1990-11-28

Mr.   Ronald. J. Duhamel@St. Boniface: Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing a number of serious social problems such as marital violence, environmental complications, constitutional issues, native claims, new reproduction technologies, illiteracy, poverty, sexual, physical, psychological and emotional abuse, just to name a few. All such matters relate to humanities.
Humanities have been neglected. Since 1980 the budget of the council has increased by a mere 23 per cent while appropriations for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council have gone up by 77 per cent. Humanities researchers account for 55 per cent of university scientists but the government allocates to them only 12 per cent of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Three quarters of students applying for doctorate scholarships are turned down despite the shortage of academics in this field. The Canadian federation is advocating a considerable budget increase, as recommended in the report of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology.
The environmental green plan must acknowledge the determining role of humanities in this field, and a tax credit must be established with a view to encouraging businesses to invest in research in humanities, as is the case in other research endeavours.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 1991 the United States plans to charge an excise tax of $1.07 U.S. a gallon against the products of small Canadian wine and cider makers, while only charging 17 cents a gallon against the beverages of American producers.
Chapter 5 of the free trade agreement clearly states that once goods have been imported into either country, they will not be the object of discrimination.
It is a bitter irony to discover that U.S. lawmakers passed an act of Congress to abrogate the obligations of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, resulting in Canadian small producers, such as Wyder's Cider of Delta, suffering discriminatory excise taxes for an indefinite period.
I commend the work the Minister of International Trade has done already on this issue, but I would urge him to take an even stronger stance against this discriminatory excise tax.


VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, no group of Canadians makes a more selfless or more valuable contribution to the safety of our society and our community than our volunteer firefighters.
In a modest way, this contribution and the financial costs associated with it are recognized through a $500 exemption or allowance under the Income Tax Act.
This exemption has not changed for 20 years. The same cannot be said for the value of the dollar. The time is overdue for a change, and in accordance with the request put forward by the Maritime Fire Chiefs Association, I urge the government and the Minister of Finance to increase the volunteer firefighters' exemption to at least $1,000 in the next budget.

November 28, 1990


PRESIDENT OF THE IRISH REPUBLIC
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian woman of Irish descent, it is with great pride that I salute the election of Mary Robinson, the first woman President of the Irish Republic.
Winning the post with 52 per cent of the vote, the 46 year old lawyer, in her own words, rocked the system instead of the cradle.
At 25, Mary Robinson was Ireland's youngest law professor. At 26, she was the youngest member of her country's Senate.
The mother of three has been a long-time advocate of liberalized divorce laws, access to contraception and the decriminalization of homosexuality.
The fact that the women of Ireland overwhelmingly supported her candidacy is another example of the increasing influence of the gender gap world-wide.
Ireland's presidential mansion is in Dublin's beautiful Phoenix Park. I know that all members of this House join me in agreeing with Mary Robinson's campaign slogan- A woman's place is in the park.


Mr. Speaker:: I think members would permit me to observe that my grandmother was Mary Robinson. She also was Irish.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PROPONENTS OF FEDERALISM
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, would you believe it? After Jean Chretien campaigned across the country and managed to kill the Meech Lake Accord, and now that Canada is in a constitutional dead end and the country is no longer able to renew and regenerate its federalism-all because of Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party-the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, to provide a counterweight to Quebec's efforts to redefine its future, may be getting together on the Belanger-Campeau Commission via their respective representatives. That the Progressive Conservative Party's representative is a federalist and defends that position is his right, and I respect that right,
but Mr. Speaker, I also would like to see some respect for our history and the events that took place last June. Trudeau-and Chretien-style federalism and Brian Mulroney's federalism are at opposite ends of the scale-never the twain shall meet!
[English)


RURAL CANADA
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, rural Canada is in crisis. Most rural communities are losing their businesses, and their populations are stagnant or in decline.
This is not a crisis made in rural Canada. Past PC. and Liberal governments have mismanaged our forestry, farming and fisheries.
This government's policies are a direct attack on rural communities. High interest rates, cuts to VIA Rail, the abandonment of railway branch lines, the goods and services tax, cuts to regional development and unemployment insurance changes are just a few examples.
Symbolic of it all, the government is standing by and applauding while Canada Post guts rural communities by closing rural post offices, even in places the size of Yorkton. Government members opposite sit idle while the only federal service that rural communities have is being savaged.
Rural Canadians deserve better. This Saturday, December 1, New Democrats will initiate a rural Canada defence campaign. We plan to stand shoulder to shoulder with rural people from Newfoundland to B.C., fighting with them against the government's attack, and for policies which will support viable rural communities.


LOBSTER FISHERY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, many fishermen in the riding of Malpeque and across Prince Edward Island are angry and confused over the contradictory policies and broken promises of this government.
Last spring the federal government advised Prince Edward Island lobster fishermen that no size increase
November 28, 1990



would be introduced on the Island until the results of an experimental increase in Cape Breton were fully known.
Yet the Department of Fisheries and Oceans increased the lobster minimum size prior to making the results of the Cape Breton experiment public.
Once again, this government is not living up to its commitments to the people of Prince Edward Island.
Once again, this government has failed to properly consult the fishermen of my province prior to making a decision that may have a major affect on their livelihood.
When the minister meets with fishermen on December 7 in Prince Edward Island, I strongly encourage him to visit the wharfs and harbours on the Island. I call on him to commit his government to take into account the concerns and views of our Island fishermen. They have been ignored for long enough.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the economics and agricultural policy research group at Laval University concluded that Quebec's dairy producers might lose 21 per cent of their incomes as a result of GATT. The study refers to the present situation and does not consider the fact that if the talks fail, yogurt and ice cream would no longer be subject to article XI and that other products might be questioned, if we fail to clarify and reinforce this article.
Furthermore, the study did not allow for the fact that incomes of producers will improve as a result of higher prices on international markets. It also makes the assumption that our exports of dairy products will not increase, which is entirely unlikely. The 5 per cent increased access to U.S. and European markets will open up new markets so that we can expect to see a balanced situation in 10 years. It is mainly for these reasons that Canadian dairy producers have supported the government's position at the GATT talks, which, we hope will be successful.


TAX AUDITORS
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, this morning federal government auditors staged a demonstration at the Canadian Tax Foundation Conference in Montreal. These are the people who are responsible for conducting the tax audits of some of the largest corporate institutions in Canada.
The auditors bring in $2 billion annually in corporate tax, interest and penalties. As professionals they are seldom driven to such visible displays of labour unrest. What they seek is a fair contract with Treasury Board. There is a difference of only 1.5 per cent between what they have requested and what the conciliation board has proposed.
During a similar dispute last year, the government lost $180 million in revenue from tax audits. We cannot afford a loss of this amount of revenue if strike action is forced upon the government auditors. The government should realize that good economic sense and blind stubbornness do not mix.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence of a delegation of over 200 people representing the Coalition against Taxes on Books. More than 250,000 Quebecers have signed the coalition's petition against the GST. I may recall that the government of Quebec has decided to exempt books from the GST. Taxing books means imposing ignorance. Instead of trying to scare workers in Baie-Comeau, the Prime Minister should give them a chance to continue their education, but that may be what he fears above all.
:{c


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times before this House, eastern Ontario badly needs economic development. Since September, the following lay-offs have taken place in the town of Hawkesbury, in my riding: Amoco Fabrics, 24; Fib Pak, 22; Fiberworld, 80; Canadian

November 28, 1990
Plastic, 23; Astro, 29; IKO, 15; Montebello Metal, 11; Duplate, 20; and LPC Paper, 10, which adds up to 234 lay-offs in a town with a population of 10,000.
Mr. Speaker, on top of that, there have been a number of severe cutbacks in shared-cost programs. I therefore want to ask the government opposite to immediately provide assistance to help the economy of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell and Eastern Ontario.
4	^ 5k


HOUSING
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, this week I had the privilege of visiting a construction site in Saint-Jerome, on behalf of the Hon. Allan Redway, Minister of State (Housing). This is a 63-unit project for single people and the elderly, which is being built under the Non-Profit Housing Program. These units will help meet the needs identified by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Societe d'habitation du Quebec as part of their joint planning for 1990.
This is a concrete result of the housing policies introduced by our government, realistic and dynamic policies that provide housing where it is needed, for the people who need it.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, less than a week from the final match in the Uruguay Round, which is surely the most ambitious initiative ever taken since the GAIT was established in 1948, the Quebec Milk Producers Federation met with us this morning and apprised us of their concerns about the Canadian position regarding the global access level of the domestic production allowed for foreign dairy products. To reassure these producers, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate the statement the Minister of State for Agriculture made to the effect that the Canadian position is clear and did not change since we made our offer on October 15.
Therefore, the minimal access to importations we would agree to under par. 2c of section XI of the GATT would be no more than 5 percent.


PERSIAN GULF
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary delegation that has been in Baghdad this past week consisting of hon. members for Burnaby-Kingsway, Winnipeg South Centre and Fundy-Royal have received word today that at least five Canadians will be allowed to leave Iraq. Members from the New Democratic Party wish to pay tribute at this time to those Canadians who have suffered and worried about their relatives for several months now.
While there is reason to celebrate their return, this House must also express its support for the families of Canadians who still cannot leave Iraq and Kuwait. The pain felt by the absence of loved ones will be particularly difficult with the real possibility that they will not be home for the holiday season. The lives of these Canadians and those of our military personnel in the Persian Gulf are among the many compelling reasons why the Canadian government must commit itself to seeking a peaceful resolution to the crisis sparked by Iraq's illegal invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
sk sk *


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is time once again for the corporate welfare bum of the week award. This week our nominees are: the first nominee, Varity Corporation, which used $200 million of Canadian taxpayers' money for the bail-out of Massey Ferguson and then promptly set up shop in Buffalo, New York; the second nominee, Consolidated Carma Corporation with $11.5 million in profits in 1989 and no taxes paid; finally, MICC Investments with $72.6 million in profits in 1989 plus a tax credit bonus of $29 million from taxpayers and no taxes paid.
The envelope, please. And the winner is Varity Corporation. Special thanks for this award go out to Victor Rice, the chairman of Varity who took the money and ran. After receiving $200 million in tax credits to help save Massey Ferguson, Mr. Rice shuffled off to Buffalo leaving behind 5,000 laid-off workers in his wake.
November 28, 1990


TAXATION SYSTEM
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a movement called Alliance for Fiscal Justice was founded in Quebec a few years ago. Among its aims are tax justice and fairness for every individual and family in Quebec, bringing together individuals, couples, families and others who have a common desire for better quality of life and ensuring that everyone can exercise the right to chose the marital status he or she wants to live under, without tax or economic discrimination.
In a recent newsletter, the Alliance asked the following question: "Does the taxation system favour married couples?" The tax record of the past few years indicated that the winning answer is divorce, with the common law relationship where both spouses are working close second. The same study showed that the gap widens every year at the federal level between the various marital statuses.
In closing, the Alliance requests that all taxpayers and all families who have the same income and burden be treated fairly, taking into account their true burden, no matter what their marital status is.
Mr. Speaker, I support these goals and commit to helping to achieve them.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Like us, Mr. Speaker, for a good many months the government of Quebec has been urging the federal government to exempt books from the GST. Like ours, their plea fell on deaf ears. Yesterday, realizing that levying a tax on books had been a serious mistake, the government of Quebec revised their position and decided that neither books nor reading materials would be subject to the tax.
Is the Prime Minister now prepared to tell the House that he will follow the example of Quebec, heed the advice of thousands of eastern and western Canadians,
Oral Questions
and announce that books will indeed be exempted from the GST?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: With respect to taxation, Mr. Speaker, the government has opted for a wider tax base and a lower tax percentage. The government appreciates the fact that, particularly in recent years, the cultural industry sector generally and its publishing arm specifically have experienced hardships. The Prime Minister has stated that he can understand the problems facing publishers, and the government is prepared to analyze the conditions and respond appropriately as the situation evolves.


