1990-02-16

Mr. Speaker:: I have a point of order from the hon. member for Beaver River.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to express great disappointment over the events in this Chamber yesterday.
I spoke with the government House leader yesterday about the timeframe for the debate on linguistic dualities and the Meech Lake Accord which the government had put forward. He assured me the debate would be going on for three days because it would not be democratic not to let everyone have his or her say. I agreed, and asked him to let me and my office know if there was any change, and he said he would.
After Question Period yesterday the government House leader reiterated in the Chamber what he had told me earlier. The only question was when would be the appropriate time for the vote, so that all members could be present to get their names on the record. In regard to the timeframe, I refer to yesterday's Hansard at page 8400, where the government House Leader said:
The debate will continue tonight with 20 minute speeches until such time as the last person speaks. When the last member is finishing speaking we would simply adjourn until tomorrow. That same arrangement would take place on Monday.
Of course, I believed that. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the debate ended almost as soon as it began. After one speaker from each of the three parties, the motion was immediately put and passed. I had left the Chamber shortly before that, as I was due to catch a plane to my riding. I was prepared to speak and could easily have been here when the debate ended. In fact, I arranged
and now, again, have rearranged my travel schedules to accommodate that timetable.
Unfortunately, what we saw yesterday was a sad display of gamesmanship. I find it appalling that an issue so sensitive, so necessary to be looked at in an objective manner, could be scornfully dismissed by three carefully orchestrated speeches.
The issues in the motion yesterday are divisive and are tough issues for all of us as parliamentarians. There is dissent on Meech Lake and linguistic duality in the House and the public knows it. That is why these matters must be debated here.
The real danger to a democracy is when legitimate dissent becomes restricted to only extreme groups far removed from legitimate institutions. That, I believe, is a real danger in the country today, as illustrated by the events of yesterday. I want to put on the record that I am displeased with what went on, and I am sure the Canadian public who watched this on television was equally appalled.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief intervention. Acting on my party's behalf yesterday morning, I met with the government House leader and the House leader of the Official Opposition.
At that time I raised the proposal that the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party had put forward to the government to have an identical motion and, in effect, to have the leaders of each of the three parties speak to the matter and then proceed to other business. I was advised that no, the government was continuing with their efforts to schedule the debate over the next period of time and not just yesterday.
I so advised my leader who had been prepared to cancel her travel plans in order to be here. When I advised her that there would be further opportunities next week to participate in the debate, she decided to go ahead with her plans to travel into Quebec, and did leave, which was an interesting feat given the weather yesterday. That is why she was not in the Chamber

February 16, 1990
Point of Order
yesterday for this very historical debate. I know that she would want me to indicate to the House and to citizens watching that it had been her intention to speak on this matter.
I regret that events unfolded as they did, with the government deciding to shorten the debate, keep it at a high level-which I think is something we all should be pleased with-and have the vote yesterday afternoon, which we did.
I regret the way events proceeded. It is an indication of how we are not really negotiating the way we should on a number of matters to make sure that the House operates smoothly.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be very clear on what happened yesterday.
The House will know I went on the record during what is known as the business statement immediately after Question Period. I suggested at that time that we were prepared to have an extended debate, with the proviso that there be no dilatory motions and that when the last speaker finished speaking on Thursday night, the debate would adjourn to Friday and Friday's debate would adjourn to Monday. We were prepared to extend the hours on both evenings. Both the Liberal Party and the NDP refused the offer for extended hours and I see no difficulty in that. The offer was made in good faith and accepted by the House in good faith. That was the basis on which we were going to call the debate.
The leader of the Opposition stated very clearly, as reported at page 8408 of Hansard
-we will support this resolution because, above all, it calls for the
reaffirmation of the importance of bilingualism -
That is on the record.
When the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party he said, "We support the resolution before the House today".
We had a debate joined by the representatives of all three parties in which it was made very clear that all three parties in the House were going to support the debate. I do remember speaking with my hon. friend from Beaver River. She asked me in my position as Government House Leader how I thought it would work. I said here is what we are proposing to the other
two parties. I said I did not know whether they would accept it or not. As it turned out they did not accept it.
Now this is the situation. The House will know, members who are here will know that when debate collapses on a motion a vote can be called by the Chair. I suggest that is exactly what happened. The three parties had discussions. The House will know there was excellent attendance in the House yesterday for a major speech. As I told my friend, during the speech of the leader of the Liberal party the Prime Minister and I discussed it with the Deputy Prime Minister and other colleagues. We decided that since there was a good tone coming from the Liberal party's speech that we would see if there was a disposition at that time to have a unanimous resolution of this House for all three parties to enjoin and speak out for Canadians on this very important principle.
I guess I have to say that a lot of hours go into this job from everybody. Being a member of Parliament means that you have to be on top of what is going on in this House while the House is open and sitting. If you cannot be there yourself then you have party people who keep you advised as to what is happening and what your responsibilities are. If you do not want to go through your party officials you can always ask the Table. The officers would have told you that if debate did not go until 5.12 yesterday that the question could be called. That is what happened. It was done with the unanimous endorsation of the leaders of the three parties who represent some 294 constituencies in this country. We spoke out on this very important principle affirming that this is a bilingual country, supporting Meech Lake and the Official Languages Act and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that any elected MP who wanted to be here to speak on that issue knew it was going to be called-it was very clear-and should have been here to make his or her speech and support the resolution.
We have done that. I believe we are fully on the record as to what we were trying to do at the time we were trying to do it. Events changed. Everybody who is here knows that this is a very fluid place and that things happen. Sometimes things look like it is impossible that they will take place and suddenly you have consensus. Yesterday we had that consensus among the three major parties in this country. We reaffirmed a very basic
February 16, 1990

principle which is fundamental to this country. We did it unanimously and I think we can all be proud of it.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the Government Elouse Leader. I must say I find it ironic that yesterday in the speeches we heard about tolerance for minorities. Certainly sitting as one member representing the Reform Party in the House of Commons found that it turned around and this minority was not respected.
We all know that I have every right to be consulted about unanimous consent in this House. I have tried to be very fair- minded in my tenure here, that I would not try to cause problems and hold up the proceedings of this House. However, I do have to say it was amazing that all that happened as soon as I left the Chamber.
I will also say in response to the Government House Leader's comments-and I will finish with this because I know we have other business to get on to-that the Government House Leader has just said that debate collapsed yesterday. Mr. Speaker, you know that the deputy House leader was here. I refer to page 8414 of Hansard yesterday where the Acting Speaker did not even call for further debate. I know that he generally says "resuming debate". He immediately asked: "Is the House ready for the question?" We see another member screaming "no". The Acting Speaker said: "I am sorry I cannot recognize the hon. member. He is not properly dressed." That is fair enough. That presents another problem here.
I think what is so appalling and many Canadians also find appalling is that no chance was given. I have heard from several of my friends on the other side that they were very surprised at what happened. I want it clearly on the record that Canadian people are seeing this, expressing frustration and in fact shrugging their shoulders saying: "There they go again in the House of Commons".


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments by the Government House Leader. I just want to correct the record slightly. The minister left the impression that the House Leader for the Liberal Party and the House
Point of Order
Leader for the NDP categorically rejected any extension of hours. I refer you, Sir, to page 8400 of Hansard of February 15 where the member for Kamloops, the NDP House Leader, said:
It is not clear to me yet about the additional hours today and additional hours again on Monday to allow all members a chance to participate in the debate.
Further on the same page the member for Ottawa- Vanier on behalf of the Liberal Party said:
I do not want the minister to think for one moment that we want to extend or prolong this debate indefinitely.
The inference in both cases, Mr. Speaker, and in fact if you look at the comments from the Chair the Acting Speaker said:
We have had enough negotiations. I think what the House Leaders should do is have their negotiations and we should carry on with Orders of the Day.
This clearly infers the tradition of this House that the House Leaders will meet behind the curtain to work out the process. We were quite prepared to go along with extended hours.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I was involved in discussions. There seems to be some reaction from across the floor. We had not said no and we were quite prepared under reasonable circumstances to go ahead with extended hours but we wanted to know how long, how many speakers, all of those kind of things which we normally try to determine ahead of time. We did not want an open-ended situation where we were having speakers at three or four o'clock in the morning. That is just to add that, Mr. Speaker, to your considerations.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beaver River has risen and has expressed what I must accept as her very great concern at for whatever reason not being able to take part in the debate yesterday. She has eloquently put her position. I have listened to the Minister of Justice. I have also listened to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
Even if it was my intent to do so, there is nothing that the Speaker at this point can do to undo what took place yesterday. I know all hon. members will understand that. In any event, I think that this exchange indicates the necessity at all times to have the clearest understandings between members and among members and certainly

February 16, 1990
Government Orders
among party Whips and party House Leaders. It is also, I think, incumbent upon all members of the House to realize that consent is not found always just by the three House Leaders. The hon. member for Beaver River is a member of this House and when consent is being sought in the normal circumstances the hon. member should also be consulted.
I do want to deal with one thing here because hon. members no doubt might be concerned and so might the public. I am looking at the Commons debate for yesterday and I should say that I was in the chair during most of that debate. I had to leave at the latter part of it for other duties on behalf of all of the members of the House. But in any event, the Speaker who was in the chair was in this position. The debate ended and except for one member-and I will come to that, and I may have to deal with it at another time-who the Speaker did not recognize because he was not properly dressed, there were no other members rising. The Speaker said: "Is the House ready for the question?" There was no vote. It was a unanimous reaction from the House and the debate was closed.
The Hon. Minister of Justice has said that things happen in this place sometimes very suddenly, and they do. I would urge all hon. members that when discussions take place to try to keep in mind that if what seems to be certainties are changed, hon. members will have to keep that in mind. At the same time, as much as is possible, let us try to remember that if understandings are reached or apparently reached and then events change, it can lead to disappointment and sometimes complaint.
I thank the hon. member for raising the matter. I thank the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. I must also keep in mind what the Hon. Minister for Justice said. This House can act sometimes very quickly if there is a consensus to do so. That is what happened yesterday. I regret, as I am sure other colleagues in the House do, that if there were members who wanted to be in a debate later on and now find that because of what the House did by unanimous act they are precluded, that is regrettable. But, again, the House does sometimes move very quickly, especially when there is unanimity in the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-25, an act to amend the Geneva Convention Act, the National Defence Act and the Trade-marks Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the Bill be read the third time and
passed.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of our party to address a few remarks on Bill C-25 before it receives final approval by the House.
Bill C-25 is an act which will amend technically the Geneva Conventions Act, the National Defence Act and the Trade-marks Act. But the effect of the act is to bring the statutes of Canada into conformity with the protocol signed by the Government of Canada as part of the Geneva Convention process.
In 1977 in Geneva, two protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions were achieved. This bill seeks to ratify the two protocols.
Canadians will be familiar in general terms with the Geneva Conventions. These conventions provide a framework in international law for the conduct of affairs between nations, particularly in time of armed conflict. It is a development and codification of humanitarian rules and principles and rules of conduct in war.
I suppose many Canadians would appreciate that in some sense there is a contradiction in terms. The idea of humanitarian rules applying in war would seem to jar the ear. Yet, throughout history states have developed ways of dealing with the atrocities and excesses that occur in war. In a sense until recently the human family has understood that war sometimes occurs and there needs to be constraints and rules even in the conduct of armed conflict.
February 16, 1990

Over the centuries these rules have developed into a formal body of international law which was well respected. During the Middle Ages, for example, so powerful was the understanding of the needs to abide by what was understood to be God's law, the sides would have an automatic truce on the Sabbath or would stop fighting on Christmas Day. These ideas have even persisted into the current times.
In this century we have seen a change in the approach to war which has virtually obliterated some of the constraints that have applied. Perhaps out of what has happened in this century will come what we all hope to achieve, which in the final analysis is the end to war and armed conflict in itself.
What we have seen in this century is the increasing involvement of innocent civilians in armed conflict and in war. This was one of the provisions of international law which was thought to be clear. War which involved innocent civilians was illegal in international law and could not be pursued by states and subjected those states that went after innocent civilians and involved them in war to liability after the war was over.
We also had rules which dealt with the impact of war on prisoners of war and on those who were caught up in the conflict in that fashion. Those rules emanated from an entirely sensible understanding that there would be prisoners on both sides. Both sides in conflict understood the need that if their prisoners were to be treated humanely, the prisoners of the other side had to be treated humanely. There were efforts during periods of peace and sometimes even during periods of war to work out the details of that conduct. Those details and that conduct were codified in the Geneva Conventions which prevail today as a fundamental bulwark of international law.
As I mentioned, in this century what has happened is that the power of science applied to war has almost inevitably caught up innocent people in the impact and the ferocity of war. We have seen not only in the First World War the use of chemicals and the devastation caused to communities in Europe and to those who participated in war. We began seeing in the period after the First World War the terrible consequences on wide sections of the population even in civil wars such as in
Government Orders
Spain, or on the impact of prisoners in many other areas, in the brush fires that took place and the more geophysically limited wars that took place before the First and Second World Wars.
Of course in the Second World War we saw and understood the horrors of the Holocaust, the devastation and the obliteration of whole communities on both sides by bombing, the terrible impact on prisoners of war, and the widespread effect that new methods of destruction wrought on the world community.
That led in the period after the Second World War to a renewed look at these conventions. It was out of that process that the protocols which are considered part of this bill and are adopted by this bill were developed. Canada was quite properly a signatory to these protocols and because of that the protocols have for practical purposes been part of our law ever since.
This bill would take those protocols and now make sure that the statutory law of Canada conformed with the protocols in the Geneva Conventions. While the bill in its particular language is relatively short, while it has only nine sections, it adopts protocols which are schedules to that act.
The protocols have two specifics. The first deals with the impact of protection of prisoners of war; the other with rules regarding children in armed conflict.
It is important that this Parliament pause for a moment as it moves toward passing this legislation to reflect on the issues which are addressed by the legislation in a broader sense. We should pause for a moment and consider where this country stands and where it is going on the issues of the impact of international armed conflict on humanity and the role that this country is taking in the broader question of trying to end armed conflict at all.
I should also say that it is important to understand that these protocols extend the rules of conduct in international conflict to civil wars, to liberation wars, and to the impact of battles in El Salvador, for example on civilian populations, and to prisoners of war taken in those conflicts.
It is important to note that there are now indications that the American government is having second thoughts about these protocols for the very reason of

February 16, 1990
Government Orders
their impact on civil wars in Latin America. It is important that this government make it very clear to the American government that we expect the American government to continue to comply with the protocols and to insist that clients of the American government comply with the protocols.
I have to say that as we look at the protocols, it raises the question of the extent to which Canada has insisted upon compliance by other states with international conventions. It is not enough to adopt law. It is not enough to adopt conventions. It is not enough to adopt these protocols, but we must insist that the protocols, the conventions and the law be complied with.
One of the great difficulties at the international level in developing a body of international law is the enforcement of international law. There is no equivalent of a national or local police force as we have in our communities that has the responsibility to intervene when there a perception that the law has been broken and to ensure that the law breakers are brought to justice. There is no equivalent of a comprehensive court system that has the power to sanction illegal conduct and to impose sanctions on those who were found to be in breach of the law.
Internationally we are at a very primitive stage in enforcement of compliance with international law. The only way at this stage that we can begin moving from the primitive level to a more sophisticated level is through governments insisting with other governments that the law be complied with; that the diplomacy, if I can use the term in the used classic sense, be used to encourage an instinctive compliance with the law and that the international community act to impose sanctions when there has been a breach of international law. In that regard I point to the most recent vivid example of a clear breach of international law by the actions of the American government in Panama. Even this week we hear the President of the United States purporting to justify the American intervention in Panama, a clear breach of international law, by saying to the Soviets: "Come and look at what is going on in Panama. The people of Panama accept what we have done". That is simply western American, Texas-style justice which has no place any longer in the international community.
The consequences of a breach or a breakdown of international law now are so serious for humanity that we cannot accept that approach to the justification for a breakdown or a breach of international law. The United States government clearly broke international law when it sent its forces into Panama. It is simply not good enough to justify that on the basis that the population presently is pleased with the result.
First, we have had no clear statement by the people of Panama that that is what they wish to have happen. Second, there is no evidence that the armed intervention by the United States was the only route to achieve the desired result. Third, there was no consultation through the proper international channels to justify or attempt to develop any international law justification for the unilateral action of the United States.
In that context it becomes critically important for the Canadian Government, instead of saying ready aye ready to the Americans, to say to them very clearly that we expect the American government to comply with international law if we are to have any level of civility in international arrangements and if we expect to have the necessary moral authority in future to enforce the very protocols that we are here asking this House to adopt.
If these protocols are to have meaning they must be enforceable. If they are to be enforceable, the leading powers in the world must be prepared to commit themselves to comply with international law; not just to say we will comply only when it does not matter to us, but to comply when in fact it does matter. That must be the principle that this country stands for in the international arena.
There are other examples that this country must have of grave concern with the level at which international law is being complied with even by those we say are our friends. In El Salvador, for example, ARENA recently prevented the evacuation of FMLN soldiers who needed medical aid, in direct contravention of the very protocols that we are here asking this Parliament to adopt.
I have not heard the Canadian government say anything about that. The Canadian government, as far as I know, has been silent about that action on the part of ARENA. As far as I know, the government has not taken up with the Americans who have a very significant and powerful influence in El Salvador that particular
February 16, 1990

breach of international law and the general persistent abuse of human rights by ARENA and the continued American military aid to that regime in El Salvador. If the government asks us to adopt this bill, it must come before this House and indicate what steps it is taking to ensure that the international law it is here asking us to endorse is being complied with at all levels internationally-
Let me speak of another area in which international law is suffering and that is in East Timor. The United Nations charter recognizes the right of people to self-determination which I may say makes it part of international law and the body of international law. The Canadian government has again, from what I hear, completely refused to state as clearly as it must the right of self-determination in East Timor. East Timor has been occupied by the Indonesian government since the late 1970s. Canada has accepted that occupation and continues to assist the Indonesians in removing that issue from the international human rights agenda.
It is a matter of deep shame to Canadians that the government has been complicitous in this matter. At least a third of the East Timor population has been massacred under the regime that has taken over their country and denied them the rights guaranteed them under the UN Charter.
I recently received in the mail correspondence from a group of parliamentarians in East Timor. A number of members of this House are participating in that. Let me indicate to the House the affirmation of the parliamentarians for East Timor, led by Lord Avery of Britain:
Parliamentarians from East Timor affirm that the negotiations in
respect of East Timor will not lead to a just settlement unless
1)	they involve representatives of East Timorese people including those who resist the present occupation,
2)	secure an end to hostilities which prevent the people of East Timor and their representatives from contributing freely to negotiations leading to self-determination,
3)	provide internationally acceptable conditions of access to relief and development agencies and independent visitors, journalists and diplomats, and
4)	include an act of self-determination which is free from interference and verified by international observers acceptable to the East Timorese people.
Government Orders
The parliamentarians commend all international initiatives which
observe these principles and call upon governments to support
actively a process of negotiation conducted on such terms.
I for one would call on the government to do that. I know there are members of all parties who share in this cause. I think it is an important one that we should record in the record of Parliament as this bill proceeds toward its final approval.
Let me refer to some other areas that are of concern such as Romania and the effect of the Canadian sale to Romania of Candu reactors and the new nuclear proliferation.
We have seen this week in Ottawa the Open Skies Conference and the continued movement toward some rationality in the area of arms control and disarmament. There is an improved atmosphere under which all sides will begin to negotiate a reduction of arms and a movement toward a new concept of security. That security will not come from more arms but from less arms.
It must be clear to all Canadians that the proliferation of nuclear arms and a capacity for the military use of nuclear power is in itself a breach of international law because of the risks which that impose, not just to innocent populations but to the future of the planet.
Any government that is complicitous in the expansion and development and the potential threat of nuclear destruction to whole populations may well stand in the court of history convicted of a breach of principle of international law. We have seen from Chernobyl the terrible impact of nuclear disaster, even when nuclear power is used peacefully.
This government continues to contribute toward the development of a Candu reactor in Romania. We have seen what has happened there in terms of labour standards. This government apparently stood by quietly when forced labour was being used in the construction of the Candu site there. The House will want to consider as well a series of themes as it proceeds toward the final approval of this bill. While I urge the House to adopt the bill, I would ask members to take a moment to understand the critical role that Canada has in the development of a true body of international law.

