the sovereign state of Kuwait, the government forgot one fundamental thing. That fundamental thing was that it should have recalled Parliament so that the Canadian members of Parliament, the people of Canada, the people who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and their families were kept fully abreast of the reasons why this action was taken. Instead, this government chose differently. It was a summer of hiding for this government, in particular this Prime Minister. He was under fire on the economic front, on the constitutional front, on the trustworthiness front and what he wanted to do was hide. Even though this unprecedented action was taken to send our Canadian navy into a potential theatre of war, he did not do the right thing and that was recall this Parliament, do it immediately, to seek a national consensus so that when our men and women of the Canadian navy went overseas they knew that they had the nation of Canada behind them.
This is not a small error. I have spoken to many men and women who live in my constituency who have dedicated themselves to the service of the country through the Canadian Armed Forces. They said they were proud to do their bit. They were proud even though our equipment is not what we should have to show that we are the best trained military in the world. They were proud to do their part, but they were bitterly disappointed that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada chose political expediency over the proper parliamentary and moral thing to do, and that was to recall this Parliament. The debate that we are having today, in the middle of October, should have taken place at the beginning of August, but the government chose not to do that. It was the summer of the nation's discontent. It was the summer that this government went into hiding.
Our party urged the government to recall Parliament and to do it immediately. We did not come out and take cheap, partisan, political shots. We understood the severity and the complexity of what was happening over in the Middle East. We understood the implications for all freedom-loving nations if this action was allowed to
October 17, 1990

go unchallenged. But, we also understood that we do not live in a dictatorship; we do not live in a one-party state; we do not live with a president for life. We live in a parliamentary democracy where issues such as this should be properly debated on the floor of this place.
Mr. Speaker, I started to talk about my riding and I will give you a little more background on my riding. I said it had a strong naval tradition, and it has. In my riding we have the air support base, CFB Shearwater. CFB Shearwater was better known, I guess, during the Second World War as RCAF Station Dartmouth. At the present time, CFB Shearwater probably has 1,000 military personnel and 600 to 800 civilian personnel working on that base. The Canadian navy employs thousands of individuals. A lot of those people live in my riding, as I said earlier.
We tried to figure out one day how many people living in the city of Dartmouth and its surrounding area, on the Dartmouth side of the harbour, depended on the Canadian military for a living. We came up with a figure of about 16,000. Sixteen thousand individuals living in my riding are serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and serving proudly. So it is little wonder that on August 22, Alderman Gloria McCluskey from the city of Dartmouth was driven by an overwhelming desire to show support for those military families, for the men, women, and children, who were left behind. She organized, on the Dartmouth waterfront, with very little advance notice, a ribbon tying to show those people who give so much to my community and Dartmouth, the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families, that we supported them and that we were going to be with them in this time of uncertainty and that we would like to show our solidarity with them over the coming weeks and months. There were literally thousands of yellow ribbons tied on both sides of Halifax Harbour.
I have been involved in a lot of functions; some fun, some not so fun, and some tragic. Up until that point in time I have never been as moved or as touched as I was at that ribbon tie. There were a lot of tears of uncertainty from spouses and children, the men and women spoke to me that day. It was not a partisan debate. It was a day for support.
Government Orders
They said: "Mr. MacDonald, why do we have to turn on CNN Headline News at six o'clock to find out what is going on in the Persian Gulf while my husband, my son, or my daughter is being sent over? What in the name of goodness is wrong with this country when the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and the government in Ottawa have a gag order on? Why do I have to watch the evening news to find out what Maggie Thatcher, the Prime Minister of England, has said in her House of Commons? Why do we have to rely on foreign media to find out what in the name of goodness our troops were being sent over to fight against and what was going to face them when they were there?"
It is a national tragedy what the government did to those men and women and their families during the period of time until debate took place on the floor of this House. It is a national tragedy. It is shocking.
Until August 22,1 had never been involved in an event that was so moving. Two or three days later on August 24, the vessels left Halifax Harbour. I have read a lot about the Second World War and about the role of Halifax in the Second World War, the importance of convoys assembled in Bedford Basin to be sent overseas, many never to return again. I have read about it. I felt it that day when the three naval vessels, the Athabaskan, the Terra Nova and the Protecteur left the harbour.
My colleague from Halifax was there. She can attest to it. It was an incredible afternoon. The three naval vessels did a salute past while we sat on the reviewing stand. There were tens of thousands of individuals from Hali-fax-Dartmouth and farther afield, from 100 miles away, who came to say to those men and women "Godspeed. We wish you well. We support you. We are concerned just like you are. God bless you all and I hope that you are back real soon". That is why they were there.
There is a member opposite who, if he wants to get into the debate, should perhaps put his name on the list on the other side.
Do you know one of the problems that day? The Prime Minister had a chance to redeem himself. He did not bother to recall Parliament because he was afraid that his political hide would be ripped off him in this place for his policies and blunders through the spring and summer of this year. He did not even bother to show up on the Halifax waterfront to see off those 924 men and women who by his orders were going into a potential theatre of

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
war, to wish them well as the Prime Minister of this country.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Ronald MacDonald: Do you know what he did? He made a decision and it says a lot about the Prime Minister. He made a decision that it was more important for that Prime Minister to meet with his Quebec caucus than it was to see the men and women off who were serving on those vessels and on the Sea King helicopters.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Many of them from the province of Quebec.


Ronald MacDonald: Many of them from the province of Quebec. He made a more important decision, to try to put out the fires that were raging uncontrolled in his Quebec caucus. He acted more as the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party than he did as the Prime Minister of this country. That is an insult that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and in the riding I represent and my colleague from Halifax represent for which he will never ever be forgiven.
The orders were given. What did the Prime Minister do? You wonder why people are cynical. Under great pressure from editorial boards, from Canadians from coast to coast, and from parliamentarians to recall Parliament, he waited. He waited until the final hour, a really courageous move. He waited until 10 days before he knew that this place had to resume sitting before he got the order-in-council from the Governor General and indicated that the troops would be put on operational alert in a potential theatre of war. That is the backdrop to the motion that we are debating today.
My colleagues and I in the Liberal Party support the Canadian Armed Forces. We have risen time and again in this House on this matter. We see this again today in the paper. At a time that the Canadian military has been told to stretch the resources to the limit because of the unprecedented crisis in the Persian Gulf, we read in the papers that one of the naval vessels that went over had to get a cannon installed on its deck that had to be taken out of a museum in Halifax.
We saw the ships go into a 10 or 12-day refit. They had to take armaments that were destined for the frigates being completed in Saint John and the frigate replacement program and put them on the decks of those vessels. They did that because this government loves to talk, especially around election time, about its commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces. Shortly after elections, we know where their commitments go. They are written in invisible ink when it comes to the Canadian Armed Forces. They cancelled Phase III of the Frigate Replacement Program. They carried out base closures from coast to coast in this country.
Just today, while we had those three vessels and the CF-18s in the Middle East, the Minister of National Defence is quoted in the paper as saying: "Hey, boys, be prepared, big cuts coming." If they cut them any more they will have to go on gas rations in the Persian Gulf to get those vessels home. That is a fact.
The people on this side of the House support the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are doing their best with outdated equipment under the threatened knife of further government cutting and under the incredible indifference of the Prime Minister. The men and women of the Canadian forces are still doing the best job they can with the resources that have been given to them.
We saw in Halifax and Dartmouth the 2,000 or so people who worked at the dockyards doing an absolutely incredible job. They refitted those three vessels in 10 days. It was incredible the job that they did in the short period of time that they were given to do it. It is those same individuals at the dockyard that this government refused in 1988 when they were negotiating a contract to give them wage parity with their counterparts on the west coast. It seems this government is intent on perpetuating wage discrimination based on where you live and not what job you do.
The Prime Minister in debate on this motion said that the employees of the dockyards in Halifax and Dartmouth should be commended for the fine job they did. I just hope that those words translate into a fair contract because their contract has come back up for negotiation. It is a contract that should, once and for all, get rid of regional rates of pay and an abhorrent bit of wage discrimination.
October 17, 1990