Sheila Finestone: Appropriate measures are needed now, and the minister knows that full well, as does the Prime Minister, I am sure!

In Vancouver, the Prime Minister said he was reconsidering taxing books like the Bible and the Koran, for example. The television clip tells the stoiy; the Prime Minister may not agree with the TV. I cannot blame him. We cannot blame him because every day we are more concerned about the growing problems of illiteracy, its impact on our economy, on our international competitiveness, as well as the isolation of those who do not yet know how to read.
The Ministers of Finance and Communications have told-


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


Sheila Finestone: The ministers have told me that they are looking for alternate ways to finance the book industry, which this minister has just acknowledged, and which also acknowledges that they are gutting the book publishing industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is beginning to make a speech. I would ask her to put the question.


Sheila Finestone: Will the minister withdraw the tax on reading materials now?


Marcel Masse: Talking about reading materials, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member for Mount Royal read the

Oral Questions
exact words of the Prime Minister, for she would realize that her interpretation is completely at odds with the Prime Minister's statements.
Second, the hon. member says the government must take action. That is precisely what the government did, is doing, and will do. Indeed the government is quite conscious of Canada's two book markets, the English market and the French market. We know as well that the French market is under pressure because there are fewer people to sustain the industry as a whole. This is why 40 per cent of the $8-million government funded publishing assistance program are earmarked for Canada's French publishing industry, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Finestone: Whether anglophones or francophones, Canadians who read books need that, not a tax.

-no tax on reading. Read my lips.
Mr. Speaker, for six years now this government has been systematically tearing down Canada's national institutions and Canada's cultural industries, and now the minister is choking Canada's cultural engine, the Canadian Broadcasting-


Mr. Speaker:: It was to be a lead-off question, but it is becoming a speech. I would ask the hon. member, in her preamble, to lay the basis for the question and then put the question.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, CBC radio and television remains the last of the national institutions across this land.
Is this government, through its Minister of Finance, its Prime Minister and the Minister of Communications, going to acknowledge the exemplary role and the importance of communications across this land, and promise no further cuts to our national broadcasters.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to note the suggestion made by the hon. member for Mount Royal.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the environment.
Yesterday, thanks to a leak on the green plan, we heard, first, that the government will reduce the number of new national parks; second, it will dilute the impact of the solemn commitment it made in Geneva only three weeks ago with respect to CO2 emissions; and third, it will cut 80 per cent of funds budgeted for protecting the environment. My question is this: Can the Prime Minister deny this bad news? Let's be frank and ask the real question: Can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that since September, his cabinet did not chop the green plan?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, speaking of editing, my hon. friend would need some revision.
As far as the green plan is concerned, we are not about to comment on leaks, even leaks at the CBC, if that was the case. We will comment once the plan has been tabled and made public. I know my hon. friend would not want us to do otherwise.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is inconceivable.
Ask this government about Point Aconi and Kemano, and it dies. Ask it about Rafferty and the Oldman Dam, and it fumbles the ball. Ask it about James Bay, and it cannot hold a position for more than one day. Ask the Prime Minister about the green plan, and he does not know what the heck is in it.
The only positive thing that this government has ever done for the environment is to make a compost heap of its environment ministers.
Yesterday, despite all the leaks to the contrary, the minister could not even give us a date as to when the green plan will be released.
My question is: Will the Prime Minister take the environment minister out of his misery? Will he end the farce? Will he table the green plan now? If it gets any thinner, there will not be anything left to release.

November 28, 1990


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I almost hate to respond, because my hon. friend gets so much pleasure from his own lyrical questions that he has prepared.
He enjoys them so much, I almost hate to break the rhythm and interrupt my friend with a few facts.
My hon. friend says that I do not know what is in the green plan. I can tell him this. Everything that he has mentioned is not in the green plan.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in an hour or so, this House will begin debate on the government motion dealing with the Persian Gulf crisis.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Prime Minister if he will clarify for the House the government's interpretation of the language in the resolution.
The Prime Minister will be aware that the resolution implies support for the Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions. Does the Prime Minister take this resolution as support for the resolution that will be coming before the United Nations-


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker is in some difficulty here.
We have had a rule for many years that says that in Question Period it is not appropriate to ask a question which anticipates the Orders of the Day. It is a rule which is there and which I must draw to the attention of the House.
Having said that, I am in the hands of the House. If the House wants to pursue this, it can. Perhaps the hon. member could rephrase the question. I know it is the lead question for the New Democratic Party and I do not want to cut him off, but I am bound by the rules as are we all.


John F. Brewin: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and it did seem to me a convenient and useful time for the government to make clear its position on this question. If the government wants to take the opportunity, I am giving the government the opportunity to do so.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the question, but I may have to rule on it.


John F. Brewin: The question is: Will the government indicate to this House whether or not, assuming the motion today passes, it will tomorrow-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in very great difficulty. I want hon. members and the public that is watching to understand what the difficulty is. First of all, the question the hon. member puts is a very pertinent question. It is going to be debated later this afternoon. The difficulty is that we have rules that say that we ought not to raise that question at Question Period.
The second question that the hon. member puts forward is equally intriguing, but it is hypothetical. I know the hon. member would want to support the Chair.


John F. Brewin: I have said what I have to say. The Prime Minister can choose to do what he wishes. Let me now go to the substantive question, to another question, and I will ask the question of the Prime Minister.

The Government of Canada says it sent Canadian troops to the gulf to take part in the economic blockade of Iraq. For the blockade to be a success, it should be given time to work. Mr. Speaker, the motion on which the United Nations will be asked to vote does not seem to consider this fact. Why is the Canadian government in such a hurry? Why not give the blockade enough time to be successful?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government firmly supports all actions by the United Nations, and I hope all members of this House will do likewise.
As for sanctions, we have one of the most effective programs in history as far as the observance of sanctions is concerned by countries outside Iraq. The important question is whether these sanctions are having an impact on Iraq and whether they affect Saddam Hussein's decisions. That is not a foregone conclusion.


An hon. member:: Give it more time!

November 28, 1990
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: They say: Give it more time. You always have to judge the circumstances, and as far as we can see at this time, it is unlikely that these sanctions will have an impact on the people making the decisions in Iraq during the months to come.
If the New Democratic Party wants the United Nations to wait for months, that is their problem. We believe it is extremely important for the world, the United Nations and Canada to keep putting pressure on Saddam Hussein in order to make it easier to reach a peaceful solution to this problem, so that Iraq will withdraw peacefully from Kuwait.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
dfC


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the minister said that this coming week he would meet with the Mexican and United States trade representatives to discuss the proposed Mexico-Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
Any trilateral agreement must either reopen the existing bilateral agreement or else be limited to a narrow range of interests common to all three countries.
Will the Prime Minister indicate which alternative the government seeks? Which aspects of North American trade does the government want to see included in a trilateral deal?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made it very clear many times in the House that Canada is seeking to have discussions with the United States and Mexico to see what form the negotiations would take and what form the agreement would take.
I can assure the hon. member that the free trade agreement that was negotiated between the United States and Canada will remain in place. Of course, if we can improve the free trade agreement to Canada's advantage, we would always take a look at that. But it is not anticipated that the free trade agreement negotiated
between Canada and the United States would be reopened.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, you can have the bilateral deal or you can have a narrow trilateral deal, but you certainly cannot have it both ways.
In the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement this government conceded substantial sovereignty over our energy resources. By contrast, the United States has agreed with Mexico that its energy sector is not negotiable.
Does the government intend to negotiate a trilateral agreement in which Canada and Mexico would be equal with regard to energy? Why should Canada cede more sovereignty than Mexico in a trilateral deal?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think that the information that the hon. member has is incorrect. I do not know whether negotiations have started between Mexico and the United States and whether energy is included in that or not.
If the hon. member is reading the same newspaper clippings that I am, he is certainly interpreting them entirely different. I think his question is purely hypothetical and cannot be answered.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. With respect to the GST, the Quebec Furniture Manufacturers' Association has to cope with an unfair method to rebate the sales tax on inventories. Will the minister give consideration to the recommendations of the association which accounts for 80 per cent of Quebec's independent dealers with a view to resolving this matter which may end up by forcing many of them out of business?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have put into rules the basis on which we would provide a rebate in respect of federal sales tax that is to be paid on inventories which are in place on December 31.



November 28, 1990

Oral Questions
Those rules have been discussed at length with industry. They are an average. There are some people who will have a greater rebate than the amount of the federal sales tax in their inventories. Others will get a lesser rebate, but the point is that it is a rebate. It is not a refund. It is important for my hon. friend to understand that people in the same businesses are all in the same position.
If my hon. friend is concerned about this, there are many business people who are uncertain about what the impact of the GST will be on them, simply because the law has not passed through the Senate.
If my friend has concerns about this, he will go down to the Senate and say: "The Liberal Party of Canada does not have an alternative to the GST. We have set up a committee that makes it quite clear that we do not have an alternative to the GST". I might just point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister could deal with it on the supplemental.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question, very simple though it was. The association made a number of recommendations and its members are very interested and very concerned. Am I to infer from the minister's response that many of them will experience major problems during the recession because he cannot solve the GST problem, which happens to be very simple and which he could easily address? Will the minister respond at least in part to these recommendations.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the hon. member in my first answer, as I did the question raised by his colleague one or two weeks ago. The hon. member must understand that the GST is very important if this industry is to remain competitive with American imports, for they have an advantage over Canadian manufacturers. This is why the GST is so important, for it will put Canadian manufacturers in a better position to fight their competitors.
I should like to point out that former Liberal Party finance critic Raymond Garneau said, and I quote, "-the GST is the most equitable and least harmful-".