February 16, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to very briefly express support for this bill on third reading. I spoke in the House when it was here on first reading, as did members of other parties, to explain and express the views of parties as to why it is important for Canada now, many years after the protocols to the Geneva Conventions were adopted, to ratify them. The legislation that has been reported back to the House this morning for third reading is part of the process of ratification.
I had hoped that we could get this bill through the House this morning because it is important. We heard from the official spokesman for the New Democratic Party about the importance of getting this ratification. That is why I will be brief. I simply express our party's support for this and to note that when this bill was before the legislative committee earlier this week, with all three parties present, there were no amendments and the bill was reported back very promptly.
I cannot let pass without comment the fact that in his remarks just delivered in the House, the member for Victoria spoke about moral authority in the role of international law. That is precisely what this legislation is all about. It goes a long way toward Canada's moral authority and our support for the role of international law to get on with the ratification of this bill, something that he and other spokesmen for his party have urged.
In the course of this we are hearing discussion about CANDU reactors in Romania, discussion about self-determination in East Timor and other very valid and important contemporary issues, but issues which I submit, Mr. Speaker, are not central to the legislation before the House.
I would express the sincere hope to other colleagues in this place that in the remaining seven minutes those parties represented here could express their support for this bill so that we could complete third reading this morning before. Question Period at eleven o'clock. We can then get on with putting our own House in order and completing ratification through third reading.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be perhaps more in the nature of a comment than a question, although I will perhaps finish with a question. The hon.
member has suggested that we should pass this legislation in a hurry so that we get it over with before the end of the morning.
If we were absolutely clear as to what was coming later, that somehow by addressing this so quickly will then free some parliamentary time for matters which are more important, perhaps I would have at least some willingness to comply with the point made by the hon. member.
In the absence of that, let me suggest that this is a particularly useful opportunity to raise the very issues that I know the hon. member has been interested in over the years and to provide an opportunity to raise in this House questions which we do not under a normal day get an opportunity to raise. One thing I have found as a member since coming here is that there are relatively few opportunities that this House provides for discussing major international issues and issues of Canada's obligations internationally and how we are exercising them. Occasionally we have an opportunity during Question Period, but many of us do not get an opportunity to get in on that. We occasionally have other opportunities, but some of us not on the external affairs committee do not have that opportunity.
Frankly, I and I know other members wish to take this opportunity to address some of the issues which are of concern to us and to our constituents. As I said before, these protocols have already been in force. I am sure the member will agree that the adoption of this bill does not delay the coming into force of the protocols or the law and that what we are engaged in here is an opportunity to raise some of these very important issues.
It is in that context that I ask the member if he would comment on the level of Canada's activity in encouraging governments, particularly those which have been involved in the issues which I raised, to comply with international law. I would be interested in hearing the member speak about the issue of East Timor, for example. It is an issue I know he is concerned about. There are also the issues of El Salvador, Panama and Romania.


Patrick Boyer: address them. But in answering the member for Victoria, it is neither the time nor the place.
I pick up the point that he raised when he said that since coming to the House of Commons he found that there were rare opportunities to address important issues of international affairs. I remember sitting in this very seat just days ago when the Secretary of State for External Affairs wished to make a statement in the House concerning foreign policy and a change in Canadian foreign policy, about which notice had been given to the official critics for the two other parties. Unanimous consent was not provided by the House because his party refused to give it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs had to leave the House and go to a press conference to announce Canadian government policy.
So when the hon. member speaks to me about the rare opportunities to debate foreign affairs issues on the floor of the House of Commons, I think he ought to turn the mirror toward himself and examine his own conscience.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would hate to leave the record as unclear as the hon. member just stated. The matter which he raises with regard to the inability of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make a statement in the House occurred because the government House leader moved that we proceed to orders of the day, bypassing the opportunity. It was the government which cut off the right of the right hon. member to speak, not the opposition.


An hon. member:: The truth comes out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary may complete his remarks.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Since this has now got into the recent history of procedural debates and contentions in the House, this effort to stand up and clarify the record, if it is to be a sincere effort to clarify the record then I think the member who just spoke owes it to the House to say that as he described what happened came in the context and as a culmination of several days of deliberate procedural slowdown by his party in the House.
Canadians know when there are issues of substance to be dealt with and they know when procedural ploys are being developed in the House to prevent that. Today, on the third reading of this bill to ratify the Geneva
Protocols, I regret to see that the same thing is happening once again.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the government again of a few facts about the GST which it finds difficult to accept.
The government claims that this tax will be anything but resoundingly opposed by small businessmen is not true. I have spoken to a large number of businessmen in my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings and each has offered nothing but doubts as to whether any form of common sense has been put into the drafting of this legislation.
A good example of the effects the GST will have on small business, as has been demonstrated time and time again to the government, is the cost of upgrading computer software to accommodate this tax. I have heard quotes as high as $15,000 to upgrade a small businessman's computer. How does the government expect small business to cope with that kind of expense? I plead with it to withdraw the legislation and do something positive.


CHILD HEALTH
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like today to do something I am not accustomed to doing, and that is to congratulate the Prime Minister on his initiative.
The Prime Minister recently announced that Canada would join other countries in sponsoring the United Nations World Summit for Children to be held next September.

February 16, 1990
As the Speaker may recall, last April, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I urged the government to consider this sponsorship. The Prime Minister's press announcement states: "The quality of human society is in large measure reflected in the priority attached to child health, education and nourishment."
Given the recent report of the Canadian Child Health Institute showing the high levels of infant mortality among poor Canadian children and the unacceptable poor health of Canada's native children, given that 40 per cent of food bank users in Canada are children, given the government's cuts in transfer payments to the provinces for health and education, and given the lack of a national child care program, I would hope that our representatives attending this conference could take this opportunity to develop concrete solutions to our problems regarding children, so that we can meet the Prime Minister's commitment to children in Canada.


COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to two athletes from Sept-Iles who turned in outstanding performances at the Commonwealth Games in New Zealand. Guillaume Leblanc, who won a gold medal in the 30-kilometre walk, was bom and grew up in Sept-Iles. The people of Sept-Iles saw him train there for many years. Roger Cote won the bronze medal for judo in his category, a reward for the many hours of training and hard work. The men and women of Sept-Iles are proud of their success and I ask all hon. members to join me in paying them well-deserved tribute.


ACHIEVEMENTS
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, we see increasing evidence every day of the welcome and important participation of women in the public affairs of Canada, a reality which has been inadequately recognized for far too long.
In no community has this advancing role by women been so clearly demonstrated than in my own constituency of Fredericton-York-Sunbury, where at this very time three different women are leading national Canadian organizations devoted to significant public purposes.
Mrs. Doreen Kissick is President of the National Council of Women of Canada, so called the Parliament of Women, which was founded almost 100 years ago by an Act of this House in 1893. Annually, that organization presents a comprehensive submission to our government, not just on women's issues, but on a broad range of public concerns for all Canadians.
Mrs. Joan McFarland is President of the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women, which is a national body to promote learning opportunities at all levels for women in Canada, and having networks in every province and every territory.
Mrs. Flora Dell is National Chair of the Canadian Hunger Foundation, which pursues the cause against poverty both in this country and throughout the world.
In recognizing the contribution of these three women today, I not only want to share pride that their roots spring from Fredericton and New Brunswick, but also to pay tribute and to remind this House about the broader role which they represent for women working everywhere in Canada as full and equal partners in the affairs of our nation.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: A month ago the headline in Frances Russell's Winnipeg Free Press column warned, and I quote: "Ottawa is killing medicare, quietly and deliberately."
In 1986, this government capped its financial contribution to health care at 2 percentage points below the growth in the economy, and in 1989 the government further lowered the ceiling to 3 percentage points.
With this current trend, it will not be long before this government ceases to pay a single cent for medicare.
Simultaneously, this government is continuing its assault on the education of our youth. President Claude Lajeunesse of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, warns that universities will suffer if Ottawa makes further cuts to transfer payments to any of
February 16, 1990

the ten provinces or to the three national research councils which grant research funds to universities.
Health and education are vital necessities, yet the Minister of Finance has warned the provinces of further cut-backs to these twin social programs come next Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, budget day should help add on to what we have built and not destroy what we have. I urge this government to safeguard our future.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to urge the Minister of Justice to end discrimination based on sexual orientation by tabling the long awaited amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The governments of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Yukon, have already recognized that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not justified.
The existing federal legislation fails to ensure equal rights to same-sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples. This is clearly illustrated in medical matters, for the consultation paper, "A Working Document for the Development of the National Strategy on HIV Infection in AIDS," which was initiated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, recognizes this very point.
It argues that an effective AIDS strategy and elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation are inter-related. Persons with aids involved in same-sex relationships do not have the same legal status and as a result the same legal rights as persons in heterosexual relationships. Quite clearly, this is unacceptable in a society that adheres to a belief in tolerance of all minorities. This issue must be addressed at the earliest opportunity by amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


COLOMBIA
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday President George Bush visited Colombia for talks with Andean leaders on the drug trade. This summit represents the world's most costly photo opportunity. Although it was heartening to hear the U.S. President's brave words, they will do little in the short
term to improve the condition of the majority of An-deans.
Appeals to Colombian farmers to grow alternative crops have a hollow ring when one considers the recent fall of international commodity prices. Multinational corporations encourage monocropping in the developing world, and then dictate the prices these farmers can charge, condemning Andeans to subsistence farming. With the price of coffee dropping like a stone is it any wonder that impoverished farmers are convinced to grow coca instead?
And what is the Canadian response to the drug problem in South America? This government has chosen to beef up technological transfers to assist policing in the region so that local governments can track down the drug runners. Although this cops and robbers approach to development has some validity, it does nothing to address the fundamental needs of the Andean farmers who are compelled to grow coca.
I urge the Minister of Finance to consider the complexities of this isolated development problem when he is formulating his pending budget. Further cuts to development assistance will contribute to the drug problem that affects us all.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, Inglis, a company in the riding of Cambridge, announced it will begin production at the end of July of household trash compactors at the Cambridge plant for Whirlpool Corporation.
Inglis' Cambridge plant will have the exclusive North American mandate for producing trash compactors. To accommodate the new production Cambridge plant production of dishwashers will be transferred to the Findlay, Ohio plant.
No jobs will be lost as a result of this decision. In fact, Inglis expects to create an estimated 50 new jobs at the Cambridge plant. Employees involved in the new production will be trained. The Cambridge plant will be retooled for the new production over a ten-week period. During this time employees involved with the new operation will be temporarily laid off. However, to minimize the number of lay-offs Inglis will be increasing dryer production where possible. In addition Inglis will maintain employee group insurance benefits at the

February 16, 1990
company expense. All employees involved will apply for UI during this period.
This new production will ensure the continued viability of Inglis' Cambridge plant.


AIRLINES
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, in the days leading up to a federal Budget no region of Canada has as much at stake as the national capital because of the importance of the federal government presence to the economic health of this region. What we do not understand is why the federal government would prevent the national capital region from diversifying its economic base by refusing to permit the establishment of non-stop air service between the national capital and the United States mid-west.
The national capital is the fourth largest metropolitan area in Canada and is unique among Canadian cities in that it lacks service to a hub in the central U.S. It lacks single airline services to most large points in the central and western U.S. There is an airline ready, willing, and able to develop a route to the mid-west, and it is the only major city for which a non-stop route to Chicago is expressly precluded by the air bilateral agreement.
To diversify, this region needs high tech and tourism. Government science policy and the GST will not help but better air services will. When is this government going to stop acting as a puppet of the airlines and start caring about the people of this region. The government talks free trade but in this case is a co-conspirator with the Canadian airlines in the suppression of competition to the detriment of the national capital region.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had an important debate in this House in which Parliament unanimously passed a motion reaffirming its commitment to support, protect and promote linguistic duality in Canada.
There was also an important debate at the Metropolitan Toronto Council at which that council, representing 2.2 million people, declared itself bilingual, in a 28 to 2 vote.
The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star covered both these news items and gave them some prominence, but the CBC, our national broadcasting service, had nothing on the national news last night, and only a brief mention of the parliamentary debate on The Journal.
Why does the CBC give so much prominence to those minority views held by little places, with people with little minds and so little coverage to the Parliament of Canada and the largest municipality in Canada, when they say yes to Canada, and yes to bilingualism.



Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the CBC is intended to be a unifying force in this country, helping us to better understand each other. But The National's coverage of the language issue makes you wonder if the program staff have forgotten CBC's mandate.
When city councils in Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay declared their cities English only, both The National and The Journal carried extensive, in-depth coverage. Yesterday, members of this House voted unanimously to support a resolution reaffirming our commitment to linguistic duality in Canada. It was a rare moment, a healing moment, yet The National virtually ignored it, giving this event only a brief mention in last night's news.
The CBC should not be a propagandist for any point of view, but balance is important, especially now when emotions are running high and the strains on unity are building. I hope the producers and editors at The National will take a fresh look at this issue and give at least as much coverage to unifying positive actions as it does to negative devisive ones.


MEMBER FOR CHAMBLY
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, during the recent election campaign in the riding of Chambly, the NDP candidate promised voters that he would defend Quebec, that he would defend their interests and support Meech Lake, and would do so although his party had unanimously rejected the Accord
February 16, 1990

a few weeks earlier. Well, Mr. Speaker, forty-eight hours after he was elected and safely removed from his constituents to whom he referred as nationalists, the newly-elected member for Chambly conveniently forgot his promises, betrayed his constituents and did an about-face when, without the slightest hesitation, he supported his party's anti-Meech position. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman who said he was elected to defend the interests of his constituents, who said he understood Quebecers and was going to explain Quebec to the New Democrats, this gentleman now tells us he is proud that his leader understands Quebecers.
The hon. member for Chambly not only broke his word, he also changed his mind in record time. The people of Chambly believed in him. I imagine they now regret they did. The people of Chambly thought he did not have the same poor opinion of Quebecers as the rest of his party. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the new member for Chambly has the same outlook as his socialist friends, the same forked tongue and the same bad habit of using double talk. He could at least have waited until he was sworn as a member of Parliament.


ATLANTIC FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, for several months now, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been talking about a program to help Atlantic fishing communities. We were even given to understand that the government would find more than $1 billion to help them through these difficult times. Today, however, we know the government has no strategy, does not intend to look for additional funds and will rely solely on existing programs.
The Prime Minister did not keep his word. Once again, people in the Atlantic region are not treated the same as other Canadians. He promised to help us, he raised our expectations but it all boils down to the same old story. This is intolerable, and families in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Eastern Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador won't stand for this.


SENATE REFORM
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues in Canada today is Senate reform. The results of the last federal election were in part a reflection of Canadians' displeasure, disappointment and disapproval of Senate obstructionism.
Canadians will not tolerate a Senate that obstructs the will of a democratically elected Parliament. Political games played by Liberal Senators have caused Canadians from sea to sea to rise up and call for Senate reform. I urge the Canadian Senate to get on with the nation's business and pass the important unemployment insurance legislation before it so that the workers of this country can get on with their business.
The Canadian government must develop a long range plan for improving our Senate. The people of Elk Island want an improved Senate, the people of Alberta want an improved Senate and the people of Canada want an improved Senate. Let's work together for a better Senate and a better Canada.


JUDICIARY
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few months we have seen startling examples to demonstrate that there is a clear lack of sensitivity toward women and children in Canadian courts. Now the Canadian Judicial Council has concluded that no investigation was warranted of the judge in British Columbia who stated that a three-year-old girl was sexually agres-sive. The council stressed that the judge's words were unfortunate because they were capable of misinterpretation.
This incident, coupled with comments of a Quebec judge that women, like rules, were meant to be violated, and comments of another judge in the north that sexual assault is not as serious there as it is in the south, shows that our courts must be more sensitive to women and children. It is not good enough to say that judges use poor wording. It must be clear that such wording is completely and unequivocally unacceptable. Judges, at

February 16, 1990
Oral Questions
least, must recognize that sexual aggression and three-year-olds are mutually exclusive.
Indeed, these incidents are isolated and are by no means characteristic of the judiciary as a whole. But if they continue to use such aggressive language, our courts will carry the badge of intolerance and ignorance and women will not feel that their interests are being met.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beausejour', 'February 16, 1990\nRoutine Proceedings\nmade a suggestion across the floor. I wonder if he wants to rise on a point of order and put that observation on the record of the House of Commons.']
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Today Statistics Canada released the latest figures on Canada's export trade. In the report it said that merchandise exports fell 4.9 per cent in December, the lowest monthly level since July, 1988. Statistics Canada said: "The Canadian dollar appreciated once again in December in relation to the U.S. dollar, thus making Canadian exports less attractive in the American market."
Why are the minister and the government persisting in their high dollar policy which is evidently so harmful to Canadian exports and the Canadian economy.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, less than 24 hours ago we had comments from the member for Gloucester and the member for Willow-dale critical of the policy of the government that resulted, they.said, in the fall of the Canadian dollar. You cannot have it both ways. It is the same old story we get from the Liberals; sucking and blowing.
On the question of the Canadian dollar and our export performance during the past year, I recognize that a higher Canadian dollar does have some impact on our ability to compete. We are not following a policy which is deliberately designed to increase the level of the Canadian dollar. We are following a policy which is deliberately designed to get inflation under control.
I ask the hon. member what he would be saying to me if we had followed the policies that he and his party have been endorsing of having low interest rates. Just this morning we had some confirmation that the level of inflation is too high and that we must continue to follow
the high interest rate policy. If we had followed his policy of having low interest rates, we would have runaway inflation today and that, I am sure, would be something he would be critical of. Again, they are sucking and blowing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is worried about inflation. Why is he persisting in policies of high interest rates and a high dollar which directly contributes to that inflation?