For the second time, I sought unanimous consent of this House to introduce a motion. The motion would have done the following. It would have established a committee from all sides of this House to travel to the Middle East, not in six weeks time or two months time when the government needs a diversion, but right now. The government has sent over 1,000 men and women into that area. I and people on this side of the House felt that it was proper that a committee of this place be struck of members to go over and observe the conditions under which our men and women and our equipment is operating, talk with them and report back with recommendations at the earliest possible opportunity.
I have sought unanimous consent of the House twice, and twice it was refused. I give this House notice that I will continue to rise under Routine Proceedings to put that motion until the people opposite see the sense in what I am trying to do. We want some accountability and reportability. We want to support the men and women that this government has sent to the Persian Gulf. Perhaps some day that will come about.
In conclusion, the motion that is before us, the main motion, not the subamendment and the amendment, is a motion that everybody in this House, I would hope, would like to support. But there is a problem with the motion.
I do not understand why the government has to try to play politics with every single issue that comes up. It could very easily have consulted with the House leaders of the Official Opposition and of the New Democratic Party, and it could have come up with a resolution that was supportable by all sides of this House.
This is a national issue. It is not a partisan issue for these people opposite to play with. After the summer of discontent and the summer that they hid in the woods. They had to come back with a motion that they knew some members of this place were going to have great difficulty in supporting, because the motion would mean that not only do we support the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces but we support this government's censuring of public opinion and parliamentary debate on issues as serious as the one that is before this House now.
Government Orders
In conclusion, I would hope members opposite, the House leader opposite and the Whip opposite will continue to listen to leadership on this side of the House. We are trying very hard to come up with the solution so that by the time these resolutions come to a debate the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces will have no question in their minds but that their actions on behalf of this government and the people of Canada are supported by members of Parliament, and that the motion that is put forward is one that does not have the traditional attachments to it to try to reap some benefits on this very sad situation to members of the government.
I would hope that by the time that motion is put cooler heads and less partisan heads will prevail on the other side and that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces will know that they are supported by parliamentarians.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily have a question, but I do have a comment to make to the hon. member for Dartmouth.
Just last Sunday I met with Janet van Nostrand, a woman whose son is serving on the Athabaskan. We talked for several minutes. Young Lieutenant John has been in the Armed Services for about five years. He is 29 years old and a graduate of engineering from the University of Toronto. Janet and her husband, Dr. Peter, talked to John on Sunday morning, September 30. John relayed that morale was high and spirits were good. The working order of the HMCS Athabaskan was functioning well. He made a point of saying that.
I just want to express the thought to the hon. member that I feel a little uncomfortable in how political he seems to try to make this situation.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bill Attewell: A thought went through my mind about these brave men and women serving over there who are obviously nervous and wondering what the future holds, it is such a powder keg over there. If we were to play back the hon. member's speech, I was wondering whether that would help their morale, their pride and so on. I do take a little exception here. I think they would rather have us thinking about things that will help them with their confidence, humbly praying for their return, and not making a political harangue of this situation.

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
Yes, it is a very serious situation over there. We do not know from hour to hour what might be happening. I would just like to see us concentrating on our faith, hope and prayers for these young men and women. We are all so proud of them, especially in our own particular case, this John van Nostrand, a fifth generation young man from the village of Vandorf where I live.
I want to stay on a high note of pride for these young men and women. Let us get this partisan politics out of the discussion.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend my hon. friend. I believe that his concern for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces is genuine. I wish to assure him that I think all members of the House share the same concern.
But, Mr. Speaker, to get up and say let us not talk about how this government screwed up and how it handled the situation is a bit too much for me to handle. For the member to get up and tell me that what we should really be doing is forgetting the events that transpired during the summer months is a bit too much for me to handle.
There is nobody who is more concerned in this House for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces than I am, Perhaps my hon. colleague over there is a close second. I for one am not going to forget what this Prime Minister and this government have done and the slap in the face they have given the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are doing their jobs over there. We wanted to do our jobs in this place, but the Prime Minister did not allow us to do that.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, since my comment is to the hon. member, I will use his language.
I thank him for his remarkable expose that he just made. He may feel that he is a new member here but he has already shown an extraordinary-and I do not want to be pompous- sensitivity and a comprehension of a very important debate. He knows this has been quite a day for me. To say that, I mean it totally and absolutely. I want to thank him for that unbelievable understanding of the meaning of what we are all about to do.
It is no secret. He knows that I disagree with the government motion. It is no secret and I will say that in my speech if I have a chance to make it. I disagree with
having sent soldiers. That is another matter. At least he has shown in his own speech that he understands.
I have a question I would like to ask him about his motion. He knows that I am very concerned and my colleagues know it. At least if they didn't, they know it since this morning. He referred to a special committee, and I agree with that. I would like to ask him what he means by travel to the Middle East region to consult with members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
By the Middle East region does he mean just where Canadians are or, in order to have a better understanding of the entire picture, that the time has come for colleagues not to go where Canadians may be attacked soon but to have a feeling and a better understanding of what I have been trying to convey to this House ever since I arrived here, especially since 1970, with all due respect to all my colleagues? Can my hon. colleague who made that speech please help me out in understanding his resolution?


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to. I have introduced this motion twice. I think it is incredibly important at this point in time where we could be facing a major confrontation in the Middle East that parliamentarians have a first-hand observation so that they can come back to this place and have a better and fuller debate, not just based on what is happening on CNN news in the evening.
If we are now getting into a situation where we could be potentially sending tens of thousands of Canadian men and women in the Armed Forces to fight in a war that could happen if diplomatic efforts fail, I think it is very important that members of this House make every effort to apprise themselves on a first-hand basis of all of the political happenings that are now taking place in the Middle East. Anybody that is watching this situation develop knows that it is not just a problem between two states. It is a problem involving a number of states which is extremely fluid, and it is changing on an hourly or daily basis.
- My primary concern is that we go and find out exactly what conditions our men and women are operating under currently, so that we can come back to this place and do not have to listen to third-hand departmental reports given out in the House here as to how the Canadian vessels or the Sea King helicopters are standing up. We could also look at the broader political situation that is evolving so that when we make a decision, if God forbid we ever have to make a decision and if the escalation continues, we will make a decision
October 17, 1990

on what we will do with the Canadian Armed Forces after first-hand knowledge of all of the very difficult and different aspects of this political and military confrontation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with care to the remarks of the hon. member. I want to commend him for the eloquence with which he spoke and certainly for the concern that he expressed for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, many of whom as I know live in his constituency and the constituency of the member for Halifax who spoke earlier in this debate. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Saint-Denis who pointed out the importance of looking at a broader regional approach to this question, including looking at the ongoing tragedy of the plight of the Palestinians in that region.
I want to just ask a very straightforward question of the hon. member for Dartmouth with respect to the government motion which is now before this House. There is an amendment which has been proposed by his colleague and a subamendment which we have proposed. I want to ask him, should the amendment and the subamendment be defeated, whether in fact he will be voting against the government motion.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments and for his question. If the hon. member was listening, which I am sure he was, and I know he was busy signing letters, he would have heard at the end of my remarks that I had urged that we not get to a point where there is a vote yea-nay, nay-yea and indifferent and abstained in this House on this particular issue, and that I had hoped that we could come to a consensus where cooler heads would prevail and we could come up with a resolution that basically supported our Canadian Armed Forces.
If the hon. member wants to know whether or not I would condemn the government for not calling Parliament earlier, I would condemn it. If he wants to know if I would support the amendment put forward by the Liberal Party, I w'ould support it. I would hope that by the time we get to the main resolution the government
Government Orders
will have seen the error of its ways in bringing phoney, partisan, political overtones to this particular resolution and that we will have a resolution that everyone in this House can support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Minister for External Relations.


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the crisis in the Persian Gulf and to do so from a somewhat different perspective. As the Minister for External Relations, I am particularly concerned about the people affected by this crisis, so I would like to approach the issue from that perspective.
Mr. Speaker, the act of brutal aggression committed by the Iraqi government has had an overwhelming impact on the lives of the people who were directly affected. Saddam Hussein drove thousands of people from their homes, and because of him, hundreds of the thousands of workers have lost their jobs. They now have no food, no shelter and no money. He has forced these people to ask the international community to help them return to their country of origin.
His invasion of Kuwait may have even more serious consequences, increasing the poverty and dashing the hopes of many of the poorest people and nations in this world. As a member of the global community, Canada has a duty to help those who are in greatest need.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Canada was among the first countries and one of the most generous, with its donation last August of $2.5 million to meet the needs of the initial waves of displaced persons that crossed the border from Iraq to Jordan. I am also very proud that from the very beginning, non-governmental organizations in this country provided support for aid and air transport operations. These dedicated people have maintained a Canadian presence in the most desperate situations.
I am also proud of the fact that when conditions in the evacuation camps deteriorated to the point of nearchaos and relief teams were hardpressed to help with the ever increasing flow of refugees, Canada asked the

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
United Nations to appoint a special representative in charge of supervising relief operations.
Secretary General Perez de Cuellar appointed Prince Saddrudin Agha Khan. According to the latest news, the situation in the camps has improved considerably and air transport operations are now better organized.
Since the beginning of October, more than 300,000 people have been repatriated, thanks to the concerted efforts of the UN and bilateral action by Pakistan, Egypt and other countries.
Elowever, Mr. Speaker, there are still thousands of foreign workers in Iraq and Kuwait, and the situation remains explosive. New waves of refugees fleeing Iraq and Kuwait are still reaching the borders.
Canada is prepared to continue its assistance. On September 14, the Prime Minister announced that an additional $75 million in humanitarian and economic aid would be set aside to help people directly affected by the crisis. This money will be used partly to charter Canadian planes that will take displaced persons back to their countries of origin, including Bangladesh, the Philippines, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
On September 28, Canada rushed an additional $4 million to the International Organization for Migration, to be used for evacuating refugees by air. This was in addition to the million dollars already donated to the organization at the beginning of the crisis. IOM executives contracted a Canadian air carrier for these shuttle flights.
Part of the $75 million will be used to provide for the basic needs of displaced people in evacuation camps, including water, food, shelter and medical care. Part of these funds will also be used to assist resettlement in the country of origin.
In the countries least equipped to cope with the mass of returning nationals, assistance will be needed to build new housing, support educational programs and reintegrate returning nationals in the labour market.
I can assure the House that the plight of these displaced persons is our most pressing concern. My representatives are now consulting with Canadian missions in the region and in the countries affected by the crisis, as well as with international organizations on the spot and the governments of the countries concerned, to finalize Canada's aid program for these people.
International relief organizations and NGOs will also play an essential role in channelling our assistance.