TAXATION
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the 1988 taxation statistics released yesterday show that the number of Canadians making more than a quarter million dollars a year who paid no income tax rose by 40 per cent over the previous year; 140 quarter-millionaires avoided all income tax. The number of Canadians who made more than $50,000 a year and who paid no income tax rose by a staggering 87 per cent, almost doubling. That is 5,430 tax holidayers.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. At a time when he was forcing ordinary Canadians to pay more and more and more, how could the Minister of Finance possibly put in place a taxation regime that allows wealthy Canadians to pay less and less and less?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I it is quite clear that phase one of the income tax reforms has resulted in a fair tax system.
Those Canadians who are earning $15,000 or less are going to see their share of income tax revenues drop from 2.1 per cent to 0.8 per cent. Those in the $15,000 to $30,000 range will see them drop from 26.5 per cent to 23.1 per cent. Those who are over $50,000 will see the amount increase from 34.1 per cent to 40.4 per cent. The tax system has become more progressive and more fair.
In terms of the upper income people whom my hon. friend has talked about, we have addressed that problem. It represented 2.17 per cent of tax filers in 1984. It is now down to .35 per cent. Those are people who have all endured a specific loss.
The clear point here is that when we say something about tax reform it happens. It happened in the phase one of tax reform. It will happen with the GST.
Those families who are earning less than $30,000 will be better off with the GST than is the case now under the existing sales tax.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I greatly fear the finance minister intends to keep his word, because those more than 3 million Canadians who earned $15,000 a year or less actually saw their average tax bill go up by an average $71, while those earning over

November 28, 1990
Oral Questions
a quarter million dollars saw their average tax bill decline by $20,597.
Will the minister not agree, then, that his government's tax reform is nothing more than tax cuts for the rich and tax hikes for the poor and ordinary Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the very clear fact is that those people who earn over $50,000, representing 7 per cent of the tax filers in this country, pay up to 40.4 per cent of the tax compared to 34.1 per cent. That clearly shows that the tax system is more progressive. It is fair.
We said in phase one of tax reform that there will be
850,000	low income Canadians who would not pay tax after tax reform where they paid tax before. In fact there are 905,000. We said there would be 250,000 seniors who were paying tax in 1987, who would not pay tax after tax reform. That figure is 290,000.
We have made tax reform work and we are going to make it work again.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Two years ago, the government made a commitment to help senior independence by setting aside money for research into Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis. Recently, the minister confirmed that he is cutting 20 per cent from the program. Alzheimer's may not be a concern for the minister, but it is a concern for millions of Canadians.
Will the minister do the right thing and restore the proper funding?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the hon. member that the government has committed substantial amounts of money for research into diseases of the elderly and for medical research in general.
We continue to set a high priority upon that and we will do so throughout the life of this government.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, cutting funds for research into prevention now will mean more funds will be required for cure of diseases in the future.
Many health researchers and workers responded to the government's initiative announced two years ago and planned their careers in accordance to the previously announced government priorities. Now, without any warning, after plans were made by the research community, the minister has cut funding by 20 per cent.
Will the minister admit his responsibilities to the seniors of the country and their families, and to the workers and research investigators, and restore funding to the levels previously committed to help reduce the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease among the seniors of tomorrow?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the government continues to put a high priority upon diseases related to seniors.
If the hon. member were to look at the record of spending by the government on medical research during the life of this government, he would see that substantial commitments have been made and that substantial increases have taken place in research funding for health care in Canada.
Hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways. They recognize the fact that there is a national debt in Ottawa of over $13,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. The hon. members complain about that, but every effort that is made to attempt to bring that debt under some control they oppose. They have to be honest with Canadians. It is time to choose whether or not they are prepared to support restraint, or whether they believe that we should continue to spend in all areas without constraint.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CFB CHATHAM
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
November 28, 1990

The minister has just announced today, I am told, that the Low-Level Air Defence School at CFB Chatham will be moved to Alberta. This is another way of announcing the closure of CFB Chatham.
Can the minister tell the House how he is going to replace 1,000 jobs and the $20 million annual input that CFB Chatham represents to the economy of the riding of Miramichi?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member understands the importance of the base because he was a member of the government in 1983 which first started the procedure to close CFB Chatham.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would inform the hon. member that the replacement activity that the Department of National Defence has identified is that of-


Ms. Copps  Oh.Mr. McKnight@: I am sorry, the member's colleague is interrupting and I will wait.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Miramichi has the floor.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my supplementary to the Prime Minister.
During the 1984 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to the people of Chatham that he would never hurt his home town and that there would be aircraft flying in Chatham as long as there was air.
Will the Prime Minister now rescind this minister's decision and fulfil the promise he made to the people of Chatham?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the comments attributed to me by my hon. friend are absolutely false.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The statement that I did make was that, if a Conservative government were elected in 1984, we
Oral Questions
would put in train a process which would reverse the policy of the Liberal government, of which my hon. friend was a member, which meant the end of CFB Chatham. We said that we would not let the Liberals close Chatham. We would keep it open and we have been doing that ever since.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
*  *


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology claims that the GST is good for Canada as a whole and for Quebec as well. But the Quebec government seems to have repudiated the minister, since they removed the GST on books in Quebec.
My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Will the good Quebecer he claims to be personally put pressure on his colleagues to protect the interests of the people of Quebec and have the GST on books removed in Quebec, as the province of Quebec has already done? Does he prefer to impose ignorance by maintaining the tax on books in Quebec? What do the minister and his colleagues intend to do?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, this question was answered in part, but I should like to add that the government, recognizing the existence of a francophone market separate from the anglophone market, already announced a seed money program for the cultural industries of Canada, in addition to a program 40 per cent oriented at francophone books. For the first two years, the program will be oriented toward the publishing industry and at least 30 per cent of the yearly budget, or $9 million, dollars, will be devoted to francophone books in Canada.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology who seems to have lost his tongue. His department has pointed out that the most important element in Canada's future economic growth is knowledge and technology.

November 28, 1990
Oral Questions
In that circumstance, does he not agree that the introduction of the GST on books is plain asinine?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the government does recognize the importance of books as an element of our cultural policy. That is why it supports the Canadian publishing industry with many programs.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in regard to his so-called tax reform policy. In light of the fact that in the past he has made many statements in which he claims to be making our tax system more equitable, the truth of the matter is that 640 Canadians earning over $100,000 last year paid no taxes at all.
How can the minister make this claim on the one hand, while on the other hand allow his rich friends to avoid paying any taxes at the expense of hard-working, lower and middle-income Canadians?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when we came to office there were 1,830 high-income Canadians who were not paying tax because of the loopholes that in place as a result of the policies of the Liberal government, that he was a part of, that he supported at that time.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is now down to 640. In terms of the number of tax filers, it was 2.17 per cent of tax filers in 1984. It is down to 0.35 now.
There are good reasons why these people are not paying tax. They have suffered losses. They may be farmers. They may be-


Ms. Copps:: Oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend from Hamilton is moaning over there. I do not think she understands how the tax system works.
There are individuals who own farms. There are individuals who own unincorporated businesses who lose money. It is for that reason that we have a provision that one can apply one's losses against other income and for that reason not pay tax.
We have removed a number of the other loopholes and incentives that were in place that were being misused by upper income Canadians. That is why there has been a substantial reduction from 2.14 to 0.35 per cent.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, that is crocodile tears from Bay Street. This is typical of what we have come to expect from the government.
The facts are clear. The government is afraid to bring real tax reform, because it does not wish to offend the financial supporters of the party.
Will the minister explain why he continues to allow those in the highest tax brackets to pay no taxes, while he is crippling the middle and low income Canadians? Close the loopholes, and close them today, Michael.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It's better than a crock from Scarborough, that is all I can say.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member is talking about low-income Canadians. The share of income tax dropped for people who are earning less than $15,000 from 2.1 per cent down to 0.8 per cent; for those between $15,000 and $30,000, from 26.5 per cent to 23.1 per cent; and from 37.3 per cent to 35.7 per cent for those people who are earning between $30,000 and $50,000.
The major thrust in making the tax system fair in 1987 was to reduce the share of income taxes paid by those low income people, as I have indicated here, and raise significantly, from 34.1 per cent to 40.4 per cent, the share of income of those people who are earning over $50,000.
I understand the people opposite do not like to hear the truth.
November 28, 1990


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome -Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Early in 1989, four young children from my riding died instantly as a result of two front-end collisions. In both cases, the children were riding in the back, secured with lap belts.
For a number of years, the Regie de Vassurance automobile du Quebec, as well as many individuals, including a former colleague Mrs. Therese Killens, have been urging Transport Canada, which is responsible for establishing motor vehicle safety standards, to make it mandatory for all cars and vans sold in Canada to have three-point seat belts installed on the back seat. Could the Minister indicate whether he will follow up on this request?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest my colleague is showing in this matter. The appropriate regulations will be published in The Canada Gazette before the end of January.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right honourable Prime Minister. The Quebec government, his greatest supporter in his effort to impose the GST, has yielded to the arguments of the book industry and abolished its tax on books. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he assume his responsibility and immediately order his Minister of Finance to announce officially that books will be also excluded from the federal GST?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the government prefers to bring ad hoc solutions to the specific problems of the francophone book industry. I have already explained that 40 per cent of my department's assistance program is alloted to the francophone industry. Also, under the new program implemented by the Federal Development Bank, 30 per cent of the amounts allocated by the bank will go to assist the francophone book industry. Finally, the government is seriously considering the possibility of implementing
Oral Questions
two years earlier its postal subsidy replacement program, 50 per cent of which will assist the francophone publishing industry in Canada which we know is facing a veiy difficult situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford, for a very short supplementary.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Everyone in the book industry agrees that the minister's announcement is a lot of baloney. Is the Prime Minister ready to meet today with the cultural patriarch of Quebec, Mr. Gelinas, now more than 80 years old, who came to Ottawa to make representations for the book industry? Will the Prime Minister set aside five minutes to meet with the personality of the year in Quebec's book industry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the Minister of Communications asked me if I could take a few minutes before going to chair the National Council for Science and Technology and speak with Mr. Gelinas. I told to the minister I would pleased to meet him at three o'clock sharp. Is he here?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, in that case, we can do so right now.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be pleased to meet him in a few moments.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday when Treasury Board's supplementary estimates were tabled, they showed that the veterans affairs budget was reduced by $3.26 million.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs stated that some budget-cutting measures will inevitably reduce veterans affairs' ability to respond to unforeseen problems and to deal as quickly as usual with new applications.