I again ask the minister: Even if he is following a policy by accident, why is he pursuing such a policy which raises the value of the Canadian dollar and is so harmful to our export industries? Mr. Speaker, his accidental policy is worse. Instead of a well-considered policy, it is one which hurts our export industries.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has said: "Why are we persisting in a high interest rate policy and a high Canadian dollar, both of which contribute to inflation?" I do not know from where he is getting his advice.
A high Canadian dollar means that our imports cost less, which means tht our inflation would not be as bad with a high Canadian dollar.
High interest rates contribute to lower inflation because they reduce the amount of money that is in the system and therefore reduce the upward pressure on inflation.
Both of these things would contribute to a lower level of inflation. We have been following them. We have seen some signs in the last three or four months that inflation has been getting less, although we had a disappointment this morning.
Surely, that should be confirmation to the Leader of the Opposition that we must continue with beating our inflation problem or else we are going to get back to exactly the same problems that the Liberal party in the 1970s and the early 1980s presided over. At that time inflation got to 13 per cent; interest rates got to 20 per cent and 25 per cent; and unemployment averaged 13 per cent and ranged up to over 20 per cent in some parts of the country.
February 16, 1990	COMMONS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, speaking of disappointments, this government is a disappointment to Canadians. It is time to recognize that.
David Simpson, Executive Director of the Consumers Association of Canada, speaking of the recent increase in interest rates said: "The economy is on the precipice of a recession and this will dry up consumer spending which is needed to turn the economy around.
John Bulloch, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, commenting on the same increases said: "It's a kick in the-" and I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I cannot use the last word because you may say it is unparliamentary. But members of Parliament can read the words of Mr. Bulloch in the daily press.
If both consumers and business are joining together to speak about the minister's interest rate policy in that way, why is he persisting? Why is he refusing to listen? Why is he continuing to do things which make this government such a disappointment for Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we continue to do these things because we believe they are the right things to do for this country.
We know that people want to have lower interest rates. We know that the exporters would like to have a lower Canadian dollar. We also know providing that might mean some very short-term benefits for the economy, which is exactly what the Liberal party did in the middle seventies when it swept the inflation problem under the carpet and said: "Nothing is wrong with the economy. Everything is going just right". Then we had the 5.5 per cent level of inflation of 1976 grow to the 13 per cent level of inflation in 1981.
That surely is a lesson that even my friend opposite should not have forgotten. It is the lesson that we are trying to remind people of today as why we must continue with this policy of getting inflation down.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, since June of this year the minister's high interest rate policies, high dollar policies have deliberately cost 77,000 Canadians their jobs.
How many more Canadians must lose their jobs, their homes, their businesses, their farms before this govem-

Oral Questions
ment comes to its senses? What is killing Canada's economy is not the disease that the minister calls inflation, it is the minister's medicine called recession.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. friend that 227,000 jobs were created last year. Surely, that is not the doom and gloom that he would like to have Canadians believe by the preamble to his question.
The job of government today is to deal with the problems as we see them and deal with them head on. We are doing that.
As I said yesterday to my hon. friend, I have yet to hear an alternative. It is easy to criticize. It is easier to say what we would like to see.
The point that I have to remind my hon. friend of is if he has another way of doing it, if he would like to get interest rates down, then tell me how he would do it. He is nodding his head. I presume that in the preamble to his next question he is going to tell us how he is going to get interest rates down in a meaningful and permanent way.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think this government's resignation might be the answer.
Yesterday, when confronted in the Chamber, the Minister of Finance in talking about Canada's record current account deficit of $20 billion with other nations explained as follows. He said it is because of investment. He said: "Companies have confidence-in the policies that this government has been following".
If this is the case, why did the Conference Board of Canada's survey indicate that business confidence in this government's policies is at a record low since 1984. Was this just a typographical error, or was Mr. Karl Beigie correct yesterday when he said: "The economy's headed for the toilet"?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member say that the way we can get low interest rates is for this government to resign. That is the sort of flip answer which is going to give Canadians all sorts of confidence in the ability of the Liberal party to come up with the real answers to the problems we are facing today. Surely, my hon. friend can do better than that.

February 16, 1990
Oral Questions
There is no way that we can get interest rates down without getting inflation down. That is a fact of life.
The only way we can get inflation down is by getting less money in the economy today. That is done that by keeping interest rates high-a simple economic fact.
That is the policy that we are following. We are going to continue to follow that policy until we can get inflation down.
My hon. friend shakes his head. He is saying this is not the way to go. He has yet to tell us which way he would go-
Is he going to get interest rates down by printing money, leading to permanent inflation, a more permanent loss of competitive position in the economy today? That may be his policy. He is nodding his head that that would be his policy-


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Lower interest rates.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He says: "Lower interest rates," and by printing money. That is the only way you get lower interest rates.
Printing money leads to permanent inflation. Permanent inflation leads to higher interest rates on an ongoing basis and a permanent loss of competitive position, a permanent loss of jobs in the economy.
That is the type of policy that the Liberals followed before. We learned from that. We are not going to follow that in this government.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is the same old movie. Why does not the Minister of Finance get serious or join his buddy MacEachen in the Senate?
We now have the highest bank rate since the early 1980s. We have an inflation rate that has gone up from 5.1 per cent to 5.4 per cent.
Does the minister now admit that he is getting reckless and irresponsible with the economy? Will he admit that a major cause of inflation today is his high taxation policy and the Governor of the Bank of Canada's high interest policy? Will he admit today that that is a major cause of inflation in this country?
If he will admit that, why does he not bring down taxes? Why does he not roll down the bank rate and stop hurting the ordinary Canadians from one part of this country to the other? Why does he not do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hear again that my hon. friend does not like high taxes. He would like to see taxes lowered.
My hon. friend has criticized us time and time again for cutting government spending. We have a difference of view here again.
If my hon. friend wants to see taxes down and a maintenance of high levels of spending, then, by definition, the deficit is going to be high. Surely, he has paid attention to the markets over the last few weeks and can understand that if we are going to see high levels of deficit, considerably higher than what we have now- which is exactly where my hon. friend's policies would lead-then we are going to see higher interest rates than we are seeing today.
Those are facts of life in economics today. My hon. friend can put his head in the sand and ignore those facts of life but there is no one who has any sense in this world who would agree with him.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, talk about sense and friends. Doug Peters, the chief economist with the Toronto Dominion Bank, is now saying that the likelihood of a recession is astronomical. I think he is a friend of the Minister of Finance. We also have Mr. Rutley, from the Canadian Manufacturers Association, saying today that a recession is very, very likely. Those are friends of the Minister of Finance.
Why does he not admit to the House here today that a major reason why this is happening is that the Minister of Finance's high tax policy has been inflationay, that the Governor of the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy has been inflationary, and that those are major reasons why this country is on the brink of a recession and on the brink of an economic and monetary crisis like we have not seen since 1981?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I heard anything different from the hon. member than I have heard many times in the past.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He says: "Answer the question". He wants to see interest rates down. The question that must be asked is how would my hon. friend get interest rates down. I have heard him say: "Pick up
February 16, 1990

the phone, call John Crow and say, John, put interest rates down". There is only one way-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We told you that in June. The finance committee told you in June.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that he told me in June. He told me a year ago too, and a year and a half before that. The problem is that if we had taken the advice of the New Democratic Party and followed a low interest rate policy, the inflation number that was released this morning, which has inflation running at 5.5 per cent, would be a good deal higher because there would be more money in the economy today, more money chasing after the same number of goods. That automatically pushes up the price of products. That automatically pushes up the level of inflation. That automatically pushes up the level of interest rates that Canadians would be willing to pay.
That, Mr. Speaker, shows the disastrous depth of ineptness of the New Democratic Party in their understanding of economics today.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about sucking and blowing. Those were his words. We certainly heard a lot of it today from the minister. Interest rates are up, inflation is up, the deficit in terms of balance of payments is down two months in a row, the impact of the GST is pending and the free trade agreement.
You say that you are on a course of correcting the problems. The defict is higher, the debt is higher. You are a disaster as the minister and you say that everything is in order.


Some hon. members:: Order!


David Barrett: If that is what you call order, Mr. Minister, I want to know what the hell disorder is in this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear with my hon. friend. He has said that I have said everything is in order. I have not said everything is in order. I have said quite clearly that we have a level of inflation that is too high and that we must get that down. I have made it very clear, in my previous answer, that the way the New Democratic Party would have us get the interest rate down would compound the inflation problem.
Oral Questions


David Barrett: Nonsense, absolute bloody nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend is saying that it is nonsense, absolute bloody nonsense. It is clear that my hon. friend was a social worker and a radio announcer before he got into this House, because he sure as hell was not a economist.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Quebec coalition against the GST yesterday officially launched its campaign to protest this highly regressive tax which the federal government intends to impose starting January 1, 1991.
Has the minister considered the loss of 25,000 jobs in Quebec and that unions are already asking for cost-of-living increases in their negotiations to reflect price rises due to the GST?
Will the minister take account of the coalition's demands to withdraw this tax immediately?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we listened very carefully to people over a two and a half year period on the question of the GST. We put out a White Paper. We put out a technical paper. We have put out legislation. We have listened continually.
We have also listened to people such as John Bulloch, who is on record as saying that he does not know an alternative to a value added type of tax.
We must replace the existing federal sales tax. The Liberal Party of Canada has not put up an alternative to the goods and services tax. It also is on record as saying that the existing federal sales tax must be replaced.
Until my hon. friend is able to put up an alternative, he does not have the credibility to make the statements that he has just made in this House.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, this minister does not listen to John Bulloch. John Bulloch also told him to scrap this tax and start all over again.
Why does the minister not listen to the Coalition of Quebecers Against the GST, a coalition of people from all walks of life, such as single parents, consumers, women and seniors? They are all saying: "Stop the tax!"

February 16, 1990
Oral Questions
Why does the minister not listen and stop this tax before it is too late?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened. The hon. member has mentioned two groups, single parents and senior citizens.
Both of those groups will be better off after the GST has come into place. Some 84 per cent of them will receive the goods and services tax credit, and 75 per cent will have more money in their pockets after the GST is in place than they did before.


David Barrett: What a pile of b.s.!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hear the howls from the other side of the House. They say they do not agree.


David Barrett: You're unbelievable!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: These are not my
numbers. These are numbers provided by the experts in the Department of Finance.
I have said on many occasions that if hon. members would like to dispute any of those numbers, show me where they dispute them. If not, stop misleading Canadians.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade and concerns one of our most important export industries, auto parts manufacturing.
I have a letter here from Versatech Industries of Weston, Ontario, producers of gaskets, plastic products and sealing products for the auto industry. The letter states:
Since August, 1989 we have been mercilessly harassed by U.S.
customs at border crossings, sometimes having our truck seized and
impounded.
The letter links this harassment to the introduction of the harmonized system which has clouded the issue of the free trade agreement implementation.
My question is this. When is the government going to get tough with the U.S. on border harassment, before Versatech is obliged to join other Canadian exporters and move to the U.S.?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman mentioned that the United States has adopted the harmonized tariff system and this has caused some problems as it has been implemented over the last year. I am glad that he did not repeat the mistakes that the Leader of the Opposition and other members often make. I was surprised he did not decry the free trade agreement when he brought this point up.
I am sure the hon. member realizes-he seems to have a higher intelligence level than most of his colleagues- that the auto parts and the automobile industry, of course, is dealt with under the Auto Pact and the free trade agreement has nothing to do with it. Nor does the harmonized tariff system have anything to do with it, as the harmonized system that the United States is implementing is a general system. Wherever there are problems, we are prepared to help the companies who are involved and do all we can to assist and make sure that they are worked out. But these are matters that have to be worked at in co-operation with the U.S. when we have these kinds of problems at the border, or when they have problems with us.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his compliment but I do not think any more of the free trade agreement than my colleagues.
My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Before the election the government promised that the free trade deal would guarantee Canadian exporters secure access to the U.S. market. Why, now, are firms like Versatech facing this harassment? Will the minister admit that his government sold out the auto parts industry with his trade deal, just like it sold out the Canadian farmer and the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, just when I was starting to think that this hon. gentleman was a little more intelligent than his colleagues, he referred to the auto parts industry again, and said that the free trade agreement had something to do with it. Of course, it does not.
We have had free trade in auto parts and automobiles with the United States since the early 1960's under the Auto Pact. That has not changed. I recommend that the hon. gentleman look at the report by the Institute for Policy Analysis at the University of Toronto. A group of university research economists said that the Canadian economy is looking good in the 90's, thanks to free trade
February 16, 1990

and to the GST. They forecast, "An investment boom triggered by free trade with the U.S., tax reform and energy projects will make the 1990's a good decade for the Canadian economy." They say the good news will continue.
That is from the Institute for Policy Analysis at the University of Toronto. It is not the think tank of the Leader of the Opposition. That has a hole in its flue. To continue with the report. "The good news continues for the later 1990's. Major productivity gains engendered by the free trade adjustment continue to push growth just as the investment boom fades. In effect, free trade first pushes the economy to potential, to investment demand, and then acts to boost potential to productivity improvements."



Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The toxic tire blaze in Hagersville has now been called one of the most severe environmental episodes in North America.
We talked with the control centre there this morning and they dealt with only 18 feet of the 13-acre blaze yesterday. Water bombers cannot climb because of freezing temperatures and fog, and dangerous toxins are pouring into the environment.
I want to ask the minister what urgent action he is prepared to take to put this fire out?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario, which is responsible for this, is taking all the measures it can to control the situation.
We all know that it is a major issue and that there are not many things that the government in Ontario can do to control the fire as of now.
This morning the Ontario government requested us to assist them in terms of analysis and sampling of smoke and toxic air related to the disaster. We have dispatched this morning a team of specialists from Environment Canada to take samplings. We are monitoring the
Oral Questions
situation through advice and expertise in terms of atmospheric information and forecasts. As of now we stand ready to give the utmost assistance to the province of Ontario.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the minister in terms of what his ministry can do. But our party believes very strongly that federal emergency preparedness should be offering all possible personnel needed for rapid, urgent action. As of this stage this morning, only 30 firefighters are fighting on each shift.
I want to ask if the government has learned from the Saint-Basile-le-Grand disaster and will take this kind of swift action to offer emergency preparedness help right now to the province of Ontario?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we are now doing everything that has been asked of us by the Govenment of Ontario.
We all know that the solution lies in major global solutions in terms of storage and destruction of tire depots all across Canada. We are concerned about this depot. There are many other ones in Canada, and we are concerned about them.
The government has funded research at a cost of $2 million to establish and develop a recycling process for tires. Three projects are presently going on. Three recycling facilities have been built. Three more are under construction. We will control the situation.


ETHIOPIA
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to the threat of famine situation in Ethiopia.
As the minister is well aware, in recent weeks there has been particular concern about the threatened population that was cut off because of the internal conflict. That has been exacerbated because of the attack and the apparent dislocation of the seaport of Massawa and the cut-off of the main supply lines, particularly for the churches to fulfil the obligations that the Archbishop of Canterbury announced a couple of weeks ago.

February 16, 1990
Oral Questions
Since the government's special representative, the Senior Vice-President of CIDA, Mr. Doug Lindores, has just returned home, can the minister indicate what special measures we can take to assure Canadians that all of their efforts to meet the famine threat again in Ethiopia will be satisfactorily met?
Second, because it now appears more than ever that conflict is the ultimate cause of this recurring famine situation, what measures would Canada take in concert with others to try to find peace where it is very much needed in the Horn of Africa?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the impact of conflict upon people already struck by famine. The Port of Massawa is to all intents and purposes now closed. We have diverted a ship bound for that port with food and supplies from Canada to Port Sudan where there is a better prospect of getting that cargo delivered.
The hon. member is correct in identifying the source of the problem to be the conflict. We have delivered the strongest possible requests to the governments of both Ethiopia and Sudan, and indirectly to rebel leaders, urging them to go back to negotiation.
We are working with all of the international organizations involved in delivering emergency assistance and co-ordinating it, trying to find some way to deliver help in the context of conflict.
Obviously, what has to happen is an agreement by all sides for a cease fire, an agreement to return to negotiation. We are using every means open to us to urge that course upon all parties.


ATLANTIC ECONOMY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
According to the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council disparity between Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country is growing at an unprecedented rate. The Atlantic fisheries has been mismanaged into a state of utter collapse.
According to the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia the new 7 per cent goods and services tax will devastate the tourism industry in Atlantic Canada.
Yet with the full knowledge that our regional economies are the last to recover from but the first to slip into a recession, this government has recklessly pursued a high interest and high dollar policy.
Will the minister now finally admit that he has lost complete control and credibility and step aside before he causes a complete collapse of the fragile Atlantic Canadian economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member said, that people in the country today are apprehensive about what might happen in the economy. That is understandable in view of what has happened in recent years. I refer to the recession of 1981-82. There is no one calling for a recession of that order of magnitude.
There is still a balance of opinion today. Some say we may be heading for a recession, some say we are not heading for a recession, but clearly we are in a period of slow growth.
The reason this is necessary is to allow us to get inflation out of the economy. That inflation is affecting the economy of Atlantic Canada as it is affecting other parts of the country. I would say to my hon. friend that if we let the problem of inflation get out of control in the country it will have a more profound effect on the economies of the Atlantic provinces because they do not have the same economic strength as southwestern Ontario, for example, would have to withstand that pressure.
That is why we must deal with that. At the same time as we do that we have allowed for an increase in funding for Atlantic Canada, through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency-


Fernand Robichaud: You are joking.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend says that we are joking. The level of funding in Atlantic Canada, I believe, is 35 per cent in this five-year period relative to the first five years of our mandate. A 35 per cent increase is an increase, even with the arithmetic that my hon. friend wants to use.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a few more answers like that from the Minister of Finance and they will be guaranteeing that not one Conservative candidate in Atlantic Canada gets their deposit back after the next federal election.
February 16, 1990

My supplementary question is to the same minister. Yesterday the Conference Board of Canada predicted an economic stormfront for Atlantic Canada. The minister should know that his fiscal policies, coupled with this government's mismanagement of the fishery, has pushed Atlantic Canada to the brink of a full-blown recession.
What action is this minister prepared to take to ensure that his policy of high interest rates is not the final nail in the coffin of the fragile economy of Atlantic Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend does not do justice to the strength of the economy in Atlantic Canada today. We acknowledge there is a serious problem with the Atlantic fishery, but there are other parts of the economy in Atlantic Canada which are not suffering as is the case with the fishery.
I made it quite clear as far back as the April, 1989 budget that we must deal with the problem of inflation. If we do not deal with the problem of inflation the people in Atlantic Canada will be more severely hurt than other parts of the economy, such as southwestern Ontario, that are stronger. That is why we must do that.
But there is an offset here in the increase in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency funding. There is an increase of funding there that will help offset the impact of higher interest rates and that is how we are dealing with the problems as it relates to Atlantic Canada.


TRANSPORT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Ottawa-Carleton business community has finally given up trying to reason with this government to get direct non-stop air service to Chicago. This is the nation's capital, the fourth-largest region in the country, and the only major city in Canada denied direct services to customers and markets through Chicago.
When a major carrier is ready to provide this service four times a day, when the business community needs it, why is the minister saying no?
Oral Questions


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sensitive to the request by the Ottawa-Carleton corporation but there is a problem. My hon. friend knows very well that the routes between the United States and Canada are controlled by a bilateral agreement. If we make a decision to re-open the bilateral agreement we have to consider not only Ottawa. We have requests from Edmonton and Halifax for other routes and those requests will have to be dealt with at the same time.
There is another reason, as she knows very well. The company which is interested in serving Ottawa is an American company. Normally if this company wants to re-open the agreement it should address the American government to do that, then I could defend the interests of Canadian companies.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well there is an easy way to solve this problem without reopening bilateral negotiations. So does the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Pearson International Airport is a mess with near misses in the air up by 64 per cent. It will not cost the government one red cent to let Ottawa travellers by-pass Pearson and also to help local businesses compete internationally to bring tourism and conventions to the nation's capital.
Why is the government protecting private airlines from competition in this new free market? Why is it putting its interest ahead of a dynamic business community and safety at Pearson?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the relationship between the first and second questions. I hope there is not.
First, Pearson is not a mess. Since December, 1989, there has been a cap on flights at Pearson. With 20 million passengers a year I think my colleague will understand that it is different to manage Pearson than it is any other airport in the country. Pearson is safe.
I would like my colleague to realize that for her to say it is a mess and unsafe is very dangerous in terms of the credibility of air transportation in Canada.
Second, I will repeat what I said before. To reopen the bilateral agreement with the United States is something which cannot be done only with Ottawa. I understand that the hon. member serves Ottawa. However, I have to

February 16, 1990
Oral Questions
serve Halifax and Edmonton, too. This is the way it should be done. I will not reopen the bilateral agreement just for Ottawa. I am sorry, but it cannot be done.