Canada will also provide economic assistance to the countries of the region most severely affected by the impact of the crisis and of the sanctions, especially Jordan, Egypt and Turkey.
In Jordan, it is estimated that some 30 per cent of total Gross National Product will be lost this year through trade losses, through increases in the price of oil and through lost remittances from Jordanians who once worked in Iraq and Kuwait.
Egypt and Turkey too will suffer significant losses for economies with little resilience to external shocks such as these. I have asked my officials to provide me with a detailed assessment of how Canada can best respond to the needs of these countries and those populations. Consultations are under way with other potential donors and the countries in question.
We will ensure that this additional Canadian assistance is used effectively to relieve hardship, to adjust to the economic shock and to help keep the process of development on track.
Our world has become increasingly interdependent. Other countries further from the region will also be affected by the impact of the Gulf crisis.
Many countries in eastern Europe have launched a dramatic, but still fragile, process of political and economic transformation. Their ability to manage the basic economic adjustment to market economies is hampered by the burden of oil price increases, which is further compounded by the need to now pay in expensive, hard currency.
The developing world too will be affected and I am factoring in the longer term consequences of the gulf crisis in our over-all assistance planning. The scenario for many developing countries is not good, but much will depend on the longer term price of oil.
October 17, 1990

Higher oil prices affect both the developed and the developing world, but the consequences in the developing world, particularly the low-income countries, are much harder to manage.
In addition to coping with higher prices for imported oil, developing countries might find weaker markets for their exports if global growth is negatively affected by the increase in the price of oil and if inflation and interest rates increase.
Developing countries are much more vulnerable than developed countries to such changes in the global economy. Many may well have difficulty paying their import bills and in continuing to finance important government programs.

Mr. Speaker, the extent of the problem and the response of the international donor community were the focus of discussions at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which I attended.
It is essential to proceed with a joint analysis of the extent of the impact on developing countries and to provide for multilateral co-ordination, if we are to maximize the use of the meagre financial resources at our disposal.
A co-ordination process has been established.
The gulf crisis financial co-ordination group has already met twice, and Canada has been an active participant.
It is clear that growing economic pressures as a result of the crisis will make it very difficult for many developing countries to cope with their debt load.
Canada has been asking for some time for new measures to respond to the ongoing problems of developing countries regarding their debt.
The gulf crisis is even more reason to improve the debt strategy. At the meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Trinidad and Tobago last September, it was agreed that it would be necessary to take steps to improve the "Toronto terms" used to re-schedule the official debt to the Paris Club.
I am confident that this is a first step towards a broader, international consensus that is necessary if we are to improve assistance to developing countries that
Government Orders
are having trouble re-scheduling their official debt to the Paris club.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to say that the consequences of the actions of Saddam Hussein will not be limited to the Middle East. They will be felt by all countries throughout the world.
Peacekeeping and resisting aggression are also elements on which the future of developing countries depends. As a citizen of the world, Canada will not forget the needs of the poorest people and countries of this planet.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are all aware of the wide-reaching consequences of the crisis in the Persian Gulf, and I believe that as Canadians, we must consider the disastrous impact of this crisis on the people concerned and make sure these people receive assistance from the international community and Canada, thus giving them hope for a better life in the nearest possible future.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister made his remarks on this issue of committing the Canadian government to up to $75 million to assist some of the problem areas, assist refugees, et cetera, and we heard where some of that $75 million will go today from the Minister for External Relations.
I am wondering if the minister, representing her government here today, could tell this House what her government is doing to assist the Canadian farmers who have lost contracts with the Iraqis. The Prime Minister in this House did hint that his government would consider such compensation to Canadian farmers. I am wondering if she could give us an update as to just how this compensation will work and in what amounts.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very relevant. Indeed, as member of the international community we endorsed and even actively participated in the drafting of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. Such decisions were necessary to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and make it possible for the international community to hope that Iraq would withdraw from Kuwait. This calls for commitments on the part of the Canadian government, and it was with that in mind that the Prime Minister announced that Canadians and the government would join in this international effort to

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
help striken communities through these extreme difficulties.
With respect to the impact on the domestic situation I would suggest that ever since we took office the government has shown it is committed to support the agricultural community in Western Canada. We have given evidence of that on several occasions in the course of our mandate, and again recently in giving support to agricultural producers in their quest for alternate survival means tailored to the needs of their community. I expect that my colleague does not entertain any doubt whatsoever about what our government has done.
As to a special measure, I think the Minister of Agriculture and some of his colleagues are examining the situation to see whether something else might be done. Unfortunately I am not in a position to provide more information on that point. The main issue I want to emphasize in the dabate today is that it is imperative that we should try to solve some of the problems of the people who have been the victims of this crisis. That was the thrust of my remarks today, and I am convinced that all members of the House and all Canadians will be supportive of any measure we can take to assist those people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway and then the hon. member for Northumberland.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the government wants to provide assistance to the people affected by the crisis in that area. She knows full well that among those are some Palestinians living in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. She knows, for instance, that Palestinians working in Kuwait have sent a lot of money simply to support their families still living in the occupied territories. That money has now run dry, and for the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, the situation is very serious indeed. As the minister knows, those Palestinians face illegal deportation, collective punishment, and settlements. And now they are facing another major problem, the lack of financial support, usually given by the members of their families in Kuwait. The
minister mentioned how important it is to respond to the need of the people from Jordan and Turkey for example. What will the government do to help the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, who are also victimized by this whole situation?


Monique Landry: As my hon. friend has just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we recognize indeed the tremendous needs of the community directly affected by the Iraqi crisis. Immediately following the invasion, we may have been more directly concerned by the exodus of a great many displaced people toward the so-called frontline nations and by the very serious consequences both on the individuals and the governments who had to provide food and shelter for those displaced people.
The House should therefore understand that we are currently involved in discussions, that we have met some immediate needs identified by such international organizations as, for instance, the International Immigration Office. As I explained in my remarks, we are working with the international community through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the OECD, as well as with donor countries in an effort to identify the areas of intervention and make sure that the needs of the people will be taken into account and that we will be able to provide enough assistance to help these populations.
My hon. friend most certainly knows that the CIDA has assistance programs for the Palestinians and that, during these discussions, we will certainly check to see whether additional funds should be allocated for compensation. I do not think that any decision has been made so far, but I take due note of his comment. I am aware of the impact this loss of revenues provided by those working in Kuwait will have on Palestinians. I also take due note of this.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the fact that many countries outside the Middle East region are very severely affected by the crisis that exists, among them east European countries and also many Third World countries very distant from the Middle East.
October 17, 1990

Those countries that are very far from the Middle East have experienced hardship earlier because of our government's cutbacks twice in ODA to their programs. The gap is widening in Third World countries between the rich and the poor and it is becoming critical as a situation in itself in that, by allowing this to continue, we could be provoking a global depression to say nothing of recession here in Canada.
The oil crisis that is exacerbating an already bad situation is creating very bleak situations for many countries. The minister mentioned that she was planning to factor in adjustments for these countries that are severely affected by the oil crisis.
Can she assure us, first, that ODA funds will not be diverted to east Europe? As well, in the face of the extreme crisis being faced by so many Third World countries because of the oil crisis, is Cabinet reconsidering the ODA cutbacks and will it not just factor in adjustments but increase ODA levels to the countries most affected by the crisis?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the hon. member's interest in development, and although we may not have met, I am very much aware of her interest in the area of development assistance.
First of all, I would like to say that this government, as the hon. member knows because I have given her this answer many times before, is very committed to helping Third World countries. I think we have demonstrated this in a number of ways, and of course we spend a considerable amount on development aid. I think there are other factors as well that show our commitment to Third World countries.
Perhaps I may remind the hon. member that we were the first country to forgive the debts of Third World countries in sub-Saharan Africa-both Commonwealth countries and members of La Francophonie; we were also one of the first countries to transform our loans into donations. I think that is also a clear indication of our commitment to helping Third World countries. The hon. member warned earlier against directing aid funds to Eastern Europe, and I believe we have made that commitment. In other words, CIDA aid budgets as such are not used for countries in Eastern Europe. Those are
Government Orders
new budgets, and our existing aid budgets are used for countries that are eligible, and the hon. member knows the countries on the list.
As for the present situation, we are aware of the tremendous difficulties caused by the crisis, in addition to the problems already being exprienced by those countries. I think that when working with Third World countries, which includes working through various multilateral mechanisms, by participating in various international committees and also bilateral talks, we always try to determine the best ways to maximize our aid in terms of responding to the specific problems of Third World contries.
That is what we are doing today. We are already aware of some of the increasing problems of certain countries, and I can assure the hon. member that we are personally committed to alleviating as much as we can the additional problems created by this crisis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well-she said so herself-that we are providing assistance to Jordan and others, but principally to Turkey.
Will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister or the Minister for External Affairs or indeed others have reminded Turkey, which is now receiving assistance because of this crisis, that it never acted upon the United Nations' request for withdrawal of their troops from Cyprus?
There are numerous United Nations resolutions that were not acted upon by the government of Cyprus and now, because another country was invaded and pursuant to United Nations resolution, we are providing assistance to that country. This issue is of great concern in Canada, and I can assure you that hundreds of Canadians will listen carefully to your answer.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that this is a crisis situation. I dare hope that all Hon. Members and all Canadians were happy to see the Government respond so quickly in providing assistance to the people affected by this crisis. I think Canadians have the reputation of being generous people. We have upheld this reputation during other major crisis-including the famine in Ethopia-and I think Canadians generally have always supported the actions of their