November 28, 1990
Privilege
I ask the acting minister why is the government making it tougher for these people to receive their benefits?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because I think there is good news for Canadian veterans.
First of all, in terms of areas which will not be affected, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has indicated budgets for veterans benefits, for pensions, for war veterans allowances, for veterans and dependants program and so on will not be affected.
In addition to that, the hon. member will be aware that in the supplementary estimates there was an increase of some $60 million for veterans dependants. No doubt he will applaud that increase. We believe that the veterans affairs department can make these cuts from overhead. It will not result in a cut in terms of services or benefits for veterans.
rfs 5ft rjc


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Scarborough-Agincourt.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege in regard to comments made yesterday in debate by the member for Souris-Moose Mountain.
While responding to a point I made about those of us who came to Canada by choice, the member said: "They destroyed it".
Along with all immigrants to this country, I am deeply offended by comments such as this. Nearly all of us who live in Canada are descended from people who trace their roots back to other countries and to say that the more recent arrivals have destroyed it is a gross manipulation of the truth. I found it doubly appalling that the member who made these remarks is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
I therefore call upon the member to immediately offer his apology for such insensitive remarks to the House and to all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you check the "blues" the debate was on the CBC. The debate became one of national unity and my reference to "they destroyed it" was a reference-if you will read on in Hansard-to the Liberal Party, to Clyde Wells, and those who did not support unity, including his leader. There was absolutely no reference whatever to immigrants.
My grandfather was also an immigrant to this country and the reference was to the Liberal Party. However, if there was anything inferred that was taken out of context I apologize for it. That is his problem. The question is clear if you read the "blues".
I again and again said: "Ask Mr. Clyde Wells about unity". It seemed somewhat hypocritical to me that they defended unity after defeating Meech Lake and-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Sit down.


Mr. Tobin:: Come on, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to stand for this.


Mr. Speaker:: I have another question of privilege. I will certainly come to the hon. member in a moment.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege resulting from the non-answer to my question by the Prime Minister. If the record is checked I think you will find that the Prime Minister said: "Every word he said is a lie". And again he said that I was "a bloody liar"-


An hon. member:: He said "hypocrite".


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -"A bloody hypocrite", I am sorry. Mr. Speaker, I will leave that in your hands until the Prime Minister is back in the House so that he can answer that charge. But I want to say more about it at that time, Sir.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond. The Prime Minister had to leave for a meeting of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, which he chairs.
I want to say to the hon. member that what the Prime Minister did say in his comments was that in 1983, when the Liberal government was planning to close CFB Chatham he promised that, if elected in 1984, we would keep CFB Chatham in operation. In fact, that is what happened. Any suggestion by the hon. member other-
November 28, 1990

wise is simply not in keeping with the truth, as the Prime Minister saw it.
We will examine the "blues", in terms of other comments made and respond to the hon. member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on the question of privilege raised by my colleague. I sit directly across from the Prime Minister in the House. The Prime Minister, quite clearly, was heard by many members sitting on this side of the House. I ask the Speaker to take the word of members. The hon. member from Hamilton brought it to your attention during Question Period, Mr. Speaker, quite loudly.
I heard every word the Prime Minister said. He said the member was a hypocrite. He then went on to say, and I am sure the clerk will record it, "Every damn word is a lie". Those are the Prime Minister's words, Mr. Speaker.
That kind of language by the Prime Minister and the example set by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in attacking a premier outside of this House, does not lead to constructive debate in this House, it sets a poor tone. The example is coming from the Prime Minister; it is coming from his parliamentary secretary; it is not constructive; it is destroying the institution; they ought to apologize, without editorial comment.


COMMENTS DURING DEBATE ON BILL C-40
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege. I was in the House yesterday during the debate that caused the question of privilege by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough - Agincourt.
I was here during the debate. I remember what the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain indicated about other persons who were not here, Mr. Clyde Wells and my leader, Jean Chretien. He clearly interrupted my colleague in the middle of the debate that dealt with the contribution made by those who were not born here in this country. It was very clear to me and, I think, to other members that he was referring to that particular element that was being introduced into the debate.
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the very strong feelings of the hon. member but we have heard the hon. member on a question, as he put it, of personal privilege. I have listened to it and the House has listened to it. I have also heard from the parliamentary secretary and the parliamentary secretary has said that whatever he did or did not do, if offence was taken, he apologizes for it and that closes it off. After that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about "bloody hypocrite"?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels the matter is not closed, I would like time to look at exactly what the parliamentary secretary said. If I feel that it was not an appropriate withdrawal, then I will come back to the House. But we are not going to reargue it now.
On the other question, I have listened very carefully to what has been said. I will look very carefully at Hansard and I would hope that the matter would resolve itself at the earliest opportunity but if it does not, then I will of course take steps to do something about it.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made clear that, as you mentioned in your remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister had made a withdrawal. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you can take this under advisement.
He also did say that he did not refer in any way to ethnic origin or immigrants, but he referred to the actions of the liberal government in killing unity in this country in the CBC. I think that should really be pointed out very clearly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca has-


Mr. Arseneault:: It's in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: -on a point of order really risen to reargue the position the parliamentary secretary made. I heard the parliamentary secretary. I will look very carefully at his remarks. If necessary, I will come back to the House.
On the other matter, as I have said, I hope it resolves itself. If it does not, then of course I shall have to do whatever it is that is appropriate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, having heard the Prime Minister state quite categorically that my colleague, the

Privilege
member for Miramichi was a bloody hypocrite, I hope I understand from the Speaker that the resolution will be the Prime Minister coming into the House to withdraw those remarks. Is that what he takes to be a resolution?
Mr. Speaker Sometimes Speakers make suggestions which, of course, are heard by everyone. Under certain circumstances they often are acted upon. I do not think I need to go any further.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Thursday, October 18 by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan regarding events which transpired in connection with a planned meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport of the same day. The hon. member explained that a meeting of the transport committee had been duly convened with seven days notice pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) for the morning of October 18. He went on to state that the meeting did not take place because quorum could not be met. To put it in ordinary terms, there were not enough members there to proceed with the meeting.
The hon. member further argued that the absence of government members was perhaps a collective decision which in essence created a boycott of the committee and as such was an infringement upon the rights of other members of the committee. The hon. chief government Whip stated on the other hand that various government members of the committee had important previous commitments and it was felt that the subject matter was too important to leave in the hands of alternate or substitute members.

I have carefully considered the comments made by the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and the Chief government Whip, and also the excellent arguments for and against which were made on that day by other members. It is difficult for the Speaker to decide on the specific issues raised by the member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan.

According to the conventions and traditions of this place, the Chair ought not to intervene in the proceedings of a committee unless the matter has been placed before the House by means of a report from the committee. While there obviously could be no report in these circumstances since the meeting never took place, the attendance or non-attendance of hon. members at committee meetings is clearly in the Chair's view not a matter upon which the Chair can or should take a position. However, it is a matter obviously of concern to the House and it becomes a matter of concern for the Speaker because when there are problems within the committee system, eventually and inevitably they are raised in this Chamber and before the Speaker.
As I have said on other occasions, it has to be a very severe situation indeed for the Speaker to consider intervening.
Further details of this situation have, however, been brought to the attention of the Chair by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan in a subsequent intervention on Thesday, October 30,1990. At that point, the hon. member asked the Chair to rule on whether the fact that the chief government Whip had not convened a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport for the purposes of electing a chairman constitutes an act which impedes members of the House in the performance of their duties on committees, in connection, specifically, with the review of Order in Council appointments is provided for in Standing Orders 110 and 111.

In his comments, the chief government Whip said that that House need only vote on the Striking Committee report pertaining to the membership of standing committees in order to deal with the situation of the transport committee.

The Chair has looked very closely at this matter. Clearly there is no chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport to convene a meeting for any purpose. Under these circumstances and pursuant to past practice, the next meeting of the committee can be convened by the Clerk of the House if the report of the Striking Committee providing for new committee memberships is adopted, or by the chief government Whip in consultation with the Whips of the other parties.

The Chair can see that there is cause for concern here, that it is difficult to find a breach of the privileges of hon. members in the fact that a standing committee is paralyzed and cannot meet. The solution would appear to lie in negotiations among the parties, which the Chair would encourage at this time.
I have to say to hon. members and to the public that the working of committees is very important to the working of the House of Commons. I do ask hon. colleagues to make every effort possible to come to whatever agreements and understandings among themselves which are necessary to make these committees work.
I do not want to state this too often, and I hope that I will not have to, but there is a general feeling across the country that somehow or other not only politicians, but maybe institutions, are letting down the country. This is why it is essential that everybody make an extra effort to try to make this system work.
I am not happy with this situation, obviously. But, I am also bound by rules here and if I am to intervene in committees, it has to be in a very severe and outrageous situation indeed. While this is not only inconvenient but perhaps very aggravating, I do not feel that I can depart from the laws which bind me as they bind all other members of the House of Commons.
I thank hon. members for their intervention.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of that transport committee, I want to thank the Speaker for his decision today.
On a point of clarification, I wonder if the Speaker could clarify something for me. Am I to understand that the Chair is restricted to make decisions on issues only involving breaches of privilege out of the confines of this place?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West rises on a point of clarification. I have made it clear in the past that I do not take the position, nor do I think a Speaker should take the position, that a Speaker is forever bound never to intervene in a committee matter. But, it will have to be a matter of very gross disorder indeed, a very grave situation.
This is a matter which can still be settled by consultation. The jurisprudence on this kind of a question goes back not just decades, but for a long, long time indeed, and not just to jurisprudence in this House but in other
Routine Proceedings
Houses where we have the parliamentary system. I am very reluctant to move into the committees if it can be possibly avoided.
What I want the hon. member and other hon. members to understand very clearly, I am not saying that there might not be an occasion in which the Speaker would have to move. One can say well, it has not been done before. Speakers have made decisions in the past that had not been done before, and they form part of the precedents of our law of procedure.
What I am asking hon. members in this case to do is please take into account everybody's responsibility to this institution and to our country, and try to resolve it. I think it can be resolved by discussion, and that is the way I would hope it would be resolved.
What I am saying to the hon. member, in summary, is I might have to intervene at some point.
It would have to be under a most grave situation, and I am reluctant to move into the committee field and do what really the members of the committee ought to do for themselves.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I would be honoured to table in both official languages the government's response to 95 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Fifty-Sixth Report of the Striking Committee. I ask that the Clerk at the Thble be

Routine Proceedings
dispensed from reading the report, which consists of a list of members of the Special Committee.