ATLANTIC ECONOMY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the senior minister from Atlantic Canada, the Minister for International Trade.
My colleague and I have just got back from visiting fishing communities in Newfoundland and heard firsthand about the crisis in Atlantic Canada.
Newfoundlanders think the Prime Minister does not listen and that the government does not care. We heard over and over that Newfoundlanders think that the Prime Minister sees them as expendable.
What the Prime Minister needs is an education on the crisis in Atlantic Canada. There is no point in sending the Minister for International Trade down there because he is just led down the garden path too easily.
When is the Prime Minister going to go to Trepassey, Grand Banks and St. John's to find out for himself what is going on in Atlantic Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is very much involved in and concerned about the problems in the Atlantic fishery area. In due course he will be dealing with the question himself.
When he will be visiting Newfoundland will depend upon his schedule. He is visiting various parts of the country and receiving a very enthusiastic welcome wherever he goes.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: With reference to the Atlantic fishery, hon. members might be interested to know that there has been a Canada-U.S.S.R. bilateral fisheries consultation, something which takes place annually, and several agreements have been reached with the U.S.S.R. that will be helpful to Atlantic fishermen, including an agreement for them to land and sell to Canadian plants the small volume of their by-catches of cod, haddock and pollock caught incidentally in the U.S.S.R. silver hake fishery, provided that commercially viable arrangements
can be made. This will provide fish plant workers with additional weeks of employment as a result.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: In addition, they have agreed to provide more cod for the Canadian fleet by transferring a portion of their southern Grand Bank cod quota in 3N0 to us that they receive from NAFO.


Some hon. members:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: You are either interested in the Atlantic fishery or you are not-obviously you are not with all of these interruptions.


Chris Axworthy: So, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is going to go to Atlantic Canada to look at the crisis when he feels like it. Atlantic Canadians want him to go there now. When he goes there he will get the same response he got when he was in Brandon.
On December 13, the Prime Minister made a commitment to put $1 billion into Atlantic Canada. He repeated that commitment on January 22.
The Prime Minister is preparing us for deep budget cuts, as is the Minister of Finance. Atlantic Canadians have seen the attack on UI, the GST and government inaction on the fishery.
When is the Prime Minister going to come clean on his commitment to Atlantic Canadians? When is he going to keep his promise? When is he going to do something about the crisis in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, in all of the history of Canada the NDP has never done one single thing for Atlantic Canada, not one, except to send itinerant pedlars down to have a quick look around for a photo opportunity and then to come back and pretend that they know everything about Atlantic Canada. The hon. gentleman knows nothing about Atlantic Canada.
The Prime Minister does not need to visit Atlantic Canada because I visit Atlantic Canada, my colleague visits Atlantic Canada, other ministers visit Atlantic Canada. For example, when he visited to announce the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, he announced over $1 billion worth of assistance to Atlantic Canada. This year is the historic high in the payment of regional development assistance in Atlantic Canada, $500 million.
February 16, 1990

That is the kind of thing that the Prime Minister is doing for Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will close Question Period with one question from the member for Miramichi and one question from the member for Don Valley North.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I want to ask the minister if he is prepared to guarantee to Canadians today that, having decimated VIA Rail, this government will not reduce further the mandate of passenger rail service, particularly in view of the fact that the NTA is considering rescinding Order R-38,000 which in effect would be the first step in deregulation of rail passenger service.
Will the minister give us the commitment now that there will be no further reductions in rail passenger service?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my friend knows very well that the initiative taken by the NTA has nothing to do with the Department of Transport. It is their own initiative created by the investigation they had on the prices of VIA Rail last year. They decided to go to the public to ask particular questions on the deregulation of rail.
I believe it would be appropriate to wait to hear what the public will say about those proposals and to see exactly what the NTA will do.
In the meantime, I think the role of the Minister of Transport is to wait because NTA, as my friend knows very well, is an independent body that the Minister of Transport has no authority over.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, I understand that, along with other western governments, Canada has agreed to provide a comprehensive rescheduling for Poland in the Paris Club. Would the minister confirm the agreement to ease Poland's heavy debt burden?
Business of the House


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today in Paris a debt rescheduling agreement was concluded between the representive of the Government of Poland and the representatives of the Paris Club of official creditors, including Canada.
While, we do not have all the details yet, I understand that the agreement reached will reschedule Polish payment obligations due during 1989-90 and the first quarter of 1991.
Under this agreement, Canada expects to reschedule 100 per cent of the payments of principal and interest due during this period totalling more than $1.2 billion. This represents approximately 10 per cent of the $12.2 billion total rescheduled by all Paris Club creditors.
In this way, Canada is making a major contribution to easing Poland's balance of payments in support of its difficult and important economic stabilization program.


Fernand Robichaud: Why don't you do the same for Atlantic Canada, Joe?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the co-operation shown in the House last evening, I wonder if the Minister of Justice could indicate for us the business of the House for Monday and TUesday. I believe that that may have changed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the quick progress that we made yesterday and the adoption of the motion of the Prime Minister, I wish to advise the House that on Monday we will continue second reading of Bill C-52. On Tuesday, we will start with resumed debate on second reading of Bill C-26, an Act respecting the Railway Act.
On Tuesday, in the afternoon, as I indicated, the House will break at 4.30 for the Minister of Finance's budget statement.
Wednesday will be day one of the budget debate, Thursday will be day two of the budget debate.
Friday's business we will set out later next week.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beausejour

February 16, 1990
Routine Proceedings
made a suggestion across the floor. I wonder if he wants to rise on a point of order and put that observation on the record of the House of Commons.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Second Report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the committee received from this House the mandate to examine the Parliament of Canada Act. We tabled our first report a few days ago, and the House has been pleased to extend our mandate until June 29.
I therefore welcome this opportunity today to table the second report, and with your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention, for the benefit of the members of this House, the general principles that guided this report.
The Committee recommends, in this report, that the House of Commons reaffirm the following principles that apply to its members:
a)	that the Board of Internal Economy is the authority which determines how the financial resources and administrative services provided by the House are to be applied and adhered to;
b)	that in the performance of a member's activities and functions, a member is entitled to financial resources and administrative services
provided by the House, subject to the statutory authority of the Board of Internal Economy;
c)	that partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the activities and functions of a member;
d)	that a member has the constitutional rights and immunities applicable to that office and independence in the performance of the activities and functions of that office free from interference or intimidation; and
e)	that a member is allowed full discretion in the direction and control of the work performed on a member's behalf by the member's employees or independent contractors and is subject only to the authority of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons in the exercise of this discretion.



BILL S-9 TABLING OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the Report of the Legislative Committee on Bill S-9, an Act to amalgamate the two corporations known, respectively, as-

-the Governing Council of the Salvation Army Canada East, and the Governing Council of the Salvation Army Canada West, and to make necessary provisions regarding the Charter of the amalgamated corporation with one amendment.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was pleased to hear the presentation of the two reports, in particular, the one from the special committee which outlines some of the principles. Having worked on that report, I think it might be wise to say to the Canadian people and to members of Parliament, they really should read those principles in the two languages that are in the report itself. I am sure the wording came as a surprise to the translator. The wording is very precise, and it was a very rough translation that we heard over the House of Commons system. In this particular area, the precision of language is extremely important. I simply wanted to bring that to the attention of the House. If you were so inclined, Mr. Speaker, it might be useful for the presenter to read those principles in the other official language of the country, English, so that we have both going across our telecommunication system. I see nods from members of both the Liberals and the NDP, so perhaps we might take a moment to do that because of their importance.
February 16, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member kindly for his statement, which was in impeccable French, the language of Moliere. Perhaps it might also be made in English.


Marcel Danis: The particular section in the report referred to by the Chief Government Whip concerning general principles states:
The committee believes that it is important for the House of Commons to reaffirm certain general principles that have traditionally governed the activities and functions of its Members and that have been central to the deliberations and conclusions of this Committee. These are consistent with the rights and immunities acquired by parliamentarians under the Constitution and the law of parliamentary privilege, and are necessary for the proper functioning of a parliamentary system.
The Committee recommends that the House of Commons reaffirm the following principles that apply to its Members:
a)	that the Board of Internal Economy is the authority which determines how the financial resources and administrative services provided by the House are to be applied and adhered to;
b)	that in the performance of a Member's activities and functions, a Member is entitled to financial resources and administrative services provided by the House, subject to the statutory authority of the Board of Internal Economy;
c)	that partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the activities and functions of a Member;
d)	that a Member has the constitutional rights and immunities applicable to that office and independence in the performance of the activities and functions of that office free from interference or intimidation; and
e)	that a Member is allowed full discretion in the direction and control of the work performed on a Member's behalf by the Member's employees or independent contractors and is subject only to the authority of the Board of Internal Economy or the House of Commons in the exercise of this discretion.



CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

['Agreed.']
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise an item of business under the heading of "Motions" which I believe will commend itself to the House.
Routine Proceedings
As hon. members may know, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel will cease to hold office as Chief Electoral Officer on Monday, February 19, 1990.
The Canada Elections Act requires that the Chief Electoral Officer be appointed by resolution adopted by the House of Commons.
There has been consultation with the Opposition and I believe you will find unanimous agreement to the appointment of Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley as Chief Electoral Officer.
Therefore, I am pleased to move the following resolution:
WHEREAS Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel will cease to hold office as Chief Electoral Officer on February 19, 1990;
AND WHEREAS subsection 6(2) of the Canada Elections Act, Chapter E-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, provides that in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the vacancy shall be filled by resolution of the House of Commons;
BE IT therefore, resolved that Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley is hereby appointed Chief Electoral Officer effective February 19, 1990.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to break with tradition at this point and suggest that because of the importance of this particular resolution, and that Mr. Kingsley will become an officer of Parliament, the motion be seconded by the member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan and the member for Kingston and the Islands in order to indicate that there is unanimous agreement and that all three parties concur in this particular motion.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record a few words regarding the new appointee, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley is a graduate of the University of Ottawa. He has held several positions in the Public Service and the private sector. From 1977 to 1981, Mr. Kingsley was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Ottawa General Hospital. From 1981 to 1984, he was Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of State for Social Development. Later, he was Deputy Secretary of the Personnel Policy Branch at Treasury Board, until 1987.
]English]
That, Mr. Speaker, is the area where I had the pleasure of working with Mr. Kingsley, who I see in the gallery today. I want to say personally that this is a very

February 16, 1990
Routine Proceedings
fine public servant who will do the position of Chief Electoral Officer and the country proud.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Canada is fortunate to have this great administrator as Chief Electoral Officer.

I also want to place on the record a word of appreciation for the retiring Chief Electoral Officer. For some 24 years, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel has been the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. He undertook those responsibilities on June 6, 1966, and was responsible for the administration of the act during the last seven general elections, since 1968.
Mr. Hamel has always undertaken his work with a thorough understanding of the basic requirements of the position. I am quite sure that many hon. members here who have had the opportunity to come into contact with Mr. Hamel will agree that he possessed the fairness and the impartiality that has been traditional in this office and which is greatly desired and indeed necessary in the proper administration of the functions of the office.
I am sure all members will agree that Canada has been well served by Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel during his tenure as Chief Electoral Officer.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the motion that the Minister of Justice has placed before the House is one that I am very happy to support on behalf of the members of the official opposition in this House.
I am also pleased to say that we are delighted with the appointment that the Minister of Justice has proposed.

Mr. Kingsley is without doubt a very distinguished Canadian public servant. His career has been remarkable and we are very proud to have him as Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

We look forward to working closely with Mr. Kingsley in his new office. We hope that we will establish with him the normal lines of communication that are so important
between the political parties of Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer.
Speaking personally as the election critic in our party, I have worked with Mr. Hamel, and I look forward to working with Mr. Kingsley in the same way.
I must also say that on behalf of the opposition that Mr. Hamel has performed an outstanding service for Canada as Chief Electoral Officer for the last 24 years. In the short time that I have been able to work with him, I have found his knowledge of his office outstanding, his knowledge of the electoral law of Canada outstanding, and his ability to work with members from all parties outstanding.
I reflect the views of all hon. members when I say that he has been an outstanding public servant and an outstanding officer of Parliament, which, of course, is what the Chief Electoral Officer is.
The unusual part about today's appointment is the fact that this position is appointed by a resolution of this House. The position of the Auditor General of Canada and this position may be the only two appointments made by resolution of the House of Commons.
The fact that we are able to agree on an appointment of this kind is an indication of the co-operation that exists between all parties, and also because of the outstanding qualities that the new office holder has which have commended him to all members of this House.
I thank you for the opportunity to second this particular motion, Mr. Speaker.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words, both about the new appointee, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley and the outstanding Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel.
Over the last couple of days, I had the privilege of working on behalf of my leader in the consultations to reach this point today, working in a fashion that we should do more of, particularly when it comes to either by statute or by process that we consult for these kind of appointments.
Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel is an individual who has developed a great amount of respect within my party over the 24 years of his service. We have had any number of senior members of the party who have worked directly with him both during and between elections, and they ah
February 16, 1990

speak very highly of his approach to a very, very difficult job.
We thank him for those years of service and wish him well. We hope he appears before the Royal Commission to pass on his final thoughts as a private citizen as opposed to the Chief Electoral Officer. However, we do wish him well and I know he will find that there is life after elections, as all of us find out sooner or later.
I am pleased to second, on behalf of my party, the resolution appointing Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley as Chief Electoral Officer. We learned through our consultation process of his vast experience in the public sector, both in terms of government and the voluntary sector such as hospitals. In consultation with my colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, who has had occasion to sit across the table with Mr. Kingsley on matters dealing with conflict of interest, his most previous post, he indicates that Mr. Kingsley is extremely fair, straightforward and comes to the point. That is the type of individual we need in this office. It is a very delicate office. One could ask why Mr. Kingsley would even want the job, given the nature of it, but we look forward to working with him. Perhaps he may not be here for 24 years, but neither will some of us.
I congratulate Mr. Kingsley on what will almost immediately be his appointment after we pass this resolution. I and members of my party look forward to working with him in the years to come.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I will not prolong this, but I just want to endorse all the remarks that were made, especially by my House Leader, as well as those made by the spokesman for the official opposition and my friend, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
Having shared with Mr. Hamel almost the 20 some years that he has held that position, and I do not want to go through all the elections we have shared together, but I just want to endorse, in a very personal way, all of the constructive comments that were made.
Jean-Marc Hamel, whom I got to know in those seven elections he held office, is the personification to me of the type of public servant this country has been blessed with. He had duality in both languages and he also shared duality in the practical problems of a politician along with the problems of interpreting the Canada
Routine Proceedings
Elections Act. In those few times during a campaign one had to phone the Chief Electoral Officer, whether it was Jean-Marc Hamel or someone in his office, the information came back and it really helped in those difficult times. As the deadline for the election day got closer and the tenseness thereby of the campaign got a little more heated, there was always the calmness and the common-sense of this office.
I wanted to say-and this may save me from writing a letter to Jean-Marc Hamel-these few words of encouragement for his tremendous service to the country, and for Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who I do not know as well but know about, I certainly hope that in his days as he gets initiated into this most fascinating world that he will obviously consult from time to time with Jean-Marc Hamel to see how you go about discharging such an important duty that affects us all in this land.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken), I would like to support the appointment of Jean-Pierre Kingsley. I know Mr. Kingsley; he is a dedicated, honest, down-to-earth man who is devoted to the community. I knew him on the board of directors of the Montfort Hospital in the region. I know that Jean-Pierre Kingsley will be an excellent Chief Electoral Officer for Canada.
I must also thank Jean-Marc Hamel for his work. I ran in only one federal election under Mr. Hamel and I hope to have the opportunity to run in many under the very capable direction of my friend Jean-Pierre Kingsley. Congratulations and bravo!


Mr. Speaker:: I am also going to break with tradition and say something as your Speaker with respect to our retiring friend who is an Officer of Parliament, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel. Not as often as my honourable friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants, but for some time now I have gone through a number of elections under the very competent guidance and administration of Jean-Marc Hamel. I want to join my honourable friend and others in expressing on behalf of others our very, very sincere regards and thanks-

February 16, 1990
Routine Proceedings

I thank him for his dedicated work and I appreciate the efforts he has shown in performing his duties and obligations as an officer of Parliament. Because it was sometimes very easy for us to take for granted the efforts of a person like Jean-Marc Hamel.

It is an extremely difficult task. The fact that he has been able to do it-

-again and again, election after election, with no problems and no complaints from members of Parliament.
For me, that is an example of someone who has served the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada with total enthusiasm, loyalty and devotion.