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
Governments. I understand my hon. friend's concern about other conflicts, but the Government had, for compassionate reasons to take quick action to help countries adapt to a new situation. Speaking of assistance, I suggest our aim must always be to help those most disadvantaged and this is the basic idea behind our policy of providing assistance to people who must face a situation for which they are not responsible.
I think my hon. friend understands now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question and comment period is now over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Victoria has the floor.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I appreciate this opportunity. It is the first I have had in my new role as critic for defence, disarmament and arms control for our party and I look forward to using that position to forward a number of important policies for the country. It is an interesting time to become involved in these issues.
In beginning my job in this role, I want to pay particular tribute to the colleague who preceded me, the hon. member for Brant, who served in this role for a number of years with great distinction. I may say, there were others who preceded him and I will have an opportunity to refer to at least one of them in a minute or two.
Generally, I see the importance of the time that we are in as a time for Canada to define very clearly a new role for itself internationally and, consequently, a new role for itself in terms of defence, disarmament and arms control policies.
I would just make brief reference, at the outset of the debate, to two or three particular issues. For the first time since the end of the war, we now have an opportunity to have a genuine peace dividend as a result of the changing conditions in eastern Europe. We have an opportunity for a new role for the armed services. We have an opportunity for imaginative leadership in the Arctic and in the Pacific in the area of arms control policies.
We have an opportunity to provide leadership to bring the collective agreement that had served us in Europe, this country and others, for so many years, NATO, to an
end and to have a new role for collective security in Europe, governed primarily by Europeans. There is no longer a need for Canada and the United States to maintain troops in Europe. There is no longer a need for NATO. Canada's policy must be to bring NATO to an end and, if NATO will not end, then Canada should withdraw as soon as possible from that organization.
We will have an opportunity, in the weeks ahead, to discuss a new arrangement for surveillance of the continent and an end to the NORAD agreement, which winds down in March of next year.
The Iraqi crisis was clearly brought on, in the final instance, by a breach of international law by Iraq. Our party stands with all parties in the House of Commons in condemning the Iraqi invasion of August 2, in condemning the continued occupation of Kuwait by Iraq, and in condemning the keeping of hostages by the Government of Iraq. All of those are in breach of international law and in breach of obligations under the UN charter. We stand in support of the United Nations and the international community in condemning the breach by Iraq of international law under the charter.
We support the United Nations' call on Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and to free the hostages. We support the UN sanctions and boycott of Iraq. We support the UN authorization of military action to enforce these sanctions against Iraq.
For the Canadian role, we say that, if we had been here in Parliament when this crisis first broke out, we would have urged a different military role for Canada than that urged and adopted by the government. We would have said that Canada, as a member of the Security Council, should have not provided direct military involvement in the enforcement of the blockade, but rather reserved its position so that it could operate as a peacekeeper when the crisis was over.
However, our contingent is in the Persian Gulf and it is our position that to withdraw the contingent directly from the Persian Gulf would send the wrong signal to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It is therefore our position that there should be a change within the particular alignment and that our contingent should serve instead in the Gulf of Oman, reserving itself again for a peacekeeping role when the crisis is over.
October 17, 1990

I would say, as well, that we stand with all Canadians and all members ol' the House in saying that we have the greatest of confidence in our men and women who are serving in the Canadian contingent in the Persian Gulf.
We have not the same confidence, I may add, in the equipment that has been provided by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. On that score, I had an opportunity to do a little research. I looked up some of the statements made by our party in the past.
It is intriguing, Mr. Speaker, when you go back even as far as the founding convention of the party in 1961, to see that our party has consistently urged successive government after government to reshape our military forces, not to continue to provide a kind of mini-American army in Europe and to waste an inordinate amount of money over the last 30 and 40 years in seeking to achieve that role, but rather to prepare ourselves for precisely the kind of role we are being asked and may yet be asked to perform in the Middle East; that is, a role of international peacekeeper under the aegis of the United Nations.
A little volume was produced by an earlier defence critic who was my father and who happened to represent Toronto in Parliament. I noted in doing this research that he served as a member of the defence committee of this Parliament for a number of years. In this volume that he wrote back in 1965, he built on the resolution adopted by the founding convention of the party and outlined the kind of policies, that if we had been following for the last 30 years, we would not only have saved the Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars, but we would have been equipped to play a real role as peacekeeper in the world.
When we look at the role that Canada has now in the Middle East, we say that we should alter the role and that Canada should move its forces back into the Gulf of Oman. But we should also prepare for the culmination of the crisis which is clearly upon us in the next few weeks. The United States and the armies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are clearly building to the point that they at least have the capacity to engage in a major military assault on Iraq and the Iraqi forces in Kuwait. All of the analysis indicate that such an assault would be extraordinarily costly in human lives and in the long term political consequences. Some of the estimates are that there would be 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed in such an action. There would be thousands and thousands more
Government Orders
innocent civilians in Iraq who would be killed. There would be thousands upon thousands of Iraqi soldiers killed. The cost in human lives of a military assault on Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi forces would be enormous.
The cost in terms of instability in the Middle East in the long run will be incalculable. The world has seen in the last two months, since the crisis began, a very remarkable pulling together of international opinion. Virtually all of the international community has supported the actions that have been taken to date. They have done so under the aegis of the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council. This is an achievement which the world has dreamt of since 1945 when the United Nations was first founded.
Offensive military action taken outside the purview of the United Nations will shatter the work that has been done in the last two and one-half months. Further, it will shatter the very shaky but important alliance in this venture that there is to date between the Arab world, or at least the majority of the Arab world, and the rest of the international community.
The cost in terms of stability within the Arab world would be enormous if the United States leads offensive unilateral military action against Saddam.
It is hard at this stage to understand exactly what the U.S. intentions are. We have General Michael Dugan, who was the Chief of Air Staff for the United States, saying that it was clearly the U.S. intention to engage in offensive action in the Persian area and against Iraq.
There are others who suggest that this is merely an important bluff designed to persuade Saddam Hussein that rather than face the American might that is now being organized in Saudi Arabia, he would be advised to pull back from Kuwait.
There are those who argue publicly in the United States that the objective should not be the objective set down by the United Nations resolutions, namely the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait and the return and freedom of the hostages, but the objective should be the personal removal from power of Saddam Hussein, deserved though that may be, given his record.
For the international community to accept that additional objective brings with it a number of important consequences. The bluff itself may involve great dangers because it may induce Iraq to take pre-emptive action in

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
the Middle East against its neighbours in Jordan, Israel and elsewhere.
What Canada must do in the weeks and days ahead is to ensure that we follow two substantial objectives based primarily on our membership on the United Nations Security Council. The first objective we should have is to ensure that whatever action takes place in the Middle East, starting tomorrow, must continue to be done under the United Nations and under United Nations authority.
Article 41 of the United Nations provides for the establishment of a Military Staff Committee. This was designed when the charter was adopted to give the United Nations the opportunity to directly supervise an international peacekeeping force. Let me read it for the record. It is Article 47.1:
1.	There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
2.	The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of 1he Security Council or tlieir representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
3.	The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
4.	The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
The time has come for the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations to be brought into being. Canada should take the leadership in the Security Council to test and press that position as far as it can. There are indications that the United States would not accept it. Those indications cannot be given in to at the beginning. Every international effort must be made to see that this crisis is used to further strengthen the United Nations and to give it an opportunity to operate.
The practical significance of this is that it permits whatever military action becomes necessary in the Middle East to be done so with the full support of the Security Council and the international community. Anything less than that will have a devastating impact on the world as we know it, and turn this crisis into one that will be preceded only in its consequence by the Second World War. That must be Canada's first objective in the days and weeks ahead.
The second objective must be to clearly limit and delimit Canada's role in this crisis militarily. That limit must be clearly stated by the government and by this Parliament. Canada's role is only to operate within the authority of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. Canadian troops will not be authorized to take any action not authorized by UN resolution. So far, Canada is proceeding in precisely that way. If I heard the Minister of National Defence correctly in the House the other day, he indicated that the current orders to the Canadian contingent is consistent with that principle.
What I think the Canadian people need, in fact what the world community needs as an act of leadership from Canada, is a statement from the government that this will continue to be the government's policy, and that Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula will not be drawn in to any action undertaken by the United States that is not authorized by UN resolution.
We must make it clear in advance to the Americans that that is our position and that if they take military offensive action against Iraq without UN authority, they will lose the support of Canada for their activities in the area. It is an important principle and one which we have to maintain.
Let me quote in support of that position. Mehran Nakhjavani is an Ottawa-based economist and consultant who has done work for The Economist and teaches at McGill University. Mr. Nakhjavani, as I understand his position from a number of articles that he has written, including one in today's Globe and Mail, is not someone who has any illusion that sanctions will work. I hope on that point he is wrong.
I insist, on behalf of our party, that sanctions be given every opportunity to work before military action is taken. Mr. Nakhjavani is not one who could be seen as someone who has any illusions about the capacity of Iraq to withstand the sanctions. He may, if I understand his
October 17, 1990