BILL C-74- REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] [Translation]



STRIKING-CONCURRENCE IN FIFTY-SIXTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: that the Fifty-Sixth Report of the Striking Committee, presented earlier today, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF INSTITUTION OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
['Agreed.']
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion concerning the 100th anniversary of the institution of parliamentary democracy in Japan.
I move:
That the Speaker of the House of Commons convey to the Speaker of the Japanese House of Representatives and the Speaker of the Japanese House of Counsellors, the good wishes of the House of Commons of Canada on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the institution of parliamentary democracy in Japan.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, signed by several dozen Canadians, calling on
the government to remove the goods and services tax as it applies to the printed word on such things as magazines, books, newspapers and other printed matter.
The petitioners point out that the dissemination of the printed word is the cornerstone of our democracy, culture, education and a literate and productive society. This literate and productive society would be negatively affected by the application of the GST.
I would hope, now that the Prime Minister has indicated some concern about the imposition of this tax, the government would withdraw it as it applies to all matters, especially to books, newspapers, magazines and other printed word.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 49 Canadians.
These Canadians note that since Confederation, a zero rate of tax has been applied on magazines, books and newspapers. Now with the goods and services tax, there will be a tax on this. In fact, the petitioners consider it a tax on reading.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first one deals with the clean-up of the Seine River. A large number of my constituents call upon the three levels of government to sort out the various responsibilities for the clean-up of rivers, and more specifically in this instance the Seine River, a once beautiful and non-polluted river. Of course, this is applicable to other Canadian rivers as well.
The petitioners really want governments to sort out what it is that they have to do, stop talking and start acting.


Ron J. Duhamel: My second petition deals with the concern of a number of my constituents, and other Canadians as well, with the goods and services tax on reading materials. They note that there has never been a tax on reading and learning materials. They are concerned that while the government talks about competitiveness, participation and
November 28, 1990

democracy, it will be imposing a tax on those very tools that permit us to do just that.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I too am honoured to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of 50 Canadians who are concerned about the imposition of the GST tax on books and other printed word. It has been the cornerstone of our country, of our democratic society, that the printed word be disseminated as widely as possible and without tax.
I humbly submit this petition asking Parliament to reaffirm the principles of democracy and allow no tax on the printed word.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to present a petition in this House concerning the goods and services tax. The many Canadians who have signed this petition are from the city of Toronto. They are opposed to the tax, and in particular insofar as that tax is applied to the printed word.
Like many other members of this House, I plead with the government to change its obstinate approach to this bill, agree to changes that will make the bill more sensible and reasonable for Canadians, although I find the whole idea of the goods and services tax unreasonable, as I am sure these petitioners do, and call upon the government, as they do, to reconsider the goods and services tax and for the Senate of course to reject this bill.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, as we have been doing for months and months, I come before you with hundreds of petitions once again from the general population from east to west and from the north, who are extremely concerned about the tax on reading. They consider this tax to be a tax imposing ignorance on our population with a terrible mortgage on our future. We should do everything possible to encourage reading, and not to tax reading. The petitioners call upon this government to reconsider the goods and services tax on books, magazines and literature and to stop being so stubborn, change its mind and move to remove the tax.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to introduce similar petitions to those that have been introduced
Routine Proceedings
already. These come mainly from Toronto. They are opposed to the GST as it is related to the printed word. It is highly hypocritical of this government not to accede to this particular request and see that the GST is not applicable to the printed word.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a couple of different petitions this afternoon. The first one is from people who take objection to the GST being applied to magazines, books and newspapers, going totally against Canadian precedent. I think it is important that people realize that there are a lot of people in this country who do not have easy access to libraries where they can inform themselves and that the purchase of printed material is important to them. I ask on their behalf that the government consider dropping the application of the GST to the printed word.


Christine Susan Stewart: As well, Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from people in my riding who take exception to the government's budget proposals for veterans. I think that in this perilous time in which we live in this world, where we are sending our Armed Forces to serve in the Middle East, that we assure the Canadian public that we treat our veterans with the greatest respect for the service that they have given.
The petitioners on this petition humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject those budget measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of many constituents from the city of Toronto.
They have noted a very timely action by the Government of Quebec on the decision not to impose a sales tax on printed matter and other learning material. They call upon the government to consider that action as a precedent, to act on it, and to follow up on it.
A GST or any kind of tax on the printed word and learning material that profligates the essence of democracy is truly unproductive, as is, for example-and they have noted it-the language of the Minister of National

November 28, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Revenue when referring to those who act against the GST.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions on behalf of Canadians who object to the GST in general but take particular exception to the tax on reading embodied in that particular tax.
They note that since Confederation the government has always avoided charging a tax on books, magazines and newspapers, up until the proposed GST. They feel that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is the cornerstone of our democracy.
They petition Parliament to reaffirm these historical principles and to withdraw the tax on reading embodied in the GST.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table a petition signed by a number of Canadian men and women. Your petitioners object to applying the Goods and Services Tax to books, newspapers and magazines, and they feel that this tax is extremely regressive. Your petitioners, and there are quite a few of them, maintain that free distribution of printed matter is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, our culture and our education. They also claim that an educated and productive society can only be undermined by a provision that would put a tax on books, textbooks and anything that can be used as such.
Today we want to congratulate the province of Quebec which has decided not to tax books, and we hope the federal government will do likewise.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the number of citizens objecting to the tax to be imposed on magazines, books and newspapers is increasing at an exponential rate day by day.
In addition to what my colleagues have already done, I have the honour to submit a substantial list signed by citizens from metro Toronto.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to submit petitions from Kitchener and from several sections of Toronto in opposition to the tax on books.
The petitioners oppose the increase in illiteracy and in the costs of persons who want to read, want to become educated, and want to become more productive members of society.
They are asking Parliament to restore the historical exemption of reading from taxes.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in presenting a petition against the GST.
I was approached a few days ago by representatives of the Canadian Student Federation. In view of the fact that these students are directly involved with the printed word, as this is how they get their education, they are adamantly opposed to the GST.
Once again, we put before the government to reconsider this ill-conceived and, I hope, ill-fated tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers P-28, in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, is acceptable to the government, and the document is tabled immediately.
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a feasibility study on establishing a new race relations network, prepared by Mr. Ralph Agard of Toronto for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
November 28, 1990


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. P-31 that I have been after the parliamentary secretary to answer for some time, asks about the cost of the deployment of Canadian forces personnel to Oka.
This morning I received from the Minister of National Defence a press release that indicated a total cost of $83 million, so obviously the minister has this information. He must have had it in order to cook up this press release. In the circumstances-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: If the government House leader would look at the Notice of Motion on the Order Paper, it asks for details. Surely these details are now available if the Minister of National Defence has a total.
I wonder if the government House leader would agree immediately to this motion. He could table the documents tomorrow or Friday.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as usual I bend over backward for this member. I do everything I possibly can to accomplish all the various requests he makes of this government. If he noticed earlier today, I tabled responses to 95 petitions. I am not sure, but I suspect 89 of them were his.
I can tell him, we are looking at his particular Motion No. P-31. My information is that he should have an answer not soon but very soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Joseph Clark: That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure
Government Orders
compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent
resolutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today we are on the eve of another important Security Council vote. I think it is right for Parliament to consider the implications of the crisis that prompts this vote. It is the intention of the government through this crisis to consult as much as possible with the people of Canada and with Parliament, just as we have been consulting extensively with our allies. I intend, in the course of my remarks, to report briefly upon some of the conversations that I have had over the last 16 days with countries involved directly as Canada is in the gulf.
We tried, in this extraordinary crisis, to offer candour to the House and to expect from the House and to ask from the House understanding of the larger international implications of the grave issues that face us. We are trying to approach this issue step by step. It is in that context that I want to take this opportunity to set out the thinking of the government on the decision that is before us in the Security Council tomorrow and my view of the context in which that decision will be taken. I expect there will be other debates in this House as the situation evolves.
This vote, Sir, comes near the end of Canada's two-year term on the Security Council. It is our fifth such term, a record for non-permanent members of that council.
That is an appropriate record because, I dare say, no other country has been as loyal a supporter of the ideals of this world organization in whose founding Canada participated actively and creatively.
When we look for a noble and far-sighted vision for managing world affairs in what will be a difficult decade and century to come, we can hardly do better than to draw on the vision of the United Nations charter.
The great sadness of our times has been that the charter was a dead letter for 40 years, because of the paralysis of the cold war.
The cold war is over. I was in Moscow the week before last, and I found an extraordinarily different country from the austere monolith I had visited five short years ago. Sadly, their problems in the Soviet Union are enormous but they have a country and they have a leadership and they have a people with great reserves of strength. Nations like Canada will and must help them where we can.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
The tremors of the Gorbachev reforms have allowed profound change through eastern and central Europe that not only helped end the cold war, but set the stage for the CSCE summit in Paris last week. In some respects, that summit marked the formal end of the Second World War.
I would like to communicate, in passing, one of the remarkable moments of that CSCE conference. Vaclev Havel, prisoner, playwright, president, sitting at his desk in that debate, said to others around the room and around the world that this summit was the pre-eminent moment in his life because it brought to pass so much of what he had struggled for through all of those years. That was the context in which we met to bring in effect a formal end to the Second World War.
The Paris summit should have been an unqualified celebration of the new possibilities before us, of our shared determination to build a new European common home, to be secure from Vladivostok to Vienna to Vancouver, as Eduard Shevardnadze has said. It should have been a celebration of the growing willingness to use the United Nations in the way it had been intended, to bring peace and to bring greater security to this world.
But the celebration in Paris was muted, because we all understand that a terrible breach of faith and a breach of law and a breach of order has happened: an act of war by Iraq which imposes on the world community the burden of a great challenge. If new and more hopeful vistas for world peace are at last to open, we as the United Nations have to be equal to the challenge which Iraq's invasion of Kuwait represents clearly to all of us.
This challenge goes to the heart of Canadian interests and Canadian diplomacy, not just now but for 50 years: the building of a workable world organization able to prevent or able, if necessary, to reverse the most blatant and dangerous of international offences, which is the acquisition by force of another country's territory and, in this specific case, an effort to extinguish a UN member in its entirety.
The challenge has gone even beyond these transgressions of international law, as Iraqi authorities have threatened the use of terrorism and of chemical weapons
which they have used in the past, with terrible consequences, even against their own people.
That is the evil that countries historically arm themselves against. That is the evil that causes proliferation, which is responsible for an arms race which in large part diverts the resources that should be going to the poor of the world and denies people in developing countries the right to live decent lives.
That this evil has occurred in the most heavily armed and the most volatile region in the world only amplifies its gravity.
I have just come from the Middle East. The potential for death and for destruction in the Middle East is very real. Members of this House of Commons should have no illusion about the danger, nor about our obligation to try to moderate that danger. Most of Israel's neighbours remain in a state of war against her. The Palestinian people, despite the intifada, despite their acceptance of resolution 242, live in a pressure cooker of frustration with thousands of new migrants forced home from the gulf. There are the larger questions of democracy and decision-making in the Middle East. There are quarrels between families and regimes who each want to leave the Arab world. There are shocking gaps in income between opulent wealth and the most terrible poverty. There are chemical weapons, biological weapons, almost certainly some capacity for nuclear weapons, and there is the steady flood of conventional arms.
In the midst of all that, in a region where the institutions of modern government have shallow roots, there is generally the common link of the noble religion of Islam which, if it became radicalized, could have devastating consequences around the world. President Gorbachev-the Prime Minister and I know from our conversations with him-is aware of those consequences. King Hussein is aware of them. Presidents Ozal and Mubarak are and, of course, Prime Minister Shamir understands the threat of Islamic extremism.
That the Iraqi aggression affects security of access to the most vital of commodities further compels our attention. But make no mistake about the importance of the principle we intend to defend, the principle of international order where international law is respected, and the United Nations is used and the United Nations works.
November 28, 1990