I think that I say those words on behalf of everybody to Jean-Marc Hamel. I will take especially the remarks of my honourable friends and other honourable friends with me in a few minutes because I am very privileged to be having lunch with him. I assure you I will give him your very fondest regards and we wish him very well in the future.
I also want to say to our incoming friend, Mr. Kingsley, I met with you, Sir, a few minutes ago in my office and I said: "Why did you want to do this?" I notice that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan asked the same question.
You are taking on a very serious responsibility, not only for us but for all those who put themselves forward to serve our country in the electoral process of our country. We want you to know that you start these serious endeavours with our best wishes. We wish to welcome you as an Officer of Parliament. As I said to my colleagues, I am going to break with tradition and ask you to stand, Sir, while we recognize you as our servant.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Welcome and good luck!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Government House Leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to revert to motions. The hon. member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I really rose on two things. I am glad we are going to revert to motions, because I think there are some things that need to be done.
In my previous intervention on a point of order, I may have left the impression in the public domain that I was not happy with the translation. If I did so, that was accidental. It is my feeling that sometimes very technical, very precisely legal documents are read in the Chamber and I do not expect any translator, regardless of experience and skill, to be able to operate in a second language with technical precision. What I was really implying is that when we receive technical committee reports, which are always presented to the Chamber in both languages, it might be wise to automatically provide our translation booths with a copy of those technical documents, prior to their presentation in the House. Then translators in the booths can aid our listeners and members of the Chamber with very precise translations, which can only be done from written, prepared text. Maybe Table Officers could consider a way of making those texts available to those in the translation booths on a more automatic basis, and thus help us all out.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands on motions.
February 16, 1990



Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Elections,
Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business, tabled in the
House on Monday, February 12 of this year, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this report is to change the name of the committee whose lengths name I just read to: Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I believe all parties support the motion, and I hope the new name will make things easier for the new Chief Electoral Officer.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege, the responsibility and the honour to present petitions to the House of Commons from the residents of Hamner, Capreol, Lively, Naugton, Chelmsford, Onniping, Cartier, River Valley, Skead, Sudbury, Azilda, Val Caron, Coniston, and Levack, all in the province of Ontario, and also from Cranbrook, British Columbia and the following places in Nova Scotia, Greenfield, Bridgewater, Lunenburg, Annapolis Bay, Chester Basin, Halifax, Shelburne, Mahone Bay, Dartmouth, Blockhouse, Windsor, Liverpool, Sackville, Caledonia, Lockeport, New Germany, Bedford, Barrington, Digby, Port Mouton, Brooklyn and Dayspring, Nova Scotia. And, in New Brunswick, Chatham and Oromoc-to.
Routine Proceedings
All of these petitioners point out that the government's proposed goods and services tax does not respect the consumers' and the taxpayers' ability to pay and that it is a regressive tax. They further point out that it is an unfair tax because there are very many wealthy Canadians and corporations who pay very little or no tax at all. They also point out in their petition that the tax is moving into areas that were not taxed before, such as haircuts, reading matter, diapers, coffins and home heating fuel. They have called upon Parliament to reject the current proposal and, secondly, that Parliament ought to undertake a study of the tax system to make it fairer. They call upon Parliament to reject with the proposal and not proceed with the goods and services tax.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on the cancellation of VIA Rail. Even though this Parliament has cancelled it over the objections of the members on the opposition side of the House.
These petitioners deplore the cancellation of VIA Rail in Canada. They feel the people of Canada deserve a high quality passenger rail service including modernized equipment.
These petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reconsider and allow the reinstatement of rail traffic in Canada.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a second petition on the goods and services tax.
Petitioners have continued to sign petitions with regard to the possible imposition of this tax. These are from people in my riding of Nepean who are very much opposed to this imposition. Lowering the percentage rate has not appeased these constituents. They continue to oppose the tax that will increase inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. They implore the Parliament of Canada to not impose this unfair tax.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36, to present petitions from people across the country who work full-time in the area of child care, certainly in the training area, from

February 16, 1990
Routine Proceedings
the University of Lethbridge and from the Association of Professional Educators.
This group of people sent me a petition that clearly states that the petitioners urge the government to honour its commitments to child care and to provide a comprehensive, quality, accessible and affordable child care program for Canada.
The fact that these people are early childhood educators and understand first hand and close up the need for that kind of child care speaks volumes. I also have a petition from farm women on child care. These are women who live in my riding of Mission-Coquitlam in the rural areas of the riding of Pitt Meadows, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge, Mission and the surrounding areas who believe and feel very strongly that for rural women to be able to play the kind of role that is needed in the farming communities and on their farms, there is a desperate need for accessibility to child care.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House nearly 10,000 names of petitioners on an issue of great importance to Canadians from coast to coast but of particular importance to those of us on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
The petition relates to the Carmanah Valley and the earnest desire of the petitioners to do what must be done to preserve that valley. In particular, the petitioners ask for a full assessment of the ecological significance of the Carmanah Valley, including the merits and value of the Carmanah as a tourist attraction with extended trails to and from the west coast trail.
The petitioners ask, pending the results of that study, that the federal government enter into negotiation with the provincial government to protect and preserve the valley as an extension of the Pacific Rim National Park.
The petitioners, as I indicated, come from not only Victoria and Vancouver Island but from right across Canada. I notice a few names sneaked in here from Australia. There were a number of petitions from the United States which were not accepted but it does indicate the broad interest and concern in this issue.
I should just say in closing that the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and AWARE are to be congratulated for the effort they put into collecting these petitions and forwarding them to the House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from some 35 Canadians who have joined the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Canadians who object to this government's imposition of the goods and services tax.
Like the hundreds of thousands of others, they recognize that the tax is unfair and unreasonable and call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present this petition under Standing Order 36. The petition is against the goods and services tax.

-federal government's proposed consumer tax, something Canada has never seen before, as a result of which Canadians' incomes will be consumed like a candle burning at both ends: at one end will be the usual income tax, and at the other, this consumer tax, and a two-tier tax at that, Mr. Speaker at the provincial level, in many provinces, and at the federal level.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today, No. 184 and No. 185.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Does the government provide assistance to individuals and organizations under the Atlantic Enterprise Program and, if so, by province and fiscal year (a) what number of projects was approved
(b)	what is the (i) name (ii) location of the individual or organization
(c)	what were the project costs (d) what jobs were (i) created (ii) maintained (e) what was the approved amount of assistance (f) what was the purpose of the assistance?


Hon. Elmer Macintosh MacKay (Minister of Public Works and Minister for the purposes of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act):: Since the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) in June 1987, a total of 205 offers were accepted under the Atlantic Enterprise Program (AEP). Breakdown by province and fiscal year as follows:


[Stage Direction]
PROVINCE	1987/88	1988/89	1989/90Newfoundland	44	11	2Prince Edward Island	14	0	0Nova Scotia*	54	5	0New Brunswick	70	5	0TOTAL: [DOT] includes Cape Breton	182	21	2
Please refer to reply to question no. 183 tabled this day for details on the remaining information requested.
Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Does the government provide assistance under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency's Action Program and, if so, by province and fiscal year (a) what number of projects were approved
(b)	what is the (i) name (ii) location of the individual or organization
(c)	what were the project costs (d) what jobs were (i) created (ii) maintained (e) what was the approved amount of assistance (f) what was the purpose of the assistance?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Since the creation of the Action Program in February 1988, a total of 6,887 applications have been approved of which 6,417 remain active. Furthermore, a total of 6,028 offers were accepted under the Action Program. Breakdown by province and fiscal year as follows:


[Stage Direction]
PROVINCE	1987/88	1988/89	1989/90Head Office	0	23	6Newfoundland	2	840	357Prince Edward Island	8	539	211Nova Scotia*	10	1,350	554New Bruswick	3	1,635	490TOTAL: * includes Cape Breton	23	4,387	1,618
Please refer to reply to question no. 183 tabled this day for details on the remaining information requested.
Mary Collins: If question No. 183 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Does the government provide assistance to individuals and organizations under the Industrial and Regional Development Program (IRDP) and, if so, by province and fiscal year (a) what number of offers were accepted (b) what were the names of those firms (c) what assistance was granted (d) what number of jobs was created (e) what was the purpose of the assistance?
Return tabled.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) that Bill C-25, an act to amend the Geneva Convention Act, the National Defence Act and the Trade-marks Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to Bill C-25, at third reading stage, and have an opportunity to express a few views and opinions on this whole matter of the Geneva Protocols. In 1977, in Geneva, two protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

February 16, 1990
Government Orders
were achieved. Bill C-25 simply seeks to ratify the two protocols and to codify them in Canadian statute law.
In a general sense no one would object to the Geneva Protocols. However, I do have some reservations on some aspects of them. First of all I would like to talk about the general impact that such protocols have. The Geneva Conventions referred to law applicable in time of armed conflict, humanitarian law or rules of conduct in war. The protocol served to broaden the scope of the Conventions. For instance, they include additional protection for prisoners-of-war and rules regarding children in armed conflict.
In addition, the Geneva Conventions Act is amended so that its language is consistent with that of the protocols. The National Defence Act is amended so that there are no statutory limitations on the prosecution of serious breaches, again consistent with the protocols. Moreover, the amendment to the Trade Marks Act introduces legal protection for the new international distinctive sign for civil defence.
In the past, the Geneva Protocols and the Geneva Conventions were drawn up and adopted by various international governments, primarily in the western world, largely as a result of the slaughter that took place in World War I, in western and eastern Europe. It was an attempt to set forth rules and regulations and, indeed, laws of an international nature with respect to the treatment of combatants, both on the battlefield and upon being taken prisoner-of-war. Certain decent humanitarian provisions were set forth whereby prisoners of war, combatants in uniform, would be treated with decency and respect, not as a defeated mob but as soldiers, sailors, airmen, officers and other ranks. They would be treated according to a protocol that was already set forth in the various militaries prior to their going to war and prior to their being captured.
There is a certain amount of irony. This is one of the points I want to make. There is a certain amount of rather bitter irony attached to the Geneva protocols. What the protocols say is simply this: If you volunteer or if you are drafted and you go to war and you shoot and kill because you may be killed in return, you attempt to destroy your enemy, his munitions and his supply, total war, in other words, and if you are captured in doing so, coming out of a rather uncivilized, almost dehumanizing experience, and put into a prisoner of war camp, then
you have to be treated in a certain civilized way. You have to be provided with clean, warm bedding, with meals that are nutritious, and to be treated in such a way that you are not tortured, hurt or harmed and you do not endure any physical or mental pain. If you are an officer, under no circumstances are you to be billeted with the other ranks. That was simply a throw-back to the class system that was prevalent in Europe in the 1920s. It was a reflection of the nineteenth century. There is a bitter irony here.
The protocols said that after you engaged in war, destruction and death, pillage and carnage and the destruction of all kinds of property of a military and non-military nature, you were to be treated with common decency. Moreover, if you were an officer, you were to be treated even better. You were to have better accommodations. You were not to be forced to do manual labour. But if you were a captured officer, you could, under orders from those who held you prisoner, order your other ranks, the privates, the corporals, the sergeants and so on, to do manual labour.
While this is extremely ironic, I am not arguing that prisoners of war should not be treated humanely. Of course they should. What I am saying is that while the protocols lay down certain rules of decency for combatants, we have no laws nor international conventions as to the treatment of innocent civilians. We bomb their homes, we bomb the factories, we flood the mines when the workers are in them. I read enough about World War II to make me as sick as anybody else. The allies who sent their bombers out day after day and night after night over Germany and other occupied countries in Europe for what they called precision bombing. When they discovered that we were no good at precision bombing and that, given the technology we had at that time, precision bombing was virtually impossible, we changed its name to saturation bombing. That way the bombardiers did not have to worry about hitting the target; a 1,000 planes instead of 100 were sent to wipe out whole sections of cities. Both sides indulged in this kind of carnage.
While we spent a lot of time in the 1920s drawing up the Geneva Protocols as to the treatment of combatants taken prisoner, we totally ignored those who suffer the most in war-the innocent, the elderly and the children. We still do. The ultimate desecration of humanity in the name of war and victory was the dropping of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima in August, 1945. We were not satisfied with the block-busters wiping out whole blocks of innocent people. We were not satisfied with saturation
February 16, 1990

bombing that wiped out whole sections of cities. We had to go to total destruction with the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As we ponder this afternoon-and we will be supporting this legislation-humanizing the behaviour of combatants with respect to children and extending this treatment to combatants involved in civil insurrections and civil wars as this bill does, we should pause and think about how we can put into force international law with respect to the treatment of the innocent during times of conflagration. We should be spending far more time in attempting to bring about the end of war itself and building up statutory law of an international nature that would prevent or act as a severe sanction against any nation state precipitating a war. That is the thrust of our thinking.
I was very pleased to be a very small part of the Open Skies Conference this week. I had a chance to spend some hours at the conference centre. I congratulate the government for sponsoring this conference. Today, men and women of good will are coming together, both east and west, in an attempt to work out differences and put in place various protocols that will build confidence and establish a lasting peaceful order in Europe. A lot more has to be done in terms of the Third World and other flash points on the globe.
This legislation should be looked upon in a broader sense but also in another sense. We and the government have come out strongly in favour of extending the protocols to revolutionary movements, civil insurrection, where groups are fighting for democracy, freedom, and so on. But by the same token we find it very difficult to become involved in, or critics of, various incidents and events that are going on around the world that are contrary to peace, stability and the furtherance of democracy and liberty. I have several in mind but one would be the whole question of El Salvador.
I know that our Secretary of State for External Affairs has a different view with respect to El Salvador than does his counterpart in Washington. I am not trying for a
Government Orders
moment to link the government with Washington on the El Salvador issue. But I honestly do not think that our government is doing enough to drive home to President Bush that the number one reason for fighting, killing and destruction in El Salvador today is the financial aid given by the United States to the Salvadoran government. If that financial aid were withdrawn tomorrow that entire struggle would come to an end in very short order. We are not doing and saying enough. We are not publicizing the wretchedness of the Cristiani government.
President Bush looks upon President Cristiani of El Salvador as that "beacon of light and hope", I think he called him, "for democracy in Latin America". Just a few weeks ago I had the privilege of listening to a young lady by the name of Miss Ridd in my constituency on a Saturday night who described to me the horrors of the justice system in El Salvador. Anybody who is thought to be working against the interests of that awful government of Cristiani is arrested and thrown into jail. One of the most popular kinds of torture in that country is to put a gunny sack around a suspect's head; tie it at the neck but before doing so throw in a handful of lime; and then beat the person so that when they hyperventilate and breathe in the lime, it bums their lungs. It is only a matter of months before they expire after they have been released. That is the beacon of hope for democracy in Central America that Mr. Bush refers to, the ARENA administration under President Cristiani.
So, I call upon our government to be more forceful and public in its condemnation of that regime.
Another area where we have totally walked away from protocol and international law and turned a blind eye was the American invasion of Panama. With the information we have, one can only conclude that former General Noriega is involved in illicit drug traffic. Obviously, he is a thoroughly disreputable individual and he should have been captured, arrested and brought to trial, et cetera. But just because an international criminal of great infamy is at large in a country does not lend any credibility or justification to the United States-a country that purports to be a democracy-to invade that country with military force to overthrow its head of state.
We have international police forces, international law, custom, jurisprudence, rules and regulations and proto-

Government Orders
cols to deal with that in a civilized way. Yet, it is little wonder that the President of the United States ordered that invasion. He had read the polls and had been told that he had a sort of wimp image and that he had to get tough. He had to present himself to the public as a Rambo and that is why it was done. Within a day or two polls were taken and some 80 per cent of the American people backed him. And this government backed him. That is what I find despicable at this moment. Without any reservation the Government of Canada stated that it was regrettable but it supported the President of the United States and his invasion of Panama.
There are other places where we are not doing enough to bring into focus and observation assaults against democracy, liberty and human rights. I refer, of course, to East Timor. Despite the UN Charter's recognition of the right of a people to self-determination, the Canadian government refuses to recognize this right in practice when it comes to the case of East Timor.
East Timor is occupied by the Indonesian government following an invasion in the late 1970s. Canada has accepted the occupation and even engaged in efforts to have the issue removed from the UN human rights agenda. That is not acceptable. If we really believe in decency and humanity in international protocols, if we really believe that we have to treat people in a humane, decent and fair manner in time of war, civil insurrection and civil war, then we have to be consistent and support human rights and civil liberties throughout the world regardless of political ideology.
I can refer also to the situation in Romania as it existed before the violent overthrow of the Causcescu regime. We have been involved in that country for a number of years with respect to the construction of a Candu reactor. Surely, there must have been some Canadians attached to that project who were aware of the wretched, inhumane working conditions by which the Romanian people had to labour. It was nothing short of slave labour camps, working on starvation diets. Our hands are not clean. If we did not know, we should have known. When we found out, as I suspect we did months before, we should have cancelled the project at that moment and dismantled what we had done rather than adding more to that wretched inhumanity to the slave labour workers by continuing to construct the CANDU reactor.
There are many other examples of human rights being denied and Canada doing very little about it. I will refer finally, and there are many others, to the West Bank and Gaza-to the Middle East. As I have said on many occasions in this House the problems of the Middle East will not be addressed and peace will not come to that tortured part of the world until the Palestinian cause is addressed and settled. I do not care what has been argued and said in the past by members of all parties, the fundamental fact remains that the Palestinian people have been denied a homeland. They have been denied that homeland for over 40 years. It is their land, their buildings, their farms, their orange groves.
It is rather interesting that the State of Israel today can say, "The reunification of Germany is up to Germans. As long as they promise to be democratic, law-abiding it is not going to be a bad thing, it is not going to hurt us." I agree with that argument. But when it comes to re-establishing a homeland for the Palestinians, when it comes to Palestinian rights, human rights and liberties, somehow Israel cannot apply the same measure of honesty and decency. With wave after wave of Soviet Jews now emigrating from the Soviet Union, no doubt for many good reasons, and going to the Middle East, going to Israel, this powder keg is going to blow up. There is no other way of putting it.
Why is the Canadian government not taking a more active role? I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs has come out as a much stronger defender of the Palestinians and the Palestinian cause than any of his predecessors. I congratulate him for his courage. But I call upon this government, that if it really truly believes in the protocols that are going to be passed into statutory law later today through third reading vote that it also adopt the same humanitarian approach to all of these other examples where human rights are being violated, whether it is in El Salvador, Panama, East Timor or as they were in Romania and as they have been for 40 years in the West Bank and Gaza.
I want conclude by simply saying, yes, we will accept this third reading. We will support Bill C-25. But I hope that this government will expand its thinking and will expand its work in the field of human rights bringing a sense of humanity to international protocols and bringing justice to down-trodden people such as the Palestinians in their valiant struggle to establish and re-establish for themselves their homeland. So we in the New Democratic Party support Bill C-25 at third reading
February 16, 1990

and I suspect that it will be given that third reading in due course this afternoon.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act. I want to address my comments on this important bill. It governs the laws applicable in time of armed conflict and it serves to include the additional protections for prisoners of war and the rules regarding children in armed conflict. This is to be applauded although as my hon. colleague has pointed out that being the last decade in this century it seems somehow anachronistic that we are still making rules to govern behaviour in time of war.
There are a number of wars going on in the world currently. These protocols are expanded to the rules not only in international conflicts but to cover civil wars. When I was in Africa, in Eritrea, in 1986, during a civil war, there was no UN observation of the prisoners of war in the region in which I was travelling. Fortunately, I can report to the House that the 10,000 prisoners of war in an open camp, helped by the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front, were being fairly treated in spite of the aerial bombardment of their former comrades in the Ethiopian air force. The Eritrean people managed to tiy to keep them safe in spite of the ongoing war. The extension of these conventions to include victims of civil war is an important amendment that should be applauded.
I want, in my address this afternoon, to pursue two themes regarding Bill C-25. The Canadian government supports international conventions, and this particular international convention, but there is an inconsistency here with the application to those conventions that Canada has already signed. Previous speakers have addressed a number of examples. I would just like to reiterate a few as well as add a couple.
Second, while working not only to develop rules of conduct for wartime, we should be putting additional resources into the prevention of wars. I have some suggestions on how that can proceed.
Government Orders
Let me turn to my first theme, namely, that there is an inconsistency of Canadian government policy with regard to the application and respect for international conventions.
As this House knows, I travelled to El Salvador last spring during that country's elections. Subsequent to that the ARENA government came to power and we have seen massive violations of human rights under the ARENA government. We have seen the bombing of the civilian population which is in absolute disregard of the UN declaration.
As we have seen on our television screens, there is the kind of mistreatment or lack of treatment accorded to FMT .N fighters in the city of San Salvador, where they refused treatment to those wounded in wartime. Yet Canadian silence has encouraged the ARENA government. If there are these international protocols, why do we not speak out more forcefully when they are violated so blatantly as the ARENA government in El Salvador has done?
We cannot do more than pay lip service to these conventions. It is all very well but the signing of them means something more than a just a piece of paper. We have a responsibility to make sure that they are respected.
Then there is the issue of Panama. The Canadian government's support for the American invasion of Panama, I think, has received the kind of reaction from the Canadian media and the Canadian people that it deserved, that it was a direct contravention of the international principles of national sovereignty. This kind of excuse that the Canadian government has given that, "Oh, this was a special case, and that we have to make sure that the Americans are supported in this very special case", is absolutely utter nonsense. If there are international conventions we have to respect them and there are can be no special cases for the violation of national sovereignty. We are talking about the kind of chipping away at what the United Nations is about by that kind of support for such blatant American expansionism as I would like to term it.
There is another example of ignoring an international body's rulings-and I would like to expand on that-and