position properly, in certain circumstances, support offensive military action against Iraq. What he states in as clear terms as I have seen is a position that even if the United States took action, it is imperative that Canada stay out of it. Let me quote the concluding paragraphs of an article he wrote and was published in The Globe and Mail on September 27, 1990:
The danger is that if it comes to war, Canada's armed forces will be seen to be involved in an aggressive operation against Iraq, rather than as a responsible member of 1he international community. Canada has always championed the United Nations system, and must not allow its name to be besmirched by involvement in a war planned and directed by generals in the Pentagon or Damascus.
This is not an argument for appeasement. There is indeed a fundamental principle at stake, namely the right of small nations to live free from the threat of invasion by powerful and covetous neighbours.
Article 42 of the UN charter was written for this day, when the United Nations could finally come of age and, free from the dross of superpower rivalry, assume its responsibilities.
Canada's voice must be the voice of reason in the midst of the war-mongering: let the UN direct the military operation. Put our troops, and those of the multinational forces in the Persian Gulf, under UN command and a UN flag.
There are lessons even now to be learned by what has been happening in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf crisis. The first lesson we must learn is the need to end the pernicious sale of arms around the world. Our troops and those of the international community are facing Exocet missiles built in France. They are facing planes developed and built in the Soviet Union, purchased by Iraq on British, German, and American credit. I do not have any details of whether there are Canadian parts involved in these weapons, but that would not surprise me, given the way in which our industry is so integrated in the war industry around the world.
Our troops and those of other countries face weapons which we have sold to Iraq, which is now the fifth strongest army in the world. This situation in some variation or another could be duplicated wherever we are going to be asked to serve as peacekeepers.
The world has gone mad in the last 40 years in the sale of arms to the Third World, in the development of arms and an arms culture within our own societies and economies. The lesson we have to learn from this is that the world must turn back from a reliance on the addiction and the addiction of arms sales as a way of
Government Orders
earning a living. We have to do it in Canada. We have to do it in the western world and in the Soviet Union, which is now obviously beginning to realize the enormous economic and social cost of trying to maintaining a role as a superpower. We must see that same lesson and particularly we can see it vividly now in the lesson of the Iraqi crisis. The crisis that we are facing is the crisis that we have created ourselves.
We also must understand and recognize when we put this crisis into the total global context that there are other critical issues that we have to face. We have to face the issues of a reliance on oil and a reliance on fossil fuels. We have to face the issue that the lives that are being threatened in this crisis is as nothing to the crisis which we are imposing on the lives of children and adults in the Third World who are the victims of poverty, in part brought about by the addiction and cancer of the military arms race.
We must learn from this how the world's decisions must most effectively be made, how to use the United Nations, how to turn to the regions to solve their own problems, how to involve both sides of the now torn down Iron Curtain in resolving issues of international conflict. Finally, we must see out of this an opportunity for a new role for Canada, not a role that says, as the government has said to George Bush, "ready, aye, ready," whenever you ask, but a role in which Canada can be an international peacekeeper, in which Canada can be a voice of reason, of principle, in which Canada can use its considerable power in the world to strengthen the United Nations and to give our children and grandchildren an opportunity to live in peace in the future.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is an honour for me to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on this motion. I think it is a motion that enjoys widespread support in Canada and in this House and on a non-partisan basis as well. Surely there can be no doubt that to resist unprovoked aggression, to ensure that an aggressor does not profit from violent acts, and to give hope to the victims of aggression is the right course of action for Canada to pursue in the international community.

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
As we all know in the pre-dawn hours of August 2, the Government of Iraq, without provocation and paying no heed to the civilized norms of international conduct, launched a massive invasion of Kuwait. With an overwhelming force of 150,000 soldiers, 1,200 tanks and some 1,000 armoured vehicles, a force which was vastly superior to any defence that Kuwait could muster, Iraqi forces quickly captured Kuwait City and occupied the seat of government.
Six days later Iraq's original pretext of invasion, which was a claim that it was assisting revolutionaries flee Kuwait from reactionary rulers, was replaced by Baghdad's declaration of a comprehensive and eternal merger between Iraq and Kuwait, an ill disguised phrase for Iraq's outright annexation of Kuwait.
The speed and brutality of this invasion and its utter disregard for the norms of international conduct is the essence of the issue which confronts us today; namely, how we in Canada with like minded nations, members of the international community, can best prevent further acts of aggression by Iraq and compel Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait.
I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, nor hon. members of the House that the Canadian Armed Forces have been used over the years to uphold the pillars of Canadian foreign and defence policy, especially in support of United Nations measures designed to secure the peaceful resolution of disputes and confirm the sanctity of existing states and their borders. Indeed, Canada's support for the United Nations operations in this region stretches back as far as 1949.
It is in support of these long-standing Canadian objectives that our ships and our aircraft have been committed to the Persian Gulf region.
Canada's geography should not and indeed cannot isolate us from developments in international affairs, even when it is a country that is so far away such as Kuwait in the Persian Gulf to which not too many Canadians have travelled or perhaps know that much about. What we do know is that Canada is a trading nation which will be adversely affected by the economic consequences of Iraqi's blatant disregard for international law and its resulting impacts on our trading partners.
We all know some of those consequences that we are feeling now.
More important than trade and those kinds of economic consequences, Canada is a concerned, a compassionate and an active partner in the international community of nations, something that has been a precedent for all governments of this country and something that all members of the House can feel very proud about. As Canadians we must recognize that in the 1990s the commitment of our military forces may be required to give concrete expression to our concern for international peace and security.
Much has been written and spoken about the so-called peace dividend. Now that the cold war is over and the superpowers are beginning to work in concert, some people believe that now is the time to reduce Canada's defence preparedness.


John F. Brewin: Agreed.


Mary Collins: Well, I do not agree.
Mr. Speaker, you will know as I do that that simply is not the case. The real peace dividend is that we can now have a greater awareness of the larger world in which we live unfettered by the overriding concern of east-west relations which has been the concern for some decades.
How we respond will be a test of our maturity as a society and our willingness to pursue actively the principles which will promote the type of world community we seek for ourselves and future generations. It is a responsibility that corresponds with our aspirations and our vision of the world. The challenge is to achieve that dividend, a peaceful and stable international environment across the entire globe.
I take great comfort in knowing that the world community shares those aspirations.
The international community, as embodied in the United Nations, has sent a clear and unequivocal condemnation of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It has refused to recognize Iraq's annexation of Kuwait and is taking such measures as are necessary to enforce economic sanctions against the aggressor. We now have over 25 countries that have committed forces to the region as part of a multinational effort to deter further aggression and persuade Iraq to give up its illicit gains.
October 17, 1990

Government Orders
This is truly collective security in action, and as a founding member of the United Nations, Canada too must play a role.
I cannot help but feel that there is a sad and perhaps in some ways poetic justice in the fact that it is a modern tyrant, Saddam Hussein, who unwittingly, I am sure, has brought about unprecedented revitalization of the United Nations.
The preamble to the Charter of the United Nations speaks about the determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, about faith in fundamental human rights, about the dignity and worth of the human person, and about the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.
It goes on to say that "to unite our strength, to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest" we "have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims".
I am convinced that the recent actions of the Security Council and the member states of the United Nations are a true embodiment of how its original architects, with the bitter experience of two world wars behind them, intended the organization to function.
Canada was one of those architects. It is entirely fitting, therefore, that our United Nations mission has taken such an active role in opposing this type of naked aggression. The countries of the international community have put aside their differences, both past and present, to voice their unwillingness to countenance Iraq's behaviour by agreeing to implement the strongest UN Security Council resolutions since the Korean war.
I would remind the House that in an historic display of unanimity the Security Council has taken the following measures. It has condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and called upon Baghdad to withdraw its forces from that country. It has imposed a trade embargo on Iraq and made it virtually impossible for Iraqi oil to reach foreign customers. It has refused to recognize the incorporation of Kuwait into Iraq. It has deplored Iraq's treatment of foreign nationals and demanded their immediate release. It has authorized the use of force to implement the economic embargo and has only permitted the import of food into Iraq for humanitarian relief.
But, like other tyrants before him, Saddam Hussein is unlikely to be deterred by resolutions that are not backed by concerted action on the part of the world community. We, in co-operation with like-minded nations, must demonstrate in concrete terms that aggressors will not profit from their callous disregard of the international norms of civilized behaviour.
The nations of the world are being given a new chance to develop an international system to save succeeding generations from the scourge of aggression, to reinforce the rule of law, to decree that henceforth the world community will tolerate only the peaceful resolutions of disputes.
To this end we must from time to time be prepared to support our noble words with concrete measures. Our actions must lend credibility to our philosophy, or the tyrants of this world will not be deterred.
That is why the founders of the United Nations made specific provisions for the enforcement actions under chapter VII of the UN Charter. Article 42 of the charter that has been quoted often in this House states:
-should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of members of the United Nations.
These measures were designed to deal with threats to peace or acts of aggression when all other measures had failed. This is precisely the action taken by the Security Council on August 6.
The government felt that the passage of the Security Council Resolution 660 condemning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and 661 authorizing the imposition of economic sanctions provided a sufficient rationale to commit elements of the Canadian forces to the multinational efforts in the Persian Gulf.
Only hours after our ships departed the Security Council passed Resolution 665 calling upon those states which were to deploy maritime forces in the region to take such measures as were necessary to ensure strict implementation of the embargo. The effectiveness of this implementation process was further enhanced when the Security Council passed Resolution 670 approving an air embargo against Iraq.