Canadians, historically, have been at the cutting edge of the practical measures which have won respect for the United Nations. We helped draft the charter. Professor John Humphrey of McGill was a principal author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Lester Pearson guided the ideal of peacekeeping, against Canadian critics who said it was an inappropriate use of the United Nations, and 83,000 Canadians wore and wear today the blue beret, with pride and with effect, to build peace and to maintain peace.
Now we are at a new step in the evolution of the United Nations, a time in which at last the members of the Security Council are working together on resolutions which involve enough compromise on all sides to allow this diverse world to act together to keep its house in order. And yet, at the same time as being prepared to compromise to come together, the Security Council of the United Nations has taken actions which are clear in their intent and respected in their application. It is hard to think of a time when the United Nations worked better and we, Canada, want to keep it working because that is the only way to advance peace and prevent war.
Since the beginning of the crisis the United Nations has shown that blatant disrespect for international law can be met with a response that is firm in its resolve and unbending in its respect for international order.
For Canada, some of the basic precepts in which our foreign policy is deeply rooted are being challenged by the gulf crisis and they just may be vindicated by its resolution and its aftermath. The rule of law and the establishment of a stable international environment have been key objectives of ours since the end of the Second World War.

Since the beginning of the crisis, the government of Canada has kept the same objectives in constant view: to make clear the unacceptability of Iraqi behaviour and Canada's determination to play its part in the collective response; to reinforce the rule of law in international affairs and support a renewed United Nations in its first post-cold war response to a gross violation of its charter by a member state; and, of course, to protect Canadian lives and Canadian interests put in jeopardy by the invasion and annexation of Kuwait. Following from those objectives, we have been trying for three months, in co-operation with the other countries joined in a united
Government Orders
stand against Iraq, to ensure that the UN-imposed sanctions are made as effective as possible; that the international consensus is sustained; that the humanitarian and economic problems created by the crisis and the sanctions are adressed quickly and sympathetically, both as an intrinsically important goal and one supportive in sustaining the international consensus; that the international community explore peaceful means to end the dispute, while enforcing the UN resolutions.
Well, Sir, where are we today? Iraq is still occupying Kuwait, in spite of universal condemnation and the near universal application of sanctions.
We, of course, hope that sanctions will help to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw. We continue to believe that they help make clear our resolve, but we also now recognize that sanctions in and of themselves are not sufficient to force a withdrawal, if the Iraqi government places a higher priority on holding onto its territorial gains than on the resumption of normal life for its citizenry. We simply have to face that fact.
The government in Baghdad, as the House knows, has been using innocent civilians of third countries, including Canada, in its efforts to wrest concessions from the international community and to try to win propaganda points with its own supporters. It has proceeded at the same time with a ruthless program to annihilate all traces of Kuwait's separate existence. In short, Iraq has repeatedly ignored the demands of the international community in successive Security Council resolutions passed since August 2. It has failed to comply with the obligations incumbent upon it on the basis of international law, on the basis of the principles of civilized behaviour, and on the basis of its own membership in the United Nations.
I have, as I said, Mr. Speaker, in the last several days been in the Middle East. That trip followed intensive talks that both the Prime Minister and I had with the leaders of the Soviet Union, the European Community, and the United States. In the Middle East, I spent many hours in discussions with Iraq's neighbours, including the President of Turkey, the King of Jordan, the Prime Minister of Israel, and with the ministers of foreign affairs of those countries. I also met at length with

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
President Mubarak of Egypt, and with his foreign minister, Dr. Abdul Mequid.
Several weeks ago, I met with other foreign ministers from the gulf area, from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. I set out for all these interlocutors the view of this government regarding the unacceptability of Iraq's invasion.
It is important for the House to know that every head of state, every head of government, and every minister with whom we have met shared that view, that the occupation of Kuwait is unacceptable.
The view in Canada, in the region, and throughout the world is the same. Iraq is isolated. Iraq has behaved abominably. It has invaded a small neighbour, and it has done its utmost to ensure that its restoration would be impossible. It has taken thousands of hostages, including Canadians.
This destruction of a small country is, in the words of President Mubarak, "unbelievable". That was the word President Mubarak conveyed to me when he told me of specific and categoric assurances that had been given to him personally by Iraq's president only days before Iraq unleashed its military arsenal against Kuwait.
From the beginning of this crisis, we have all hoped that peaceful means would produce the necessary Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions. Indeed, Canada has been working strenuously since the beginning of August to seek just such a peaceful solution. We have done so in the United Nations, we have done so in the region, and we have done so in close consultation with all the members of the Security Council.
Officials of my department have been travelling around the world regularly, particularly to Security Council members-including the people who rarely vote with Canada-to try to encourage a unanimity and a consensus that will allow the United Nations to be effective in these circumstances.
I am sure that I speak for all Canadians in hoping that a peaceful solution may still be possible. Time, however, is running out.
Tomorrow at the United Nations in New York, Canada will, as a member of the Security Council, participate in the formal consideration of a new resolution that has been under discussion for some days now. This new resolution will almost certainly authorize the use of
whatever means are necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to restore to Kuwait its own destiny.
For Canada and for others, what is at stake is the integrity of our international order and the credibility of international law and of our multilateral institutions.
We must recognize, however, as I have seen over the last few days, that the neighbours of Iraq have another interest in ensuring that Iraq's deed is undone. Mr. Speaker, we in Canada, far from the scene of the battle, far from the immediate site of those terrible tensions, must realize that there will be no safety and there will be no stability if Saddam Hussein gets away with his annexation of Kuwait.
All countries would prefer a peaceful solution, not a deal which rewards the aggressor, but full and swift compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council. Regrettably, many believe that a peaceful solution is not attainable, whatever their preference.
The leader of Iraq does not seem to grasp the dimensions of the problem he has created. Consequently, he does not seem to understand the strength of the resolve to see justice done. He thinks the world is bluffing. The purpose of the United Nations resolution, which Canada and other members of the Security Council will consider tomorrow, is to ensure that Iraq understands that this is not a bluff.
Tomorrow's resolution will demand full compliance with previous council resolutions. If Iraq does not fully implement those resolutions, the text will authorize member states co-operating with the government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to see they are implemented and to restore international peace and security in the area. Does this mean that force will be used? That is up to Iraq.
That resolution will probably be approved tomorrow, November 29. In normal cases, that would mean the capacity to act, with whatever means, would exist tomorrow, November 29. Now there is a serious and constructive proposal that the resolution build in a pause between the day in November when the authority is vested, and some specific later date on which it might be used. That proposal reflects the call for a pause which
.

*4:

ijS
November 28, 1990

Canada and other countries proposed after discussions during the United Nations General Assembly. A deadline which implied an ultimatum could be counterproductive and artificial, and that is not what is proposed. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, what is contemplated is, instead, a pause of goodwill to allow Saddam Hussein one more opportunity to reflect on his options. Naturally, that time must be used by all nations to seek a basis for the peaceful acceptance of Security Council resolutions. But, in particular, it gives Iraq an opportunity to seek a peaceful end to the war it began when it invaded Kuwait.
In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should say, that that proposal for a pause indicates one of the very real fruits and benefits of the new atmosphere within the Security Council, when countries that had not previously worked together were prepared to work together in these circumstances to ensure that there was a basis on which the world could act together.
We certainly hope that Iraq will take this opportunity. If Iraq does so, will the international community in any case insist on the elimination of its leadership or its entire military capacity? No, there is a willingness in the region to live with Iraq, warily to be sure, but on a basis of international law and internationally guaranteed frontiers.
Does Iraq have legitimate concerns which should be discussed? Perhaps there are some. That is up to the Government of Kuwait to negotiate or for Iraq to pursue in the many international fora which adjudicate exactly such disputes. The possibility of such a negotiating power is contained in Security Council Resolution 660, the very first passed by the Council in responding to this invasion. We urge Saddam Hussein to pursue this option.
Would military action in the gulf be an exercise of only western will? Absolutely not. The coalition includes such partners as Pakistan, Morocco, Czechoslovakia, Argentina, as well of course as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and dozens of others.
An Arab force could see to the future defence of Kuwait with international peacekeeping components as
Government Orders
necessary or as desirable. Canada would certainly consider seriously a request to participate in the cause of peace.
Will there be further attempts to resolve existing tensions in the gulf and Middle East regions? Yes. During my discussions in the Middle East the Arab-Is-raeli dispute was also raised, specifically the Palestinian question. I believe that one of the consequences of the current gulf crisis could be a new sense or urgency about solving other problems facing that troubled region. We have of late witnessed a pattern of successes within the Security Council in addressing regional issues, not just in the Middle East, but also in Cambodia and elsewhere. If that pattern continues, if we do not lose it here, if we can maintain the strength of the United Nations which we have so carefully built over the last years and particularly the last months, if that pattern continues, then a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute, which Canada views as necessary and urgent, may at last be possible. This is a matter than can only be addressed, however, separately from the current crisis.
Iraq's offence is sui generis and its undoing, according to the highest principles of international law and the highest interests of international security, is essential. But resolution of all territorial disputes in the region on a just and equitable basis is urgently required, if peace and security are to apply in a durable way in a region which may be the most volatile in our world.
We will also have to turn our collective attention to the need for arms control measures which deal with weapons of mass destruction that threaten the whole region. Sustaining the new unity of the international community is the only hope, the best hope, that these problems can be resolved with speed.
There may be the elements of a peaceful resolution of this crisis. I was more encouraged than I thought I might be by the conversations I had in the Middle East. I was encouraged by the determination of people ranging from Israeli leaders, to King Hussein, to the Palestinians to look for ways in which this experience may lead to constructive responses to other issues. So we hope that there will be means found to resolve this crisis.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
Otherwise, force will have been authorized by the world community, and on behalf of the international institutions Canada has spent five decades to design and to defend.
To abandon those institutions now, to abandon the unanimity and the consensus that has been found in the United Nations now, would be to abandon all hope for the rule of law in world affairs. The world agrees with that. The question is: "Will Iraq agree with that?"
The resolution we will be voting on tomorrow in New York is the desirable option that I have sought and that many here have sought, the UN authority to use force if Iraq rejects the option of a peaceful withdrawal. The House will remember, and no one in our country should forget, that the use of force began on August 2 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. It is now up to Saddam Hussein to determine whether the international community will have to use the authority of the United Nations to achieve our collective goals through further force.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, Liberals welcome this opportunity to discuss some of the historic issues touched on by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
This past August 2, the Iraqi army, acting on orders from President Saddam Hussein, invaded and occupied Kuwait, a sovereign member of the United Nations.
Since that date, we have witnessed dramatic and unprecedented events. Today there is fear that we are moving ever closer to war in the Persian Gulf with thousands of lives at risk, some of them Canadian lives.
Liberals are strongly supportive of the broad international consensus that has condemned the Iraqi aggression and which has called for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
Let there be no mistake, Liberals strongly and unequivocally condemn the action Iraq has taken against Kuwait, and support calls for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from this sovereign nation.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the United Nations, Iraq is expected to abide by the UN Charter. It is expected to abide by the established rules of international law.
However, it did not. We are convinced that all Canadians who are concerned about fairness and justice believe, as does the Liberal Party, that this flagrant violation of the UN Charter and international law is intolerable and must cease.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that Saddam Hussein must understand that his aggression and expansionism do not and cannot pay dividends. As a member of the United Nations, and as a nation committed to peace, Canada must not let Iraq succeed in its unlawful occupation of Kuwait. The United Nations is of the same view.
As we know, on August 2, 1990, in an emergency session, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 660, condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and calling for its immediate withdrawal. On August 6, the council voted unanimously to impose sanctions amounting to an economic blockade of Iraq. On August 25, the council authorized military action to enforce these sanctions.

However, on August 10, two weeks before the United Nations gave its authorization for military action, the Prime Minister gave a press conference to announce he was deploying substantial numbers of Canadian troops in the Persian Gulf. Unlike his British, French and U.S. counterparts, however, our Prime Minister did not consult this Parliament to discuss the matter and reach a decision.

Instead, Canadians saw this government side-step immediate parliamentary debate on this matter by sneaking through a loophole in the National Defence Act.
The position of my party has been clear throughout this crisis. From the beginning we have insisted that the government should commit forces to the Persian Gulf only under the auspices of the United Nations, and only after consultation with Parliament including full parliamentary debate.
In September, the Liberals as a parliamentary party, strongly endorsed the actions taken to that date by the United Nations Security Council.
November 28, 1990

Soon after the House was recalled in that same month, the government did place a resolution before it concerning the Persian Gulf crisis. That draft resolution originally was merely an effort by the government to pat itself on the back and try to get carte blanche to pursue whatever course it saw fit. It was only through the efforts of the opposition critic for external affairs and others in our party that the government finally agreed to modify its motion, agreeing to an expanded role for parliamentary debate and for greater recognition of the role of the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution, modified through efforts by Liberals, unequivocally condemned Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait. Canadians were shocked and dismayed when the NDP voted against it.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the efforts of our critic for external affairs who has travelled to Iraq with members of other parties to seek the release on humanitarian grounds of Canadian hostages being held there and in Kuwait, and we are pleased to learn today that a number of these Canadian hostages are going to be released.


An hon. member:: No thanks to Joe.


M. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we have consistently condemned the unlawful invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. We in the Official Opposition believe that the Conservative government failed to put the necessary emphasis on the role that can be played by the United Nations in resolving this crisis. We also feel that the government abdicated its duty to inform Canadians, fully and on a regular basis, on developments in the Persian Gulf, and to involve them, through their elected representatives, in this country's decisions.

Mr. Speaker, the failure of the government to keep Canadians informed is not only wrong, it is a departure from the precedent established here by my party when in government. More than 40 years ago, following the attack by North Korean troops on South Korea, Lester B. Pearson, then the Secretary of State for External Affairs, reported every day to the House of Commons.
Government Orders
There was extensive discussion of that crisis in the House which was then sitting.
Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 1950 the House of Commons was prorogued, that is, the session was formally ended. And on the eve of that prorogation, Mr. Pearson pledged that if necessary the House would be recalled to deal with the crisis. On August 19, 1950, the House was recalled for an emergency debate and members of Parliament were given a full opportunity to discuss the Korean conflict and Canada's role in it.


An hon. member:: What a difference, the right Prime Minister.


M. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the crisis was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Both Chambers were asked to adopt legislation which subsequently provided the basis for Canada's participation in the Korean War under the aegis of the UN.

I want to emphasize that both Houses of Parliament were recalled to participate in a debate on the Korean crisis and to actually vote on legislation authorizing the participation of Canadian Armed Forces in that crisis, all in a comprehensive manner. This stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken by this Conservative government in the current Persian Gulf crisis, starting back last summer when the government refused to recall this House to discuss the crisis before it sent troops to the Persian Gulf, a departure from the precedent created by Liberals during the crisis of the Korean War.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, more than 40 years later, the Liberals stand for the same approach, full consultation, open debate in and decision by Parliament and involvement with and through the United nations.
This government has a duty to consult and seek the approval of the House of Commons during such crises. When Canadian lives are at stake, the Canadian people deserve nothing less. Yet, what do we see from this government? As I said, the Prime Minister authorized the sending of Canadian men and women to the Persian Gulf, into a battle zone, more than two weeks before the United Nations authorized the use of force.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has also now taken to sabre-rattling. Just last month, he made a virtual declaration of war while speaking at the University of Western Ontario. "We should not rule out the possibility", the minister told his audience, "that young Canadian soldiers, men and women, will not return to this country for celebration but will stay there for burial". Later, before a parliamentary committee, the minister said that Canadian Armed Forces could be involved in offensive action against Iraq even without United Nations authorization. So much for the commitment of this minister and his government to the principle of operating under the basis and umbrella of the United Nations. In his speech he used all sorts of nice words about support for the United Nations, but he spoke quite differently before a parliamentary committee not long ago.
Through the statements and actions of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it is clear that this government is embarking on a path that could lead to war. It does not appear to be sufficiently interested in determining first whether the United Nations approved sanctions have been working. It does not appear to be sufficiently interested in finding a constructive and a peaceful solution. It seems to be primarily interested in furthering a risky agenda for a military solution that will be anything but quick and anything but painless.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland, asked the government to provide the Flouse with the fullest possible documentation on the effectiveness of the United Nations sanctions. On Tuesday, I asked the Prime Minister whether the government shared the view of international experts, including a former American Defense Secretary, James Schlesinger, who in testimony before a committee of the United States Senate, said that sanctions are working and need more time to take full effect. In both cases, the government has not yet bothered to provide the full information we requested on the effectiveness of the sanctions.
In his speech, the minister said: "We now recognize that sanctions in and of themselves are not sufficient to force withdrawal of Iraq". I ask the minister, where is the evidence of this? How and when did the government reach that conclusion? The government did not answer
these questions in any way, shape or form in the minister's speech. Maybe the government is reluctant to let us in on the facts about sanctions because there is evidence that the sanctions are working. Since the Second World War, no country has been disciplined so strongly and so completely in this way for its international aggression. With what have been described as near airtight sanctions, it is difficult to imagine how Iraq could consider itself in any way better off for having invaded Kuwait. In fact, the opposite increasingly appears to be the case.
It has been reported that 90 per cent of Iraq's food imports have been stopped and rice, flour and cooking oil are being rationed. Forty per cent of Iraq's industrial capacity has been shut down and Saddam Hussein has been forced to close non-essential factories to conserve lubricants, spare parts and electricity. Sanctions are estimated to be costing Baghdad more than $1.5 billion American per month in lost oil revenues and international authorities have succeeded in freezing virtually all Iraqi and Kuwaiti overseas bank accounts.
Mr. Speaker, the lesson for Iraq is that the price of its act of aggression will be serious and ongoing damage to its economy, its isolation on the international scene and a weakened geostrategic position in the long term. This is a lesson given not by the use of military force but by the most imposing international coalition since the Allies in the Second World War, a new coalition acting on the resolutions of the UN Security Council.

Mr. Speaker, this new coalition may well reflect a new international order that is rising out of the ashes of the cold war. At no time in the past 40 years has the United Nations been able to forge this kind of consensus. There is a real need for such a coalition, a new kind of coalition involving countries of the east and west, the north and south, a coalition that would have as its goal the effective maintenance of international peace and security.
The prevention of war was among the founding goals of the United Nations. The preamble of the United Nations Charter of 1945 begins: "We, the peoples of the United Nations determine to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".
November 28, 1990

Government Orders

Mr. Speaker, as our leader, the hon. Jean Chretien, said in a speech a few months ago, we can do far more to upgrade the tools available to the international community to resolve disputes before they degenerate into armed conflict or, if appropriate, to make it possible for parties to reach an agreement without outside intervention. The task was a difficult one during the cold war, but now that east-west tensions have relaxed, there is hope that we can consolidate the institutional framework for international co-operation.
Mr. Chretien went on to say that we must give the UN some muscle. Canada was the first country to get involved in peacekeeping operations. Our soldiers have taken part in a number of operations and they will continue to do so. It is in our higher interest to use our influence to enhance the capabilities of the United Nations, expand its peacekeeping mandate and make it a forum where all nations will be able to resolve their disputes in an atmosphere of trust.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the current crisis and in keeping with the founding principles of the United Nations, the Security Council has imposed near airtight sanctions against Iraq. UN member countries are enforcing those sanctions with the help of a broad-based multinational military force.
At this time, we are not convinced that sanctions have failed. On the contrary, as I have said, experts are pointing to increasing evidence of their success.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals believe that instead of rushing into a military offensive, we should maintain and reinforce sanctions to make Saddam Hussein understand that aggression does not pay.