February 16, 1990
that is the whole issue of asbestos. Canada has ignored international labour organizations restrictions on the sale and use of asbestos. We are selling tonnes of it to Thailand. I think this kind of contradiction of international convention is most despicable. When we sign a convention we have to live up to its terms; that is why we sign it. The tripartite agency of the United Nations had been concerned with the hazards of asbestos in the early 1970s.
Canada regarded a number of the proposed provisions of the code of practice of the United Nations dealing with this issue as serious threats to the asbestos industry.
Canada undertook a world-wide embassy by embassy diplomatic offensive in Third World and East Bloc countries. Most of these governments guaranteed that all the delegates sent to Geneva would be pro-asbestos. This is not an inconsistency; it is an outright contradiction to what Canada said they were for. Despite this concerted action to defeat the International Labour Organization's recommendation, the UN convention did pass narrowly.
In another little side bar to all of this, Canada which normally rails against South Africa's blue asbestos came to its aid saying it should not be there because it was irreplaceable. This convention on asbestos was to try to obtain substitutes. It did narrowly pass. As soon as it did, Canada being a signatory opened a disinformation campaign to try to lessen its effects. This is shameful behaviour of a supposedly responsible, well developed western nation. Canada blatantly ignored clear International Labour Organization directives and put together a sophisticated marketing package. It now fully intends to offset its dwindling sales of asbestos in western Europe and North America by turning to the underdeveloped countries of the Third World for markets.
This is the kind of outright contradiction to international conventions that is totally unacceptable. If we are signing these things we have to be able to respect them. We have to stand as an example that it is not just a piece of paper, that it has to be respected.
I point out that we are in favour of signing these conventions. The conventions on conduct are important examples and symbolic gestures during the time of war. Because it now extends it to prisoners of war in civil
Government Orders
wars, there is a recognition that the kinds of wars which are sometimes the most brutal are those that are not international in nature but are civil. There are national liberation fronts which are also worthy of our concern to ensure that the rules of war are respected.
I am told that the Americans are having second thoughts about ratifying the protocols which we are speaking about this afternoon for that reason. They have some concern about respecting prisoners of wars of national liberation movements and giving them a recognized status. Canada's ratification of this bill this afternoon will be an important symbolic gesture that Canada sees the importance of addressing the concerns of prisoners of war of national liberation fronts.
My second theme is about the whole situation of preventing wars. We have the rules for conduct of war, but we have to give resources now to preventing wars to make them an obsolete form of conflict resolution. There is a number of ways that we can do that. First, we have to improve the resources to the United Nations. The United Nations is an international body that has always been zapped of resources and has been trying to play the peacekeeping role, the conflict resolution role and all such things with very limited resources.
We have seen the kinds of examples when it does work such as in Namibia, which gives us great hope that this is the kind of expanded role the United Nations can play.
We also know that Canada has allocated its armed forces to take place in the peacekeeping observation role in Central America. This is something that should be applauded. These are where our resources are. It is a good investment. It is an investment in peace. Not just an expansion of the United Nations role is necessary, we have to ensure a more equitable distribution of the world's resources.
As a member of the subcommittee on international debt, I am acutely aware of the kind of conflicts that result because of poverty. That is something we as Canadian citizens have to be concerned about. It does affect us. Those conflicts in El Salvador, those conflicts that I have witnessed in Africa and Eritrea, affect us because those people are at war. It is not just the horrible human costs, but it is threatening to us; international security is threatened when there are conflicts.
February 16, 1990

We have a role to play in international development assistance. I hope the finance minister is watching this afternoon and hearing this debate. When he is considering the budget that will be coming down on Tuesday, he should realize that international development assistance is something that should be increased, not diminished. When we are increasing international development assistance we are making sure that wars can be prevented, giving people an option or some hope that they can develop their own resources and their own autonomy.
In conclusion, I say again that we approve of Bill C-25. We are happy to give it approval at third reading which I understand will happen later on today.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My hon. and gallant colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception spoke at second reading of this bill and indicated the full support of our party.
He said that it was a fantastic bill. He said that it talked about human dignity, human life, and human rights. All those things we support, and we think the bill is a good one. I will not go into detail. He gave a lengthy speech at second reading indicating the reasons for our support. I agree whole-heartedly with what he said and commend his speech for reading by hon. members. I think it was an excellent speech on Canada's external relations and on peace and war in this century generally.
We will support the bill at third reading.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 4,1989, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying back on December 4 when I started to speak on this bill, I have to judge it in the context of what I believe the role of the Public Service of Canada is and whether this is or is not supportive of that role.
I was saying that no program we mandate or fund in this House is delivered without the Public Service employees of Canada. They are our eyes and ears on the front line of service to the public, feeding back to us, if we are wise enough to listen, the changing needs of Canadians and the world we live in. The role of the Public Service and how best to support the further development of competence, excellence, creativity and commitment to the nation and to service to the public depends on how one views the role of government. There is a huge myth that if only government worked like the private sector, God would be in Heaven and all would be right with the world.
There is a very clear and different role for the two sectors. The bottom line of the private sector is profit and the bottom line of the public sector is service to people and to the future of Canada. Both have to operate efficiently and effectively but each has a different reason for existing. That means they exist and operate in different ways.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is the biggest employer in this country. There are one-quarter of a million public servants working directly for Canadians. Another quarter million work in Crown corporations and more or less independent but federally regulated government agencies.

This, in my view, gives the Parliament of Canada tremendous responsibility to ensure that government leads by example, to be on the cutting edge of new

February 16, 1990
Government Orders
approaches to developing the most important resource any nation has the talent and the ability of its people. The people resource becomes even more important as we head toward an economy where 70 per cent of the economic activity will not be in resource development and manufacturing but in services and information. Who should know better than government the ethic of service and the importance of information to the setting of future direction.

The workplace faces many challenges. Technological change requires us to consider human resources in a new light and realize that young people will no longer be schooled and trained in the expectation that for the rest of their lives, they will have a relatively stable occupation. It is essential to provide for on-going renewal of workers' skills if we are to avoid constant disruption of people's personal and professional lives.
It will be extremely important to have a good idea of employees' abilities so as to maximize their development. We must get rid of our prejudices about who is the best equiped to exercise a given profession and about the value of work which, for many years, was evaluated according to the social groups that were traditionally responsible for certain tasks.

If justice and fairness and equity were not compelling enough reasons, making the best possible use of every bit of talent this nation possesses requires that old biases and barriers be stripped away. The government must ensure that minorities, women, disabled persons and aboriginal peoples are given an equal opportunity at employment and advancement in the Public Service.
The workplace of the future will require flexibility to change. Old ideas about hierarchy and top-down management, every old concept about organizations and reporting structures will need to be re-examined. The pace of change will be too fast to rely on the old models of reorganizing massive structures to respond to new needs. Working relationships will need to become more important than reporting relationships, or the structures in which they operate.

On big issues like the environment, the old procedure of determining who is responsible and who is liable and who must make decisions will just not work. New relationships will have to be established in a spirit of partnership between decision-makers, managers and workers. The government must show the way in this regard.

I have examined the milieu of the Public Service and I have been struck by the lack of any cohesiveness in setting policy and direction for the most important tool of government. The Public Service is responsible for advising on policy, for delivering services and for managing the fiscal and physical resources of the people of Canada. I am amazed that there is no committee of this House that routinely calls to account the Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office and the Public Service Commission for their management of a work force of 250,000 people, 10 per cent of the national expenditures.

It is distressing to note that the right-wing policy of contracting out, privatizing and dismantling government institutions, the means by which public policy is carried out, is being applied without any consideration of its effects on the professionalism and dedication of the Public Service, on the quality of public services, on the protection of public health and safety and on the costs of government.

People are being hurt in the process. Careers are being interrupted in mid-stream. Staffs have been downsized to the point of exhaustion, families are being devastated to the point of instability and uncertainty about their future. Whole communities are being decimated. Morale is down, people are stagnating in their careers, the Public Service is aging, its international reputation for excellence is being lost. Yet, there is no mechanism for holding the government accountable for its actions.
That is the context in which I examine the bill. Will it improve accountability for the functioning of the Public Service? Will it better prepare the Public Service to meet the challenges of the future with creativity, competence and optimism? Will it reinforce or damage the commitment of the Public Service to the future of the nation
February 16, 1990

and to service to Canadians? Will the centre encourage the partnership of all employees in achieving those objectives?

Will it help or hinder the development of the talents of all those who work for the people of Canada? Will it help all public servants, regardless of their sex, colour, ethnic origin or handicap, give their best or prevent them from doing so? Will it better prepare the Government of Canada to show initiative and set an example of enlightened human resource management?

There is a desperate need for revitalization of the public sector for restoring pride and commitment to service to the public, and for restoring confidence that the importance of one's work is understood and valued. That has been seriously undermined in recent years. The rebuilding needs to be a joint effort, drawing on the knowledge, experience and dedication of all Public Service employees. Yet, I have serious concerns about the potential for the Centre for Management and Development to further isolate management from the shop floor, so to speak.
I have some serious concerns that the bill and the centre itself isolates management from the very sources of renewal, the people on the front lines, in the labs, out there serving the people of Canada from coast to coast.
The management structure of the centre ensures that only the upper echelons will have any say in how the centre functions, how management functions and ultimately how the Public Service functions. It further isolates management from accountability to Parliament and, therefore, to the people of Canada by concentrating power, control and decision-making in the Privy Council Office.
It has the potential, if it is not properly structured, to further block entrance to management by groups that have traditionally been excluded, to set up an exclusive management cadre of people who belong to the same clubs, went to the same schools, go to the same dinners and live in the same neighbourhoods. That is not what the Public Service of Canada needs. It makes no provi-
Govemment Orders
sion for linking management training with training throughout the Public Service.
The legislative committee on Bill C-34 and Parliament will have a unique opportunity to examine the results of the bill before it is passed because the centre has been operating for over a year. It will have the obligation on behalf of the people of Canada to find out why a budget of $4.5 million for executive training has jumped to an extravagant $11.5 million for this centre. It will have to take the time to find out whether this expenditure is improving the management and functioning of the Public Service of Canada or only preserving the turf of the management category.
I am happy to support this bill in principle. I think an initiative is needed. I look forward to a legislative committee where some needed amendments to the bill will be introduced to overcome some of these problems I have mentioned and to make sure the bill accomplishes its mission. This is no time for luxurious, over-funded, self-serving elitist institutions. It is time to get down to the hard work of preparing the Public Service of Canada at all levels to meet the challenges of the future with creativity, daring and innovation. It is time to win the confidence of every employee and to reinforce their ability to contribute to the building of a nation which has just begun.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a shame that this bill has not come forward for debate a little sooner, or a little more often, or we had talked a little less often so it could have gone to committee. Then members would have a chance to scrutinize it thoroughly to see if it meets the goals and objectives many of us think it is designed to meet.
We think it is good for the country. It will enable our civil service to exercise a leadership role on behalf of young people today and on behalf of the future of the country. Good management and utilization of taxpayers' dollars and resources are very important principles. It is very important. We have a long, honourable and very positive tradition in that regard with the civil servants of this country.
A lot of people did not see the recent comments in the Auditor General's report about how the civil service in 1990 is producing better quality and more goods and services with the utilization of fewer resources. That is a trend line over the last five years.

February 16, 1990
Government Orders
As politicians and a new government we would like to take some credit for it. But in the final analysis, it is the people in the workplace who deserve the credit. As politicians we help set goals, give direction and objectives, but that is as far as we can go. If the spirit is willing and the skills are there, then the people who manage the resources on a daily basis are the ones who make it happen on behalf of Canadians.
It is the government's wish that we conclude debate on second reading so it can go to committee. We did spend some time earlier on committee reports that ate up a little bit of time. Therefore, with that in mind, to make sure that members who want to speak have a chance to do so but so that we finish second reading stage today and get it to committee I would move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of second
reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-34.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Calgaiy West. The motion is in order and as hon. members know, after the question is put, the Speaker shall ask the members who object to rise in their places.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being 15 members rising, the motion is deemed to be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support Bill C-34, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.

The legislation establishes the Canadian Centre for Management Development as a departmental corporation focusing on the training, orientation and development of senior managers in the federal Public Service. The centre will also conduct research into issues directly
related to public sector management and develop teaching materials related to its mandate.
The bill will retain the features of the previous bill, C-148, but establishes the centre as a departmental corporation rather than as a department. As a department corporation the centre will come under the direction of a board of governors composed of chief executive officers from the private sector, senior members of the Canadian academic community and deputy heads of the federal government departments.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to pay tribute to John L. Manion, the first "Principal" of the Centre.

Mr. Manion, the first principal of the Canadian Centre for Management Development served in various functions in the Public Service for the past 37 years. As a dedicated public servant he deferred his retirement to set up this centre. His dedication included his love of helping others and of training people. He served 10 years in Manpower and 15 years in Immigration to rise to the position of Deputy Minister. It is a rare occasion indeed when a deputy minister rises from within staff. In 1979 he moved to Treasury Board before moving on to the Privy Council as senior personnel advisor. It was very fitting that John Manion be appointed as the first principal of the Canadian Centre for Management Development.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that Mr. Manion was named an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1984 and that he received the Public Service Outstanding Achievement Award in 1986. Moreover, in 1989, the Public Administration Institute of Canada awarded him the Vanier Medal in recognition of outstanding achievements and special leadership in public administration in Canada.
I would also like to pay tribute to the person who I think first had the idea of a Canadian centre for management development, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
It was the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier who, in 1974, had the original idea. On October 31, 1977, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier introduced Bill C-304 in the House. He is the one who proposed this initiative.
February 16, 1990

In 1977, my colleague moved two motions in the House for discussions of this matter, one on May 6, and the other on October 31, 1977.
In 1981, he moved a new motion which was debated in the House. Finally, in 1987, he once again had a motion put on the Order Paper to establish a national school of government administration.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I wish to express once again our support for this initiative to establish a Canadian Centre for Management Development, an initiative that was first brought before this House by a Liberal member, the member for Ottawa- Vanier, in 1974.
The centre replaces the former Centre for Executive Development in Tourraine operated by the Public Service Commission. The 1989-90 estimates for the operation of the centre are $9.6 million compared to $4.5 million in 1988-89. The centre is operating both at Tourraine and in the de La Salle Academy building on Sussex Drive.
Bill C-34 is a revised version of Bill C-148, and proposes that the CCMD be established as a departmental corporation with a board of governors rather than a department and an advisory council. The mandate of the centre includes the orientation, training and development of senior management in the federal public service and in the public sector, as well as in research into improved public sector administration.
Through training, orientation and development, the centre is designed to ensure that the senior public service managers improve the analytical, creative, advisory, administrative and other managerial skills and knowledge necessary to develop policy, to respond to change and manage government programs and services efficiently and effectively.
The centre will focus on attracting high-calibre candidates to the public service. It will conduct research into theory and practice of public sector management. The bill will also provide for co-operation between the centre and other institutions involved in management development and for the delivery of programs outside the public service.
Government Orders
The objects empowered to the centre are as follows: To encourage pride in the management of Public Service and to foster among Public Service managers a sense of purpose, values and traditions of the Public Service;
to help ensure that managers in the Public Service have the analytical, creative, advisory and administrative and other managerial skills and knowledge necessary to develop policy, respond to change and manage government programs and services efficiently and effectively;
to encourage and facilitate, through its programs and studies, the attraction of persons of high calibre to the Public Service, and to support their growth and development as public sector managers committed to the service of Canada;
to develop and provide training, orientation and development programs for managers in the public sector and particularly for senior managers in the Public Service;
to study and conduct research in the theory and practice of public sector management; and
to encourage a greater awareness in Canada of issues related to the public sector management and the process of governance and to involve a broad range of individuals and institutions in the centre's pursuit of excellence in public administration.

We agree with the objects of the Centre for Management Development, which includes the object to help ensure that managers in the Public Service have the analytical, creative, advisory, administrative and other managerial skills and knowledge necessary to develop policy, respond to change and manage government programs and services efficiently and effectively.
We agree with its object to attract through its programs and studies persons of high calibre to the Public Service, and to support their growth and development as public sector managers committed to the service of Canada.
We agree with its object to formulate and provide training, orientation and development program for managers in the public sector and particularly for senior managers in the Public Service.

February 16, 1990
Government Orders
We could not agree more that we need a centre that will develop management skills, and improve the productivity of public sector employees and the quality of services offered to Canadians.
However, a number of reservations were expressed by my colleagues from the Liberal caucus. One of my colleagues from the other place was concerned that the government would be competing directly with the universities and their public administration programs. I share his concern, but I am confident that academics on the board of directors will ensure that the centre complements courses offered by various Canadian universities but does not try to take their place. Briefly, the centre will offer a wide range of courses, seminars, conferences and development workshops for managers. To do so, it will need many case studies as well as a wealth of documentation, most of which does not exist at this time, either in the public sector or our universities.
Other colleagues were concerned about hiring procedures, powers and accountability of the board of directors, and the need to ensure the centre remains sensitive to the needs of the public service. Finally, there were concerns that the centre would become an elite club for senior executives. I must admit I share some of these concerns, since there is no mention of ways of increasing the number of Francophones at senior levels or of providing for equitable representation of women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and the disabled. However, my greatest concern would be to see a stagnating public service.
I would like to mention the Corporate Management Strategy, as presented by the Canadian Center for Management Development. On the title page we see the theme:

"Excellence in thought and and action to overcome today's problems and to meet tomorrow's challenges".
The Statement of Mission and Vision is extremely admirable:
The mission of the Canadian Centre for Management Development is to strengthen the management capacity of the public sector, and particularly of the senior levels of the federal public service, with a view to improving the quality of government and enhancing the service to the people of Canada.
This mission will be accomplished, in full co-operation with Canada's best in the public, private, and academic sectors, by extending the frontiers of knowledge in the practice of public sector management and by developing in public servants the knowledge, values, and skills critical to overcoming current and future management challenges.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that I am delighted the centre will take up residence in the historic Academie de La Salle building, located in the National Capital Region. I hope the University of Ottawa will also be involved. This location witnessed the earliest beginnings of the University of Ottawa, at the turn of the century. Several years ago, the federal government renovated the premises, and it has given us a building that makes us proud of our heritage. The architecture was well preserved throughout the renovation of a building that was originally a French Canadian institution.
The University of Ottawa was founded at the turn of the century, and I myself had the honour and the privilege of graduating from the university in the 50s, with a master's in administration, majoring in education.

I hope the centre will be open and accessible to both public and private interests, includng MPs and their staffs, to promote understanding of government. The centre will be a benefit to small government agencies and scientific establishments that previously had no place for developing and fine tuning management skills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Associate Minister of National Defence.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming the debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-52, and on any amendments proposed
February 16, 1990

thereto, the government House Leader will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On another point of order, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


POINT OF ORDER
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important point of order. I have been advised by Hansard that they are unable to provide members who have spoken today with the traditional "blues" for correction purposes. I understand that they have a computer problem, not related to the flu that has been going around in the other offices.
I would ask Your Honour to give consideration to some temporary revision of the rules as it relates to making corrections. This is Friday. The House at some point this afternoon will adjourn for the weekend. Normally we would have had the "blues" before we left the Hill. That is obviously not possible today.
Normally when we arrive in the House on Monday we have the white copy of Hansard. In this particular case it may not be in the final form in which we usually receive it, only because members have not had the opportunity to correct the "blues". So I would ask Your Honour to give consideration to this and to indicate to the House on Monday, when you return, the process that will be used to allow members to make legitimate corrections in the Hansard record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will look into the matter and will report back to the member and the House at one o'clock on Monday when the House reconvenes.