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
If we did not accept our share of the burden in support of such measures, we would not be living up to our obligations as founding members of the United Nations. I remind the House that over 25 members of the United Nations, I think it is, have now committed forces to this operation, nine of them Arab countries. Was it really possible for us to do less?
Can we abstain from participation in a multinational effort that has drawn support from Third World countries, the economies of which are already stretched to the limit? Can Canada shirk its responsibilities when Bangladesh has not?
I submit that it is imperative for Canada to assist in enforcing the ground rules of a new international order. We will have this new order, this new era of peace, but only if it is supported and strengthened by all civilized nations including Canada.
I know that hon. members will join me in asserting that only such an important fundamental cause could ever justify the use of the dedicated members of our Armed Forces.
Canada now has close to 950 officers and non-commissioned members serving aboard our ships as part of the Operation Friction Task Group, including 29 women serving on the HMCS Protecteur. As well we have some 550 personnel deployed in support of our CF-18 operations including 40 women. These men and women are living proof of our nation's determination to stand up and be counted when the deterrence of aggression and the preservation of peace are on the line.
Of course we hope and pray that war will not break out, that the economic sanctions supported by multinational military deployments will prove sufficiently effective to deter further aggression and persuade Iraq to comply with the wishes of the United Nations.
If wiser counsels do not prevail, Mr. Speaker, the House can be assured that our service men and women have the protection that technology and their own professionalism can provide. They are equal to any task that will be demanded of them, and they have the comfort and ease of conscience that comes from knowing that they are serving in a just and noble cause-the pursuit of a lasting peace and the elimination of violence between nations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in supporting the motion before the House and ask colleagues from all sides of the House to join me in that support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. I will recognize the hon. member for Victoria, the hon. member for Saint-Denis and then the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the Associate Minister of National Defence. I look forward up to a point to working with her over the next period of time. I hope I can make her life at least politically miserable, and I do not intend that personally in any way, shape or form. I am sure at that level we can work very well together if the past is any indication.
I would like to ask two questions of the minister. The first is whether she will give this House a clear and unequivocal commitment that Canadian troops will not participate in any military action in and around the Arabian Peninsula that is not authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That is the first question.
The second question refers to her comment about a peace dividend. I heard her say that we should not anticipate a peace dividend. Now, I am a bit puzzled on that because I woke this morning to The Globe and Mail telling us that the defence minister has warned the defence industry that financial constraints will mean further cutbacks in the size of Canadian forces.
We know that last month 1,400 troops were cut from the 8,000-member force in Europe and sources have told The Globe and Mail that there will be a further reduction of 5,000 to 15,000 troops, much of the reduction coming from troops in Europe.
I would like to ask the minister whether the time has not come for some really creative thinking on the part of the Department of National Defence and of the government in this area.
We were down in Washington on the CSIS committee and we heard more creative thinking from the CIA than we hear from the Department of National Defence when it comes to a genuine peace dividend.
We no longer need our troops in Europe and the government should be proceeding to plan open and above board for the withdrawal of all troops from Europe. They provide no military service. They provide no political significance now that the CSCE is being
October 17, 1990

developed and expanded, as explained in a very good speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We can move to reserves. We can move to a new navy role because we will no longer have to maintain the sea lanes. That role is going, going, gone. It offers us an opportunity of a peace dividend.
I would like to hear the minister say that her department is engaging in some creative work to be able to assure Canadians that there will be a real peace dividend in the next 12 months to two years.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the hon. member's first question. I think that it is perhaps the first time I have had an opportunity to speak with him in the House of Commons in his official role as critic. He is from my own province. The city of Victoria plays a very important role in our navy and is a city that I frequently visit and enjoy. It is a wonderful city.
I think the hon. member is aware that the mandate of our forces operating in the Persian Gulf is for the deterrence of aggression, the enforcement of the economic sanctions in accordance with the UN role. That is certainly the role that they have. We hope that will be all that is necessary. It would be unfair for me to predict the future.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in his speech on this motion earlier in the House of Commons what actions he would take if circumstances changed that required some other more aggressive role. We certainly hope that will not happen and that a combination of the enforcement of the economic sanctions and other diplomatic efforts, can resolve this issue peacefully. I hear lots of different opinions and I am sure my hon. colleague is hearing, as I am, about the likelihood of that, but certainly every effort has to be made because the alternatives certainly, in my mind, are too horrific to think about, the loss of life, the children, and the loss of the future in that part of the world.
Coming back to the future of our own department, I am sure, as the hon. member is aware, it is a difficult time. We are dealing with several aspects. One, as I mentioned before, is that the Cold War is over and that is such welcome news. We believe the stability in Europe
Government Orders
has come about because of the strong role that NATO has played and, in effect, it has been able to deter aggression during some of those years that were more volatile than is the case now.
Canadians have played a role in that united force. It was not a large role but a significant one nevertheless, considering the size of our armed forces. We have always said that we will be there with our colleagues and there is a joint resolution through the CFE talks and, hopefully, to be acknowledged at the CSC meetings in November. Then we can see how we can reduce our participation. I hope that will come about and that, at a future time, we will be able to have a significant reduction in the number of troops in Europe.
We are faced, as a government and as a country, with a difficult financial situation. In our department, we have had to play our role in helping to deal with the deficit. We have taken not absolute reductions in some cases, but in others certainly less than had been planned for in terms of growth in defence spending over the past two years.
As the minister indicated in his speech yesterday, at this point in time our plans are based on only 5 per cent nominal growth, which really is no growth, because that is just the cost of inflation. That means that we do indeed have to be more creative. That is why we are now going through a process of looking at everything we do, at our taskings, at the number of people at the defence establishment review, and at our headquarters operations.
Certainly we recognize that, in the area of equipment, because of the long lapse which the Canadian Armed Forces had to endure, that there is really a backlog built up and we need better equipment. Therefore we are looking at ways to economize more effectively in areas of infrastructure or personnel in order to be able to redress that kind of balance.
As the hon. member is aware, we are looking at the utilization of our reserves, our militia, in more effective ways and combining the total force concept which we have brought to bear. I just announced last week the implementation of a new benefit package for our reserves so that brings them, again, more in line in terms of service with regular force. More and more of our reserve people are on call-outs and being able to fulfil certain

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
kinds of roles. I have great confidence in that; I think that is a very important direction in which we need to go.
We are also going to have to do things better and more effectively. We all know that when there is a lot of money around, people perhaps tend to get a little flush and that is not the case now. So those kinds of reviews are going on and I look to the support and assistance of hon. colleagues who, I know, serve on the standing committee to assist us with their suggestions and input. I am sure they will be very helpful as we try to meet these difficult challenges that lie ahead of us.


Marcel Prud'homme: There is nothing I would like better than to question the hon. minister but I have already participated this afternoon. Therefore I would like to be gracious to one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, who was recognized by you, Mr. Speaker, after me. So, with sadness, I will not put all my questions but I will put my comments in a speech. I regret this but I want to be gracious to my colleague.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. I should like to direct to the Minister two questions, and make a brief comment.

By way of comment, as the associate critic of defence, as a Newfoundlander and as a Canadian, I want to sincerely thank the hon. minister for her comment and for her personal, as well as her colleagues' support of the Canadian forces, indeed Canada.
I did note in her presentation that she dwelt very much on the mechanics of the United Nations' resolutions and how we responded to them. Personally I found that instructive. I am sure that the listening audience, the public, also found it instructive and very helpful in trying to understand this very complex situation.
I do have a couple of questions for the minister. They are not hidden questions and I do not think they are difficult questions. I will say that I supported the action
of the country, but there is one area that I feel somewhat constrained to comment on. I will put the question to the minister and hope that she can shed some light on it.
I say I support the action. I know the minister has supported it. I am sure other ministers and, I would suggest, many members of this House have supported it. However, I am not sure that every member does support it. I think the advantage of bringing this to discussion in the House of Commons, in the Canadian Parliament before we commit one troop or one gun to an action of this kind is very important.
Historically we have done it in World War I and World War II. We did it in Korea. Perhaps I do not engage in partisanship as much as I should or could, but I understand this is not a question of partisanship. It is not a question of trying to get even with the government, or to score political points.
I think that when a country is sent into a zone that could end up in war, as the minister said: "God forbid, blood may be shed and people may be killed", you have to be prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker. The last thing I want to do is try to scare the public, but I do not think there is any member of the public, the 58 per cent who support this action on the part of the government, who would not have preferred to have a full discussion in the House of Commons. The points that are being brought out now would have been obvious to them before the decision was made. However, it is too late for that now.
I would like to ask the minister if she could tell us what went on behind that decision. Was there reason for it? Was time the problem? Was there something else? Maybe the public would be interested in knowing.
The British consulted the opposition. Even George Bush who does not really have to according to his Constitution consulted the members of his opposition.
My second question is this. Does the minister have any concept of what we are looking at in time? What is her estimate and the estimates of her colleagues?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say the member for Saint-Denis in Montreal is always gracious. I appreciate that.
October 17, 1990

Knowing of the strong record of service and involvement in the military of my hon. colleague from Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception, yes, there were different points of view about when a debate would be most appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, looking back at that calendar knowing Parliament was coming back before the ships would actually become operational-there was going to be a significant period of time to get them there-there would then be the opportunity for debate. In fact, that was the first motion that was moved. We had the debate in the early days.
I think the hon. member is probably aware that there is no actual legal requirement to have a motion. There is a requirement in the National Defence Act to table an Order in Council within 10 days. This has been done in different ways.
I recall reading the debates from the time of the Suez crisis. The Liberal government at that time during the debate indicated that it is the role of the government to make the decisions in these instances. Then there should be an opportunity for debate. Ultimately it is the executive that makes the decision.
Second, how long they will be there? I wish I knew. I really do not think anyone knows at this point in lime. On balance, one would hope that they could be home as quickly as possible. If it is necessary to ensure a peaceful resolution to this dispute to work for longer periods of time for the enforcement of sanctions to finally persuade what we hope is Iraqi's agreement to withdraw from Kuwait, we are prepared to stay there along with like-minded nations, as long as it takes. We will be watching on a daily basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Do I have unanimous consent to recognize the hon. member for Markham- Whitchurch-Stouffville for a short question or comment.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. Sorry. Debate.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member who wanted to put a question
Government Orders
will have time at the end of my remarks. As he knows, I speak very briefly and to the point.
I am very pleased to participate in the debate on this motion put forward by the right hon. member for Yellowhead and seconded by the government House leader.
The Associate Minister of National Defence said that this motion enjoys widespread support among Canadians and in the House. I would like to correct the hon. minister. This motion could have received wide support had her government not bungled this process and come up with an all-party resolution. There are parts of this motion which are very good. There are parts that our party and I, as an individual, can support. Let us break it down.
The first part states:
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and, encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait -
No one would argue with that. I think all Canadians would give this full support.
The second part of the motion states:
-	and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the United Nations Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2 -
Our party supports that wholeheartedly. But the associate minister is not even interested in hearing this side. It is typical of that government. It refuses to negotiate with us. It refuses to try to come up with an all-party resolution. It puts in its two cents, and then it runs.
The last part of the motion states:
-	and for the despatch of members of the Canadian Forces to take part in the multinational, military effort in and around the Arabian peninsula; -
Our party supports a multinational military effort too. But under whose auspices? Under the auspices of one of the superpowers plus some smaller countries which would not get the support of the United Nations? We could not support that. I am saying one superpower or another plus a few countries. But if this multinational military effort would be under the auspices of the United Nations, we could fully support this motion.

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
The critic for our party has had talks with the Secretary' of State for External Affairs. I cannot speak for the NDP, but I hope the same talks are going on there. The NDP have an excellent amendment.
Our critic put an excellent amendment which would ensure that we take part in the multinational military effort in the future, providing it is under UN command. Then this country would have credibility. Imagine, if we had such an all-party resolution, what a boost this would give our military forces who are out there and whose lives are on the line right now. Imagine what support this would give Ambassador Yves Fortier who speaks on behalf of our country. I congratulate him for representing our country so well.
I was in the United Nations at the beginning of this year. I asked: Does the United Nations listen to the resolutions or motions passed in the House of Commons? The answer I got was, yes, if it is an all-party motion or resolution. They do pay attention to it.
We had that example in this House right after the Tiananmen Square crisis. We negotiated among the three parties a resolution which received unanimous support and the world took note.
I must say to this government that one does not play Russian roulette with Canadian lives who are serving in the Canadian Army.
Canadian military personnel want to know under whose command they will serve in the future if the conflict expands. The government gives us the answer that it is under Canadian command. Surely everyone knows there must be one co-ordinating command authorized by the United Nations. Then we would give full support.
If this Persian Gulf crisis can be settled without war, if the United Nations and all the participating countries supporting the UN resolutions can force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and restore the legitimate government of Kuwait through sanctions instead of bullets, then this will be a victory of all victories. It will be a victory for the great institution, the United Nations, a victory for all the countries which support the principles of the United Nations, but most of all a victory for the people of Kuwait.
I hope that the government has learned a few lessons from the international crisis of the Persian Gulf and
from the national Oka crisis that we have had this summer. Lesson number one is: Recall Parliament. When there is a world crisis such as and our Armed Forces are going to be involved, for God's sake, the first thing to do is to recall Parliament if it is not sitting.
The second lesson I hope the government has learned is that it should take all parties into its confidence. It should take the Standing Committee on External Affairs and the Standing Committee on National Defence into its confidence. It should take the people of Canada into its confidence. The government did not do that. If the government had done that and come up with an all-party resolution, then I think the government would have looked good, Canada would have looked good in international eyes, and again we would have shown our leadership as a peacekeeping nation.
Just a little over a week ago we unveiled the statue of the former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson. We were all out there from all three parties and we all applauded at the unveiling. Well, we can take Lester B. Pearson's vision a step further and, instead of acting just as a peacekeeping nation, maybe we should go a step further and be a peacemaking nation. That is something we have not heard from the Prime Minister nor from the Secretary of State. What negotiations are going on in the United Nations, in the corridors, to show that Canada, yes, wants to continue its peacekeeping role, but also has a peacemaking role because our country is respected by all sides of a conflict.
As a former educator, I would like to take this debate in a somewhat different direction. We all remember that over a few weeks ago, right across the world, candlelight vigils were held in commemoration of the United Nations World Summit for Children on September 29 and 30. These vigils served as a reminder to each and every one of us of the 20,000 to 40,000 children that die every day as a result of malnutrition and disease brought on by it-be it misplaced priorities of local governments, economic hardships imposed by international interests, or very simply war, wars that are long gone, wars that have been ongoing for time out of mind, or wars that are just begun, all leaving behind in their wake such destruction and devastation as is difficult for us in the western world to conceive of, let alone comprehend. Such is the magnitude of war.
October 17, 1990

How many children, I ask, are suffering as a result of the Iraq aggression on Kuwait and the subsequent embargoes? How many more will suffer if counter-aggression is found to be the only solution in the Gulf crisis?
I ask this question, not as somebody who does not agree with the actions of the United Nations or the countries who have joined to date the peaceful demonstration against Iraq, but as a reminder for those of us who are in the position to make these decisions that will ultimately decide the fate of the thousands of children in Iraq and the surrounding countries.
This is why more decisions of this magnitude are taken and that extensive and effective consultation and debate are paramount to allow us to explore alternatives, to discuss various courses of action, and most importantly to understand fully the objectives and implications of our actions such as sending fighter jets designed for aggression right into the heart of the conflict. This cannot be done unilaterally by government. Actions such as these should be taken as a country because each and every one of us has something to lose either directly as our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, our fellow Canadians go to potential war, or indirectly as we become party to the destructive and devastating effects of war.
Granted, the Prime Minister has committed funds to alleviate some of the suffering for the displaced in Iraq and for those surrounding countries affected by the crisis, but what about our Canadian farmers? What compensation has the minister offered them? I asked the Minister for External Relations that after her speech. She said the government does not have an answer.
Has the Prime Minister consulted with the farmers about the extent of the damage they are suffering or expect to suffer as the deadlock continues? No, he has not, although this should not be a surprise to anyone.
It has become astonishingly clear that in the last few years, be the issues domestic or international in nature, our right hon. Prime Minister does not believe in consulting Canadians. I am not sure who he consults to resolve these issues. However, since the United States invasion of Panama, one might guess that the opinion of the President of the United States takes precedence over any Canadian. In fact, in times of international crisis, one
Government Orders
may as well look to President Bush for his comments because our Prime Minister's opinions are merely a regurgitation of the president's.
Were the Prime Minister to listen to Canadians, he would have heard the overwhelming outrage regarding his support of the Panamanian invasion. He would have heard Canadians insist on the recall of Parliament to discuss our role in the Gulf. He would have heard coast to coast the insistence that were Canada to get involved in the Gulf crisis that it be done solely under the auspices of the United Nations.
It is an insult to those men and women who are in the Gulf today and to their families that Parliament was not recalled. It is an insult to our history, our integrity, and our identity that we are not able to act independently within the context of the international community. It is a political precedent set by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, a precedent that became tradition, that Canada is a leader in institutions where diplomacy and peacekeeping activities are crucial.
Our party has always maintained collective action through the United Nations as a primary objective of Canadian foreign policy. The United Nations is today the most credible form for deliberation and subsequent co-operation through which we can hope to achieve international peace and security.
We have also maintained public consultation as an essential element to government policy, especially when it involved the deployment of Canadian forces, as was the case during the Korean crisis in 1950. Parliament was given full opportunity at the time to discuss Canadian military options and to endorse the use of Canadian forces in support of UN resolutions.
I would like to stress that when I say public consultation, I mean consultation before or at the time of, not after the fact, as has been the case on numerous occasions such as Canada joining the OAS. Even in our involvement in the United States-Mexico trade agreement, the Minister for International Trade made the decision to sit at the table with the U.S. and Mexico. Now he comes to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade and says: "Let's hear from Canadians what they think about it." The government already made the decision that we are into a trilateral agreement. Now he goes through the sham of listening to Canadians, after the fact.