CANADIAN CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to
Government Orders
amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here and speak on Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.
In 1977, my esteemed colleague, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, proposed, as a Private Members' Bill, the establishment of, in his words, "a sort of College Canada for the administration echelons of the Government of Canada whereby the excellent reputation of the Canadian Public Service known throughout the world would be honed, polished and made even more ready to serve not only the federal government but all of the people of Canada".
The bill tabled, which would have established such a centre, died on the Order Paper at the end of that Parliament.
On April 15, 1988, Bill C-148 was first introduced to Parliament. The bill, which received unanimous approval by the House of Commons on August 25,1988, proposed to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development. Unfortunately, the thirty-third Parliament was dissolved before the bill was sent back to the House for final approval. Therefore, Bill C-148, too, died on the Order Paper.
Legislation has once again been introduced in the House of Commons that would establish this centre. The bill is a revised version of Bill C-148 and proposes that the Canadian centre be established as a departmental corporation with a board of governors rather than a department with an advisory council.
This latter fact brings up an interesting point, one that came up during the space agency centre discussions. The revised proposal would have a board of governors rather than a department with an advisory council. Whenever this happens, the fundamental issue becomes whether this type of structure undermines the accountability of the centre to the government and to Parliament.
Furthermore, the responsibilities of the proposed board of governors are not clearly defined in this bill and thus raises many questions that should be thoroughly studied. For example, what kind of power will the board be given? The principal is an ex officio voting member of the board. Does this mean that the principal can, at the

February 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
same time, report to and be accountable to the board of which he or she is a member?
Because there are no selection requirements, can the governors be selected without due regard to equitable representation of women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities? There is no limit of renewal of appointments to the board by the Order in Council. Could this not lead to the institutions becoming more insular and self-perpetuating?
I am very pleased that the proposal for the idea that the member for Ottawa-Vanier made over 10 years ago looks as if it may actually have time to possibly work its way through the system. The establishment of such a centre would provide for the orientation, training and development of senior managements in the federal Public Service and the public sector, as well as research into improved public sector administration.
The establishment of the centre goes a long way to correcting some of the problems in the Public Service that were pointed out by the Auditor General this past October. In his report the Auditor General said that the management of Canada's Public Service needs a new and creative outlook, one not concerned with vicious slashes, but rather a better management. The future holds new challenges and the Public Service needs to adapt to these challenges.
Through training, orientation and development the centre will be designed to ensure that senior Public Service managers improve the analytical, creative, advisory, administrative and other managerial skills and knowledge ncessary to develop policy, respond to change and manage government programs and services efficiently and effectively.
If this is to work, it is essential that we study whether the goal of the centre is to adequately prepare persons throughout the Public Service for management, including meeting employment equity objectives, and reflect adequately how management affects excellence, pride and Public Service attitudes at all levels.
I found it interesting to note that nowhere in Clause 4, which is where the objects of the centre are discussed, is there any reference to promoting the equitable representation in management of women, visible minorities, native persons and persons with disabilities. Nor does the clause refer at all to the relationship of management with employees at all levels or to the responsibility of the centre and the management category to encourage
pride, excellence and service to Canada and Canadians by all Public Service employees. It is this excellence, pride and service that the Auditor General was referring to in his report.
In conclusion, the discussion of this bill is long overdue and I am very pleased to be speaking on it. The creation of this centre will go a long way in helping our public servants maintain that excellence. The creation of the centre would enable the Public Service to recruit and maintain highly qualified individuals. At the same time the centre would enable the Public Service to address some of the problems outlined in the Auditor General's report.
The Public Service is an essential part of the functioning of this nation. I am proud to represent a riding where there are many, many public servants. All too often this government forgets or misunderstands just how important the Public Service is. The creation of the Canadian Centre for Management Development would allow the Public Service the support it requires in order for its efforts to be more effective in maintaining that excellence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   NUCLEAR WEAPONS TEST BAN TREATY
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government, as a signatory to the 1963 partial test ban treaty, should support the recent initiative made by 39 signatory countries to convene an amendment conference of all signatory countries to the treaty to convert the said treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty which would prohibit the testing of all nuclear weapons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion before the House asks the government to support the conversion of the partial test ban treaty for nuclear weapons into a comprehensive test ban treaty and to do so at an
February 16, 1990

amendment conference which is to be called late this year or early in 1991.
Some members of this House and some members of the public might not be familiar with this issue, so I think I should explain what the partial test ban treaty is and why it is so important.
The partial test ban treaty was signed in 1963 by President John Kennedy and Secretary Nakita Kruschev of the Soviet Union, and originally it was a treaty to deal with radioactive fallout. It was also seen as a means to stop the development of new nuclear weapons. According to the partial test ban treaty, the countries that signed the treaty pledged themselves not to test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, under the sea, or in outer space. This meant that the only place left for the testing of nuclear weapons was under ground. Of course, since the signing of the treaty, all testing of nuclear weapons has taken place under ground.
That does not mean that testing has not taken place, as most of you know. As a matter of fact, there have been over 1,000 tests of nuclear weapons since 1963, all under ground. Unfortunately, these tests have led to the proliferation of new types of nuclear weapons.
In the 25 years or more that have passed since the treaty was signed, there have been over 1,000 under ground nuclear explosions. Through that testing, the superpowers developed the hydrogen bomb in the 1950s, which increased by ten times the power of the the original nuclear weapon. Through this kind of testing they have also reduced the size of the warheads so that one missile now can fire 14 warheads at one time. China and India have developed their nuclear weapons underground and so on.
In 1963, with the partial test ban treaty testing was abolished in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space. By leaving that particular avenue open, testing nuclear weapons underground, we have had a massive proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In this motion we are asking the government to support an amendment to the partial test ban treaty, which would make that treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty and consequently ban the testing of all
Private Members' Business
nuclear weapons. This is extremely important not only for the environmental consequences of testing but also to stop the development of new nuclear weapons. It is concluded by experts throughout the world that, if you could stop the testing of nuclear weapons, you could stop the development of nuclear weapons. This becomes an extremely important step in bringing about the end of nuclear weapons.
I want to point out that when President Kennedy and Secretary Kruschev signed the partial test ban treaty in 1963, their intention was to pursue a comprehensive test ban treaty. The partial test ban treaty in 1963 was all they could agree upon at that time. But if you look at the preamble of that original treaty in 1963, it said it was a first step toward the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time. That is in the preamble of the 1963 partial test ban treaty. They foresaw that one day they would end all nuclear testing. That was the goal of all United States administrations from the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s up until the administration of President Reagan. Unfortunately, under the presidency of Mr. Reagan, negotiations toward a comprehensive test ban treaty were halted in 1982. Nevertheless this has been the ongoing goal of many governments throughout the world, churches and peace groups who have been working for years to get a comprehensive test ban treaty.
When many peace groups saw how little progress there was in moving toward the comprehensive test ban treaty contemplated in 1963, they began to look for other methods of achieving that goal. It was Parliamentarians for Global Action who, a few years ago, noticed that in the Article 2 of the partial test ban treaty there was a provision for amending that particular treaty. This organization went about to try to get enough countries which were signatories to the treaty to activate the amendment process. Their purpose was if they could get an amendment conference called under the partial test ban treaty they would then propose that certain clauses of the treaty be amended to make it into a comprehensive test ban treaty. They decided to take this route because they had been so totally frustrated over 25 years in getting a new treaty which would be called a comprehensive test ban treaty.
According to the rules set up in the partial test ban treaty, it required one-third of the signatory nations to

February 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
activate the amendment process. Parliamentarians for Global Action went about the world seeking countries that would meet that standard and they did that. There were 116 signatories to the partial test ban treaty. With hard work they were able to get 39 countries to sign a request demanding an amendment conference and that was accomplished a few years ago. As a result of those 39 countries making that request, later this year we will have an amendment conference to consider transposing or converting the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty.
Why is this so important? What is the state of military power and nuclear power in the world today? In 1989, the last year for which we have figures, the countries of the world spent over $1 trillion on arms of all kinds. The nuclear weapon states have accumulated approximately 60,000 nuclear weapons. Those 60,000 nuclear weapons have one million times more power than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. There are 4 tonnes of TNT for every man, woman and child on the face of the earth-4 tonnes of TNT for every individual on the face of the earth-and are capable of destroying 800 million people in 12 hours. The more recent nuclear weapons are more accurate, faster, more concealable, and more mobile than ever before. I suppose the most dangerous of them are those that are found on the nuclear submarines because the nuclear submarines can travel the oceans of the world, always changing their positions. A single U.S. Trident submarine or a single Soviet Typhoon submarine has the power to destroy between 100 and 200 cities. A single submarine with its nuclear weapons can destroy between 100 and 200 cities. Together, the United States and the Soviet Union have 100 of these submarines.
These submarines can stay 100 miles off the coast of New England and hit almost any target in the United States. The same thing can be said for the American submarines in the Baltic Sea or in the Mediterranean. More troubling, these missiles carrying nuclear warheads can be launched by error and technical breakdown. The system is so decentralized and so operated by electronics that such errors and technical breakdowns can take place.
We just have to look at what happened to the Challenger spacecraft in the United States, which is not a
nuclear spacecraft. Despite all the technology in the United States when this spacecraft was launched a few years ago, it exploded in air and all the Americans on that spacecraft were killed.
There was a similar occurrence in the Soviet Union with all its technology. Despite that technology there was the terrible accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
It is estimated that there have been 151 false alarms with respect to the launching of nuclear missiles in recent years.
We are confronted with a very serious situation, although there has been some progress in the last two years. In fact there has been some very encouraging progress since Secretary Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union a few years ago.
Since Mr. Gorbachev's coming to power and the more flexible response by the United States and NATO, we have had the conclusion of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty in 1987. We have had the recent treaty to ban chemical weapons. We had the Open Skies conference which was held here in Ottawa last week where agreement in principle was reached on the surveillance of NATO and Warsaw Pact countries by the aircraft of the other countries. We have the agreement for troop reductions in Europe to 195,000. We have the progress being made at the Geneva Conference and the Vienna Conference.
It is interesting to note that the Geneva talks, which have been going on since 1962, made virtually no progress whatsoever until about two years ago. Those talks went on every year since 1962. These were talks to deal with the control of strategic nuclear weapons. There was hardly any progress until Mr. Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union and now we see some progress.
As a matter of fact Mr. Gorbachev has proposed that all nuclear weapons be eliminated from the face of the earth by the year 2000. The United States for its part has proposed that they be cut in half as a first step in proceeding toward that goal.
The talks at Vienna are with respect to conventional armies in Europe. Again, substantial progress is being made. Those talks have been going on since 1973, although veiy little was done until recently.
February 16, 1990

We have had progress in the talks that I have referred to in recent years. We have had the conclusion of certain treaties, such as the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.
However, there is still a substantial amount to be done. As a matter of fact, we can be lulled into a false sense of security by what has been done already. If we look at the INF treaty, it simply provided for the destruction of 1,100 intermediate nuclear weapons out of a total of 60,000 nuclear weapons. That is simply a drop in the bucket when we consider the destructive power of those weapons.
It is extremely important to make progress because all of this is related to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries which now do not have those weapons. In other words, progress on such matters as a comprehensive test ban is extremely important, if we are going to continue with the non-proliferation treaty which was started in 1970.
Let me say a word about the non-proliferation treaty. The non-proliferation treaty provides that those countries which signed it renounce the right to develop nuclear weapons. There were 124 such nations. Canada is one of them. Three of the nuclear weapon states out of five nuclear weapon states also signed the treaty.
According to the treaty those who did not have nuclear weapons pledged that they would not develop them. It is significant that from the implementation of that treaty in 1970 not one of the countries that signed the treaty that did not have weapons has proceeded to the development of nuclear weapons.
On the other hand the quid pro quo in that treaty was that the nuclear weapon states that signed the treaty- the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain- would pledge to reduce their stockpiled nuclear weapons, according to Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty.
But they did not do that. As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union and the United States had 6,000 strategic nuclear weapons in 1970 and those increased to 20,000 last year. So while all the other countries that signed the nonproliferation treaty obeyed the provisions of the treaty, the nuclear weapon states did not do that. That is one reason given-although I do not accept it as being substantial enough-by countries like France and China that did not
Private Members' Business
sign the treaty. They said, "Why should we sign this treaty when the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain are being hypocritical and not obeying the provisions of Article 6."
There are 15 states which are called threshold states, and they include India, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina, Israel and South Africa, that did not sign the nonproliferation treaty and they did not sign it because they doubted the sincerity of the nuclear weapons states that signed the treaty. They had some reason for their doubt, as I pointed out. Those three states increased their stockpile of nuclear weapons from 1970 to the present time by four times.
Those 15 threshold states are developing the capability of producing nuclear weapons. The only way we are going to get them to reverse that trend and stop doing what they are doing is by proceeding and showing progress with respect to the control of nuclear weapons and the destruction of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapon states.
It is important because the nonproliferation treaty comes to an end in 1995 and the last review conference with respect to the nonproliferation treaty will take place in August of this year in Geneva. These 15 threshold states and others will be watching to see whether they will become signatories of the nonproliferation treaty and whether that treaty will be renewed in 1990 for another period of time.
What about the Canadian government? Well the Canadian government of the day has a mixed record in this respect. It did an excellent job last week at the Open Skies Conference. It took a very strong position and progress was made. It is also a signatory to the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. All of that is good.
However, on the negative side, we see that the government is still testing the cruise missile which is outdated and completely contrary to the other negotiations which are taking place. We see that the government is about to establish a NATO base in Labrador. While the superpowers are agreeing to withdraw their troops from Europe this government is establishing a new NATO base in Labrador which is objected to by the aboriginal people of the area. And we see that the government is still clinging to the rhetoric of its White

February 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
Paper of 1987 which is really a cold war type document not in tune at all with the reality of today.
In conclusion let me say that never was the time better to push ahead with treaties and procedures to eliminate and control nuclear weapons. The door is open today for agreement in many areas with respect to the destruction and control of nuclear weapons and it may not be open for too long.
I plead with the government to support this motion. I have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs speak on this on several occasions. He says he supports a comprehensive test ban treaty but he has doubt about the method by which we are proceeding under the amendment procedures in the nonproliferation treaty.
Those of us in politics know that if you want to accomplish something, use any method available to you because if you do not, time will pass you by. Here is an opportunity this year to bring about a comprehensive test ban treaty. The Soviet Union has already said that it favours proceeding under this conference and concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty to transform the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty.
To many Canadians and many peace activists the conclusion of the INF treaty gave the impression that everything was going very well and they did not have to do very much anymore to press ahead with the abolition of nuclear weapons. That is not the case. I pointed out that we have only dealt with 1,100 out of 60,000 nuclear weapons. Here is an opportunity this year to have a comprehensive test ban treaty.
I hope that the entire House will support this motion and that the Canadian government will go to that conference and support the comprehensive test ban treaty.


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for raising this issue of the greatest importance, that of nuclear disarmament.
For over 40 years the world has been faced with the potential of nuclear war, a horror which Canada has worked tirelessly to eliminate. Yet this threat remains with us still. In fact, despite the point of the member
opposite that the cold war is over, I noted yesterday in The Ottawa Citizen that only one in four Canadians believe that the cold war is over.
Despite the very real improvement in east-west relations which we have witnessed over the past few years, we must not fail to recognize the continued danger, just as we must not lag in our efforts to combat it. We must continue to strive in every way possible for a free world or a world free of nuclear weapons or a world free from which the nuclear threat of holocaust has been banished forever.
As the hon. member has pointed out, and he has my full support in this regard, the realization of a comprehensive test ban treaty would constitute a major step toward realizing this goal. A comprehensive and effective ban on all nuclear testing, including the so-called peaceful nuclear explosions in all environments and for all time, would complete the work undertaken by negotiators in drafting the threshhold test ban treaty in the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty. It would effectively initiate a process of suffocation of nuclear weapons both as concerns their readiness and their development.
This is a goal of great importance to this government. In fact, in 1985 the Prime Minister listed the negotiation of the comprehensive test ban treaty, or the CTVT, as a key goal in a list of six primary arms' control and disarmament objectives.
Today, the realization of such a treaty remains a fundamental Canadian foreign policy objective.
Canada has been a supporter of the comprehensive test ban treaty ever since the concept was introduced in the 1950s, both in encouraging negotiations among the parties directly concerned and in supporting a pragmatic step-by-step approach at the multilateral level.
Canadian support for the comprehensive test ban treaty has taken a number of practical forms. Canada plays a leading role in the work of the conference on disarmament in Geneva in the development of a global seismic monitoring system which will be required to verify an eventual comprehensive test ban treaty.
Canada continues to play an active role in the United Nations General Assembly in seeking to secure broad, political support for the comprehensive test ban treaty and in support of efforts to establish an ad hoc committee on nuclear testing in the CD.
February 16, 1990

I must disagree, however, with the hon. member opposite in his suggestion that a partial test ban treaty is the appropriate vehicle for furthering our pursuit of comprehensive test ban treaties. This is clearly not the case.
The PTBT is a treaty which was negotiated at a time when the atmosphere surrounding arms control agreements was very different from that which we experience today. It was negotiated largely as a good intentions treaty without, for example, provision for the rigourous verification we would consider today so essential for a CTVT.
As well, two of the nuclear weapons states, China and France, are not even parties to the treaty.
In addition, it must be borne in mind that no amendment to the partial test ban treaty can come into effect without the approval of the original depository states, and here there is clear opposition. Canada has long recognized the futility of holding a special conference or a negotiation on a CTVT in the absence of support of the parties most directly concerned.
Meaningful arms control, including the progress on the comprehensive test ban treaty, requires that issues be approached in a forthright manner. In this case, however, proponents of the comprehensive test ban treaty are taking advantage of a legal loophole, the prescribed partial test ban treaty amendment procedure, to pursue an objective which they have been unable to achieve directly.
A partial test ban treaty amendment conference, instead of focusing on ongoing efforts where real prospects for real progress exists, runs the risk of wasting both time and resources. To some, it represents an irresponsible misuse of multilateral arms control and disarmament mechanisms. Its failure could undermine the confidence in the multilateral ACD process itself.
Indeed, the use of the terms of the partial test ban treaty to try to achieve the comprehensive test ban treaty, a procedure the original parties in the partial test ban treaty are not prepared to support and which was never the intent of the partial test ban treaty, could well lead some nations to be even more skeptical of our future multilateral ACD treaties for fear they might be similarly misused.
There is a further danger in the approach advocated by the hon. member. There are states which consider progress toward the CTBT objective to be an integral element of the non-proliferation treaty, or the NPT.
Private Members' Business
Several countries have indicated their intention of linking extension of the NPT in 1995 to the successful outcome of the partial test ban treaty amending conference.
Under these conditions, the holding of a partial test ban treaty amending conference prior to the next NPT review conference would threaten to politicize consideration of the NPT related issues, including the CTBT objective. Its failure might be used as a justification by some to weaken the NPT, or even pull out. Efforts to link the extension of the NPT in 1995 to the successful conclusion of the partial test ban treaty amending conference could pose a serious threat to the continuation of international support for an effective nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Of course, I well understand the reasons why many states have been moved to call for the conversion of the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty. Their frustration at the modest progress achieved in recent years toward the comprehensive test ban treaty objective at the political level is one I share. However, this is not the approach needed in moving toward our goal of a comprehensive test ban. It is an approach I do not support.
It is the position of this government that nuclear disarmament efforts should focus primarily on a negotiated, balance reductions of nuclear arsenals. Progress in that direction, including the realization of a comprehensive test ban treaty, requires a step by step negotiation of concrete and realistic measures, based on a foundation of confidence and security.
Fundamental in this regard are U.S.A./Soviet bilateral negotiations on nuclear testing which have focused, as a first step, on the development of improved verification provisions for the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty. We have been pleased at the recent progress achieved in this regard, and hope this will lead to early ratification of these treaties and, following their implementation, the subsequent elaboration of further limitations on testing.
Fundamental, too, are multilateral efforts in support of the realization of a comprehensive test ban at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. Consideration of this subject in the CD for the past four years has been constrained by a disappointing failure to reach agreement on the establishment of an ad hoc committee, the major issue of contention being whether an ad hoc committee on nuclear testing should have a mandate to negotiate. However, it is here that we find the optimal