October 17, 1990
Government Orders
Therefore, as an extension, the Liberal policy is and always has been in keeping with opinions of organizations such as the United Nations Association in Canada.
The same concerns we express today on this floor were echoed in the statement issued by the president of the association at the start of the Gulf crisis. Geoffrey Grenville-Wood expresses his concern about the lack of public debate and discussion around the role Canada is playing in the crisis. He expressed concern about the recent actions of the Government of Canada as being seen as moving away from the traditional and broadly accepted tenet of Canadian foreign policy, that is working within the guidelines of the United Nations.
Mr. Grenville-Wood also puts forward several recommendations, the principles of which I would like to share with the House. First, that Canadian Forces-that is the ships and the CF-18s-be placed and remain solely under UN command, and that Canada stick by that commitment.
Second, that Canada support any resolution that may suggest UN military observers to the Iraq-Saudi and Iraq-Kuwait borders to monitor and report any violations of said borders.
Third, that in keeping with UN conventions, Canada provide leadership in ensuring that all foods and medicines are delivered to the peoples most in need, especially children-the same children to whom we held the candlelight vigilance.
Fourth, that Canada do its utmost to address the problem of the refugees from Kuwait, if necessary, accepting under special provision those who apply for immigration to Canada.
There are situations in which individuals, leaders on behalf of their countries, should stand up and be counted, as we heard from the Associate Minister of National Defence and as we heard from the Prime Minister on the floor of this House on September 24, when he said that the situation demanded a prompt decision to stand up and be counted.
However, one can just stand up or one can stand up with pride and be counted. Unfortunately, once again
our Prime Minister has made sure that Canada stood up only to be counted as part of the United States.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of interest to my friend's comments, some of which I could agree with. Certainly he is entitled to his point of view with regard to his criticism that Parliament ought to have been recalled. Prior to 1984, I sat on that side of the House for-I shudder to think of it-nine years. My friend sat over on this side for a number of those years, part of the government benches.
I cannot recall one day assigned to Parliament for foreign policy debate for all of those nine years except for one time, and I think my friend for Saint-Denis will agree with me on the facts of this. The hon. Don Jamieson-


Marcel Prud'homme: Maybe I could agree with you once.


Benno Friesen: Okay. The hon. Don Jamieson, a fine gentleman from Newfoundland and a very honourable member of Parliament and Secretary of State for External Affairs assigned, I think, two or three days of debate on foreign policy in one sitting. It was a good debate. He did it under pressure from the opposition.
During those years we experienced the takeover in Ethiopia. We experienced the scene in Namibia where Canada was thoroughly involved with the Front Line states in trying to find a solution there. We experienced the Argentinian-British confrontation. We also had Canada involved in peacekeeping observer forces in Vietnam. All of those, to my recollection, were without parliamentary debate, unless it was an opposition day.
The Government of Canada of those days chose never, I underline never, to make ministerial statements in the House on foreign policy matters. It took a lot of foreign policy decisions, perhaps made outside the House, spoke at the United Nations, but not in the House of Commons.
Since 1984, we have repeatedly had the Secretary of State for External Affairs make foreign policy statements in the House prior to making them outside the House.
October 17, 1990

Opposition parties have been given notice of those debates and statements so they could respond. There has been time after time given and statements made on policy in the House.
I am just curious with such a contrast in practice prior to 1984 to post 1984, when prior to 1984 there was almost no debate in this House on foreign policy matters. After 1984, there has been every opportunity for it. What is it that converted the member of Parliament who just spoke so dramatically that, while he was in government, he was not taking part in this. He was not calling for a full parliamentary discussion. Now he wanted Parliament to be recalled for this important debate.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, sitting nine years in opposition and now so long on the government side without any ministerial positions, et cetera, the hon. member's mind is getting weaker.
He is failing to remember events that have happened.
I cannot speak about what happened under Don Jamieson, but I can speak to the period 1980 to 1984 when I was sitting in this House. I sat a year and nine months prior to that when the Conservatives were in power under the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, the right hon. minister.
Unfortunately, I learned in those nine months that that government did not know how to even count when it lost the vote in 1989. I travelled around the world on NATO delegations and others. I can say that between 1980 and 1984 Canada was held in the highest respect because of the clear positions the Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, took on behalf of our country. We were respected.
Members of Parliament from other countries would say: "You people are fortunate to have a leader with such foresight." That is what we have lost. Canada had an identity that the world respected. What have we got now? "Yes, Mr. President, how high?" That is what we have now.
With the short two years that I have been here, I hate to think what this country will come to if it sits in power for another two years. Somehow, I hope there will be an election tomorrow. Let Canadians speak. Let Canadians assess their foreign policy and how far it has deteriorated. If the government sold Canada, we would get
Government Orders
some return for it. It is not selling Canada. It is giving it away for nothing. It is giving it away.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question, and I want to link it to the comments from the hon. member for Dartmouth.
There seems to be a preoccupation with second guessing how our forces were going to be mobilized, when should they go and so on. I mentioned that I happened to visit with Janet van Nostrand about her son, John, the lieutenant who is on the Athabaskan. It is just 200 miles from Kuwait.
I did not find that Janet had any bitterness toward the government, that she was frustrated that there had not been a national debate. None of this. She was just so proud of John. She went into another room and brought back newspaper clippings, clippings from magazines and so on of the Athabaskan. She had not a word in terms of being frustrated at this.
I am sure that men and women who join the services never really wish to go into a war or wish to be in any risky peacekeeping role, but at the same time when they sign up, that is exactly what they may be called upon to do.
I sure have a different perspective on the situation than hon. members are putting. Is the hon. member trying to tell us that he has had thousands of letters criticizing the government's action on this? I suggest that if we keep it a little less political, that even had we debated it in late August or something, what would the member be talking about then in a political way: that the ships are not ready, they will not make the gulf, this sort of thing. That problem has been solved. They are there and certainly, as Lieutenant John said, they are performing very well. Have you created your own tidal wave of response on this and are you misleading-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville stop giving fictitious names to his wife and listen to everything his wife says. If he had walked down Main Street in his riding, as I did in Parkdale-High Park, along Bloor Street, along Roncesvalles Street, streets that you know very well, Mr. Speaker, within an hour or two Canadians were expressing their disgust-

Government Orders


An hon. member:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville.


Bill Attewell: I want to protest in the strongest terms. That was not a fictitious name. This woman Janet van Nostrand, her husband Dr. Peter-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean any offence. If I said anything that offended, I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.
The message is that this government does not have a clear foreign policy. This government does not have a process by which it consults Canadians, does not have a process to work through the standing committees. Why do we have standing committees? So that your constituents, so that someone speaking on behalf of them, could present that to the standing committees and to this House. We would like to hear more of that.
I am sorry, but over the summer I did not hear many of those comments. The ones I heard-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway on a question or comment.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just point out that when Janet van Nostrand's son, Lieutenant John, was sent to the Middle
East that he and the 955 other soldiers who were sent assumed that they were being sent to the Gulf of Oman because Commodore Ken Summers, who spoke on behalf of the navy at that time, indicated that that is where they would be sent, well beyond the possible reach of Iraqi missiles. I think the record should be very clear on that point and that that is why there should have been a recall.
I just have a very straightforward question for the member who has just spoken. That is with respect to the position of the Official Opposition on the government motion, assuming that the subamendment and the amendment which have been proposed by the opposition parties are defeated, and I welcome the hon. member's support for those, is it the position of the Official Opposition then that they will be opposing the government motion?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, in my speech I took the House through the amendment and I expressed which parts we can support and which parts we cannot. I also mentioned that our critic is in negotiations with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope that the NDP party will do the same so that we can up with a motion that all three parties will support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 18,1990