February 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
multilateral vehicle for moving the process forward in the direction of a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing.
The Conference on Disarmament represents the best vehicle for long-term consideration of nuclear weapons testing. Although this issue remains stalemated in the CD, Canada will make every effort to break the current impasse over the establishment of the ad hoc committee, perhaps based on a modification of the East Block compromise proposal put forth by Czechslovakia's former representative to the CD, Ambassador Vejvoda.
In any event, we are pleased at the technical progress already achieved by the CD group of scientific experts relating to seismic verification to which Canada has contributed.
This does not of course mean that Canada will play a role in the upcoming partial test ban treaty amending conference that is in any way less than constructive. Canada was opposed to the convening of such a conference, for reasons which I have outlined here today, and which we have made clear to the superpowers in different multilateral fora. However, as this conference will take place, Canada will attend and endeavour to contribute to a realistic outcome.
Canada will not, as the hon. member has suggested, support a partial test ban treaty amendment attempting to turn the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty. However, a partial test ban treaty amending conference which helps clear the air regarding a comprehensive test ban, and which represents no threat to the non-proliferation treaty, could have a beneficial effect in paving the way for a mandate in the Conference on Disarmament. This is a worthwhile and realistic goal, and one which Canada will strive to realize.
In closing, we believe that the government in order to achieve genuine progress in the area of arms control and disarmament should pursue energetic initiatives that have a realistic potential to foster progress toward our goals.
Our strong and active support for negotiating an open skies regime, which has been considered at the Open Skies conference in Ottawa, demonstrates this government's energetic and determined efforts to seize the opportunities that arise for real progress.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity- Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Notre-dame-de-Grace for opening a debate that is very rarely heard in this House, not just the immediate subject, but the whole subject of nuclear disarmament.
His motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government, as a signatory to the 1963 partial test-ban treaty, should support the recent initiative made by 39 signatory countries to convene an amendment conference of all signatory countries to the treaty to convert the said treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty which would prohibit the testing of all nuclear weapons.
This move has the support of 116 countries, which is a good majority of the United Nations. Unfortunately, some of the heavyweights have not supported it. The point of such a conference as is being proposed is to bring the public opinion of the whole world, or of two-thirds of the world or more that are represented in these countries, to bear on the heavyweights that are resisting the idea of a comprehensive test-ban treaty.
It has been the dream of hundreds of millions of people around the world that we would arrive at a reasonable decision to stop the use of nuclear weapons, to decide that we will never use them and, therefore, to decide that we will never produce them, to decide that we will never research their production, and to decide as a key decision, that we will never test the production of any new nuclear weapons.
When I was a soldier in the Canadian Army at Barriefield in August of 1945, being reorganized to go to the Pacific, as we thought, we heard about the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and then the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, then, of course, we heard about the peace which was coming anyway without those bombs. They were not directed so much at Japan as they were directed at the Soviet Union. The Japanese happened to be the target, that is all.
We have heard a great deal more in the last 40 years about these bombs almost always in the context of a grim
February 16, 1990

threat of World War III. We have been told by our side, the NATO side, that these bombs will protect us from World War III. The Soviet people have been told by their side that these bombs will protect them from World War III. I do not think that anybody really seriously believed either claim.
For the first five years after the United States dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the United States had the monopoly. It was the sole country that had a nuclear weapon that it could use. Then in the early 1950's, the Soviet Union developed its nuclear weapons, then the race began so that now we have 60,000 of these. We do not know what we would do with more than about 1,000 of them because there would be nobody left to do it with.
The arms race has not only threatened the future, but it has actually killed people in the present. One researcher, Rosalie Bertelle, a Canadian scientist, estimates that one million people have already died in World War III. She is speaking of the people who have been contaminated by the radiation the radioactive substances spread into the air over the last 40 years by these tests, and spread into the Pacific Ocean where they cannot possibly be contained.
People finally mounted enough pressure that we got the partial test-ban treaty in 1963 at least to stop poisoning the air that blows all around the world and that all of us have to breath. This was to stop poisoning the air, and we thought to stop poisoning the sea, although the American tests violated the principle of that bill because their tests on the Atolls of the Southwest Pacific have contaminated the sea around them and the contamination is spreading. The British, not so much with their bomb tests, but with dumping waste from the production of bombs into the Irish Sea has also been contaminating the Irish Sea and the Atlantic.
Therefore, the idea grew that we might discourage the great expense of developing new weapons by prohibiting the testing, since there comes a point, so we are told, when it is not credibly worthwhile to go on with research unless you can test at least the preliminary result. The idea was to stop the testing, not only in the air, not only in the water, not only in space but also underground, because there also the poisons do not necessarily stay where they are originally put.
Private Members' Business
Since 1963 and before, there has been continuing proliferation. We now understand that China and India have nuclear weapons. We are not quite sure how many, or of what force. We are almost certain that Israel has 100 or so nuclear weapons. There is a strong probability that South Africa, Taiwan, Pakistan, and, maybe, Iraq either have them or are close to having them. A small country that no one though very much of in this game was Romania. Canada has provided CANDU reactor technology to Romania and even signed a secret deal to allow Romania to sell CANDU technology to Third World countries with whom, so the story goes, Canada finds it hard to deal. Now whether that means a country with which Canada has no official recognition, such as North Korea, I do not know. In letters to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have not been able to get any further information on points like that.
A stoiy in The Toronto Star on December 30 from Southam News suggests that one of the countries that Romania might have sold that technology to was Iran. In other words, even Canada has not taken any serious measures to restrict the proliferation of the technology for producing nuclear weapons. Yet, I think a huge majority in Canada, as in other countries, would say that a future nuclear war, a future nuclear exchange to use the more technical term, cannot benefit us because there will be no winners. It will not be a question of winning that war as we believe we won World War II and we won World War I. There will be no winners. There will only be losers and that will include us.
For these four decades it has seemed impossible to get agreement because the political difference between Moscow, Washington, London and Paris seemed so great. In the last few years that political distance has shrunk. Yesterday we had Mr. Shevamadze speaking to a large gathering of members of the House and speaking peace and drawing a peace response from those in the House who had the opportunity to question him. We had a year and a half when, under the Gorbachev administration, the Soviet Union stopped all testing of the bombs. Now we have the possibility for moving toward a total test ban treaty, a comprehensive test ban treaty. The hon. member who spoke from the other side claims that is not the right method but so far nobody has found any better method. At least we got part way with a partial test ban treaty and there is an obligation written into that. He calls it a loophole. That is a silly word to use. It

February 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
is not a loophole but an opportunity that a 116 states of the world have undertaken to use.
I believe our government should support not just the meeting of that conference, but the intent of that conference. I appeal to the government to reconsider its negative attitude on this subject and I appeal to the people of Canada to urge this government to do the same. We do have a chance to end the bomb testing.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the motion the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has put forward regarding a conference to convert the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty.
As the Prime Minister said this week at the Open Skies Conference, the cold war is over. We all welcome the major shift and major developments that have been made possible by massive changes in attitudes in eastern Europe during the past few months.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland- Colchester has stated, Canada intends to contribute to this conference in a very constructive fashion. This House may therefore be interested in recent developments in this regard. The questions of timing and venue of the partial test ban treaty amending conference are currently being considered at a series of meetings in New York. Canada wishes to see these disagreements over administrative questions resolved in a manner that is satisfactory to all partial test ban treaty members.
Canada, despite its serious reservations over the usefulness of the amending conference, has already demonstrated its flexibility and willingness to compromise on the dates of the conference. Our preference is to hold the conference in January 1991 as proposed by the depository states. However, in a statement at the UN General Assembly our Ambassador for Disarmament, Peggy Mason, expressed Canada's willingness to support a short organizational first phase of the conference in 1990, followed by the substantial phase in 1991. This format represents a reasonable compromise and one that would appear to be gaining widespread support.
It is the government's hope that all members will demonstrate flexibility and a spirit of compromise in order to reach an early agreement on this and other administrative arrangements of the conference.
Although the amendment conference will be held in the near future, it is clear that the proposed amendment does not enjoy the support required in order to be adopted. We believe however that the conference need not be a failure. The Canadian delegation which will be headed by Ambassador Mason will work toward an outcome that will move the process forward to a comprehensive test ban treaty goal. More specifically we would hope that this meeting will give impetus to ongoing efforts at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, toward the realization of a comprehensive test ban treaty including as a first step the establishment of a mandate for an ad hoc committee on a nuclear test ban. If such a result is achieved-and we believe that it can be achieve-d-the amendment conference will have been a useful exercise.
Today there has been concern expressed here by members opposite about the commitment of the United States and the Soviet Union to the bilateral talks on nuclear testing. Canada strongly supports the bilateral U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. stage by stage negotiations on nuclear testing and welcomes progress on a revised verification protocol for the threshold test ban treaty that will permit the early ratification of both the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty. We are encouraged by this progress and by recent U.S.A. statements confirming that a comprehensive test ban remains the long-term objective of the United States of America.
We will continue to press for an early agreement by the nuclear weapons states to move to the next stage of negotiations on nuclear testing and the ultimate goal of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We have been in touch with U.S. officials regarding recent claims that there has been a shift in U.S. policy on nuclear testing and that the U.S.A. would no longer be prepared to proceed immediately to the next phase in the negotiation of the comprehensive test ban treaty.
We have received assurances that there has been no change in U.S. policy on nuclear testing. The confusion seems to lie in a change of wording regarding when the U.S.A. would envision moving to the next step in negotiations on nuclear testing. The United States sees
February 16, 1990

itself moving to this step not immediately but following ratification of the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty, after a brief period of observation of the effectiveness of the verification provisions agreed upon for these treaties.
I would like to repeat that. The U.S.A. sees itself moving to the next step not immediately following the ratification of the TTBT and the PNET but after a brief period of observation of the effectiveness of the verification provisions agreed upon for these treaties.
One very important point I want to emphasize here in the House is that in a joint communique issued after the Moscow meeting between Secretary of State Baker and Foreign Affairs Minister Shevardnadze, the United States and the Soviet Union reaffirmed their commitment to the 1987 agreement which set the step by step process in motion.
The prospects for a successfully amending the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty are virtually nil. At least two of the partial test ban treaty depository states, whose votes are required for the passage of any binding amendment, have already indicated their strong opposition to the proposed amendment. In our search for a comprehensive test ban, let us focus on the ongoing efforts where real prospects for progress exist rather than concentrating our efforts and our hopes on a conference that will not achieve its stated aim.
In conclusion, there is no fast track to disarmament as much as we may wish otherwise. A negotiated step by step approach that has the support of all parties is the only way toward an effective and lasting comprehensive test ban treaty.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to deal with the motion moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and calling for a comprehensive nuclear test ban which is one of the long-standing objectives of the Canadian policy in the area of arm control and disarmement. There exists already a partial test ban treaty which prohibits testing everywhere except underground. Although Canada has never possessed nor tried to possess nuclear weapons, it has actively participated in the negotiations which resulted in 1963 in the partial test ban treaty of which it remains a faithful supporter. Moreoever, Canada is involved in the continuing consultation within the dis-
Private Members' Business
armement conference aimed at developing a mandate for those who will be responsible eventually to negotiate a nuclear weapon ban treaty. Canada is actively seeking a treaty prohibiting the use of all nuclear weapons, for it feels that a comprehensive test ban could seriously interfere with the development of new and more sophisticated weapons.
A comprehensive nuclear weapon ban treaty, however, could not be achieved simply by signing it. The ability to monitor the true application of such a treaty would go a long way to help negotiations progress in that area, because no nuclear power would seriously consider renouncing its right to test and improve nuclear weapons unless it were fully convinced that the other powers respect a similar commitment. The monitoring of a possible ban on underground nuclear testing will be mostly based on seismic verification techniques which could be used and which would call for more stringent verification measures if there were any doubts as to the respect of the treaty.
Seismology studies the vibrations experienced by the earth's crust as a result of the quakes, both perceptible and imperceptible, which are felt in a great many parts of the world. When a seismic phenomenon occurs, shock waves spread through the ground. These seismic waves can be detected and analysed by apparatus up to 10,000 kilometres from the place of origin. Any earthquake produces two types of wave: body waves, which spread quickly through the earth's mantle, and surface waves, which move more slowly in the earth's crust. By comparing the readings for each group of waves and the differences between their times of arrival, seismologists can often determine very accurately where the phenomenon occurred and whether it is an earthquake or an explosion.
Mr. Speaker, advanced research is going on in the world now to determine the effectiveness of an international seismic detection system that could verify a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. In keeping with our long-standing desire to conclude a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, Canada is playing a major role in this research. Canada's international efforts to establish the reliability of seismic techniques for possible verification of a future comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty have been led by the Verification and Research Section of the Departments of External Affairs and Intemation-

February 16, 1990
Private Members' Business
al Trade and by the Geophysics Branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The most important international forum for discussing seismic verification techniques is the scientific experts' group established in Geneva in 1976 at the Disarmament Committee Conference. The group's mandate is to define the technical specifications of a future international seismic data exchange system, to establish the facts and to provide analysis of data exchange methods. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the scientific experts' group is not to design or develop an international system for enforcing a comprehensive nuclear (test) ban but rather to discuss the various aspects of such a system and to test its components. Canada has supported the scientific experts' group from the beginning.
Among the various initiatives taken by the scientific experts' group to date, the international seismic data exchange experiment in 1984 was the most important. The purpose of this experiment was to assess the effectiveness of the present world data exchange system when many countries simultaneously provide large amounts of data and to identify the parts of the system that need to be improved. Rapid international data exchange will be a key element of the effective enforcement of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, if one is ever concluded.
Furthermore, seismic stations, even the remotest ones, must be able to communicate rapidly with each other for the purpose of collecting and analyzing information.
Canada's contribution to the experiment amply demonstrated the importance of our seismic stations. In fact, among the 70 stations throughout the world that took part in this experimental exchange of information, the three Canadian stations provided about 15 per cent of all raw data collected during the experiment. Canadian scientists took an active part in the post-test analysis, the results of which show that although during the decade preceding the experiment, substantial progress had been made with computerized transfer and analysis of data, we will need even greater capacity if we are to process efficiently the tremendous amount of information that
would be generated by a world seismic monitoring system.
At a workshop organized by the scientific experts group last September and hosted by the Canadian government in Yellowknife, there were discussions about the possibility of conducting a second, similar experiment which, considering the progress made in recent years, would offer more stringent testing of the international seismic data exchange system. The fact that far more detailed data, in the form of waves, will be exchanged by participating stations, is an extremely important factor for the second test. The Yellowknife seismic station, which has just been revamped at a cost of $3.5 million, is one of the most advanced stations in the world and will have a decisive role to play in this new experiment.
Mr. Speaker, the government believes that it is research and preparations as advanced as these that will help it achieve its goal, which is a comprehensive test-ban treaty.
In any case, even if the proposal to amend the partial test-ban treaty, to make it a comprehensive one, may seem attractive because of its simplicity, the present government will continue to support the efforts of the scientific experts group in which Canada plays such an active role.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, nuclear disarmament will never be truly possible unless we realize that our common security requires verification of all arms control treaties. There are no shortcuts in an enterprise as vital as this one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Because of the number of members who wish to speak on this issue, if the House will grant unanimous consent, I would like to recognize the member for Waterloo for three minutes, the member for Eglinton-Lawrence for three minutes and then we will call it three o'clock and go on with the business of the House.
Is that agreeable.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the members of the House. The member for Waterloo.


Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter this debate, particularly as chairman of the Canadian group of Parliamentarians
February 16, 1990

for Global Action who have been introducing this motion for serious discussion in Parliaments around the world. I want also to commend the executive cross-party lines who have been encouraging a discussion within the foreign policy initiatives of the Canadian government on this issue. Let me also thank the hon. member who is the international president for introducing the motion and speaking to it today.
In the two minutes that remain let me suggest to you, Sir, that this motion comes at a time when we have had an historic week in Ottawa. It could not be more appropriate to the changing times. Here we had Minister Shevardnadze before the Standing Committee of External Affairs and International Trade who said specifically that the Soviet Union supports the ending of underground testing. He reaffirmed the Soviet position in support of a total test ban.
Here we have a motion which encourages the Canadian government to give leadership and to find new ways of leadership. The Prime Minister has said the cold war is over, but I believe that the cold war cannot end until we have stopped the international situation where one nation seeks to move ahead of another in modernizing nuclear weapons.
Even after the superpower pledge in 1987 to gradually reduce testing schedules to zero, they have reneged on even this slowest of motions. The suggestion that somehow the comprehensive test ban which we are encouraging our government to support might be a final test does not ring true to Canadians who in recent polls have said by some two-thirds majority they want some leadership in peacemaking. They want to see defence expenditure directed to peacekeeping and peacemaking.
In thanking the member for introducing the discussion, I encourage our government and our officials to renew a determination to stop modernization and to press at the same time as we echo that concern for a comprehensive test ban.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have new common ground. Open Skies is also an opportunity for open
Private Members' Business
communication on these subjects. We are on the verge of a new day, and I trust that Canada can give renewed leadership in this area.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this issue and to show appreciation as well to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for introducing such a motion and to those speakers who have spoken on behalf of this motion. It is certainly most momentous in terms of where this country is going to set a direction for not only its foreign policy, but for a policy that is integral to the way that we see ourselves and in the way that we see Canada's role in the world.
In that context, it is a little disappointing to have had to listen to some of the members opposite address the issue in a way that suggested there was something wrong with the method that was being employed to achieve a most notable and most honourable objective, an objective I might add that this country has supported since 1963. Twenty-five years later, we are on the verge of being able to accomplish a comprehensive test ban and we see that the government is becoming intransigent in the face of an opportunity that shall not and should not be allowed to pass.
I regret that members opposite appear to be favouring a position of waiting and seeing, of waiting and abiding by the decision of the American government and not taking a look at that which is before us right now. We have an opportunity to turn a partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty by simply indicating that we too want to show leadership and we too have learned something from the events of this last week.
I know that it is not yet three o'clock. I will resume my seat and allow the rest of the time for the calling of the vote, if that is appropriate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

February 16, 1990
Government Orders




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief contribution to the debate taking place on this important bill.
As you have heard from the previous speakers from our side, we support this bill fully in its principle on the establishment of the Canadian Centre for Management Development. We believe that the centre is and will be a worth-while venture.
My only reason for rising and saying anything today is to put on the record my objection to the way in which the government has proceeded with the establishment of this centre. It is typical of the arrogance of the government in dealing with Parliament. I have in my hand a copy of the 1989-90 estimates for the Canadian Centre for Management Development.
This centre was established by Order in Council because the government failed to get a bill through Parliament before the last general election. Now we have the spectacle of the government introducing a bill
to do what it has already done by Order in Council. It has been funding this organization for over a year. The centre has been operating. I am glad, in a way, that it is operating. Nevertheless, this is a high-handed and arrogant approach to Parliament, to establish a body by Order in Council and then march into this House with the bill and say; "Now we would like you to pass a bill to establish what we have already established".
I want to put on the record my profound objection to this procedure. The hon. member for St. John's East is wagging his finger. He should be wagging it at the Minister of Justice and the other ministers who came up with this bill. I want to state my objection for the record. If it happens again, I will make a longer and more protracted contribution, chastising the ministers for this kind of high-handed approach.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend opposite was going out to do me a favour and I did not want anything untoward to happen while he was in the lobby.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 3 p.m., this House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.07 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 19, 1990