Mr. Speaker, starting a war is all too easy. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that finishing a war in that region is going to be exceedingly difficult. The consequences of war will be enormous. We must, therefore, think always of the human cost of waging war.

Mr. Speaker, with thousands of lives at stake, we must move heaven and earth to find a peaceful solution. Only when we are convinced that all peaceful means of getting Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait have been exhausted, should the United Nations consider further military action.

Mr. Speaker, in its resolution today the Conservative government is asking Canadians to give it a blank cheque. It is asking for support of a vague motion before this House that may translate into support for any and all future UN resolutions, the exact contents and purposes of which no one can foresee.
In the view of Liberals, the draft Security Council resolution is premature. It is also vague. It authorizes any country individually, on its own, to do anything that country considers right; to use any means it considers necessary to achieve the goals of resolution 660 in this matter anywhere in the region, without any consideration of UN command or accountability.
I say, Mr. Speaker, the comments from the backbenches by the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicates he knows he has a weak case, otherwise he would be sitting and listening, as I did to his speech, even though I had plenty to say about its gaps and weaknesses while he was speaking. His comments show that he knows he and his government are on the wrong track.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, asking this Parliament to endorse the current draft Security Council resolution we believe is asking far too much at this time.
We will not, through supporting this government motion before the House today, give the government a blank cheque for any and all further action regarding the Persian Gulf. I do not think that this is what Canadians expect this House to do.
While I do not rule out the possibility that the United Nations may eventually have to make a decision on the use of force, Liberals do not believe that this point has yet been reached. We believe that the United Nations sanctions must first be given sufficient time to work. Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
must first be brought before Parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.
The approach I have outlined is consistent with the support of Liberals for the evolving role of the United Nations in the development of a new post-cold war international order for the maintaining of international peace and security. It is consistent with our rejection of the aggression of Saddam Hussein. Above all, it is consistent with the role and responsibilities of this House of Commons.
Therefore, by way of conclusion, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the
word "its" and by substituting the following:
"current efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions adopted as of 28 November 1990, and that this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation with and approval by this House."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has had an opportunity to look at the motion and will agree to the motion.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you are aware, under the rules of the House, now that there has been an amendment placed, the only procedure subsequent speakers could use to have anything else put on the floor would be to present a subamendment. We have had discussions with the parties and the other groupings in the House of Commons and believe that our proposed wording may not meet the criteria for a subamendment.
However, with consent of the House and because of the importance of this issue, we are asking that the motion which would be put in the name of the member for Victoria be treated as a further amendment and therefore be allowed.
It is a very important issue. I do not think this is the type of issue that we would like to see anybody in the House playing procedural games on. We are asking unanimous consent to do this and to make sure that the House has a very clearly worded motion on such an important issue.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can understand the difficulties the New Democratic Party is in.
Of course the rules would not allow another amendment to be put to the main motion. They would have to put an amendment to our amendment which has just been tabled by my leader. That would be called a subamendment.
The motion that is before us right now, as amended, would have to be exceptionally further amended by the NDP if it so wishes. It would be unusual for a motion to have two amendments, but we would, in the interest of fair play and in the interest of getting the message across from the NDP, allow it maybe to put it as an amendment; but by exceptional circumstances only do we accept it. There are no precedents being set here.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate as well that we have no problem with this procedure. The fact that we would allow the NDP to put an amendment, by consent, certainly is acceptable to this side of the House.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what was said by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, but I heard him mention the words fair play. Since that is not a rule customarily observed in this House, I do not see why we should give our consent. I suggest that the principle of fair play could be applied to the decisions of the Board of Internal Economy. Consequently, we will not give our consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, of course I have to express our disappointment that we are not able to present our particular amendment to the motion before us. I hope that in my remarks I will be able to make our position eminently clear. The motion before the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to advise hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 43 the first two speakers had unlimited time, with no questions or comments. We are now entering a period of 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.
November 28, 1990


John F. Brewin: The motion before us calls on the House to support "the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions".
The amendment of the Liberal Party would have the effect of clarifying the meaning of "subsequent resolutions". It would make very clear that this House only supports those resolutions which have been adopted to date. It does not imply support for the resolution that is going to be coming up before the Security Council tomorrow or any other future resolutions. Our party will support the Liberal amendment.
If we had had the opportunity and if something could have been worked out, we would however have gone further than the Liberal amendment. We would have asked the House for a further amendment, to make it absolutely clear, as follows:
That this House opposes the use of force against Iraq until sanctions and other UN measures have had time to succeed and urges the government to seek amendments to the currently proposed Security Council resolution to that effect.
I had hoped-and I am sure most members of the House had hoped it-that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have in fact made it absolutely clear that the government had a narrow interpretation of the motion before the House. He failed to do that. He simply said with regard to the motion that he expected there might be further debates on the question of Canadian participation. He made no commitment to further debates before Canadians are committed to war in the gulf.
He further cast his remarks entirely in support of the proposition that Canada should vote for the motion before the Security Council tomorrow, thus making it clear that the government sees this motion as not only endorsing resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted to date but very clearly implying support for future resolutions including the resolution tomorrow. We are going to proceed on that basis. If the amendment the Liberals have proposed is lost, this party will stand in this House and oppose the resolution and the motion presented by the government.
This is a very difficult issue, not only for this House and for Canada, but for the world. I would like to say at the outset that this House is not divided on support for the United Nations, support for the United Nations
Government Orders
system, or support for the proposition that the Security Council is the appropriate forum for the world to be dealing with this crisis.
Our party has from the beginning been the firmest of supporters for the United Nations, and we do not step back from that for one minute. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government, however, cannot translate support for the resolution that comes before the United Nations tomorrow into support for the system itself. The very fact that Canada is a member of the Security Council leaves it open.


Charles Joseph Clark: What nonsense. It is like your position on the GATT.


John F. Brewin: The minister says: "What nonsense". The minister simply does not understand that being a member of the Security Council imposes an obligation on Canada to act independently, sensibly and sensitively and, further, for the government to be prepared to accept the advice of this House on the action that Canada should be taking tomorrow.
There is no blank cheque to be given to the Security Council or to the permanent members. It is critically important that Canada, which was elected to the Security Council by the votes of the General Assembly, exercise its independent judgment on the issue that is coming before the Security Council tomorrow. That is not against the UN system. In fact it is entirely supportive of the UN system. We are expected to exercise our judgment. We owe it to Canadians. We owe it to the General Assembly. We owe it to the world to use our judgment and to present our views before the Security Council tomorrow.
It is our submission that that exercise of independent judgment calls on Canada to seek amendments to the presently proposed resolution and, failing amendment, to vote against the resolution in the Security Council tomorrow. That is what our independent judgment must lead us to.
There are a series of arguments presented on how to deal with Iraq, all of which spring from the proposition that the crisis must be dealt with. Let me emphasize that. I have first emphasized our party's support for the UN system. Let me go to a second support.


Charles Joseph Clark: Except when it counts on it.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders


John F. Brewin: Not at all. What do you do? Check your brains at the door when you go into the office of the Security Council? Not at all. You don't check your brains at the door. You exercise judgment. You reflect Canadian opinion. You are sensitive to what the world requires in this. The government cannot simply be a lap dog to the superpowers of the UN. It is expected to exercise judgment. That is what it is there for.
The second proposition must be clear. No one in this House forgives what Iraq did on August 2. We all start together on the proposition that Iraq is an international criminal. It has broken international law in invading Kuwait. We go further. The regime of Saddam Hussein has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Saddam Hussein is dangerous to his neighbours and to the world. He has developed and shown a capacity to use chemical weapons against his own people. He has developed and used biological weapons. He is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. It is a regime which is unacceptable to civilized opinion around the world. The acts that he committed on August 2 and, subsequently, in Kuwait are not forgivable.
This party takes second place to no one in its condemnation of Iraq's actions and of Saddam Hussein's regime. What we do say is that the issue before this House and before the international community is how to deal with the breach of international law committed by Iraq. It is at this point that we begin to differ from the approach of the government, the Government of the United States, and the other superpowers.
What we say is that while Iraq is a dangerous enemy, the United States, in compiling military force and seeming to be dogged in its persistence that military force is the only solution, is a dangerous ally. It is a necessary to send a message, not just to Iraq but to the hawks in the United States who we watched on television just last Thursday. They seemed to treat war as some kind of football game.
It is absolutely important that Canada speak as a peace-maker in the world, that Canada speak at the United Nations as the voice of caution, as the voice of wisdom, as the voice of peace, and not as the voice of war.
There are two propositions which I submit are virtually self-evident. First, sanctions are working in Iraq. The minister has said it. The Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf are employed in seeing that the UN boycott is effective. They are doing an outstanding job, as are the other forces that are enforcing the boycott. Iraq's neighbours are enforcing the boycott: Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. The countries of the Middle East, as the minister indicated, are united in the proposition that the sanctions must be made effective.
Estimates are that they are 99.9 per cent effective. But, equally, the government would have the world community ignore all the evidence of expert opinions that it takes time for sanctions to succeed in the sense that they affect the behaviour of regimes. We have seen in South Africa that it took years for sanctions to bite. In Rhodesia it took years for sanctions to bite. I submit it will not take years in Iraq. It will take months, but those months should be invested to avoid war, because in the Iraq situation there is absolute unity of the international community in the enforcement of sanctions.
Further, Iraq has come into this situation virtually bankrupt. Iraq invaded on August 2, 1990 simply because it was broke after a 10-year war with Iran. For months prior to August 2-and the minister indicated some of this in his speech-it was going cap in hand to its Arab neighbours, Kuwait, Egypt and other countries, to the Arab League, seeking a handout because of the financial condition it was in. When it failed to get that and when, I might add, the United States failed to give it the appropriate signals in terms of a response to invasion, Iraq took its fate into its own hands. That was not only illegal, it was a serious miscalculation. But it should be understood that Iraq has gone into this situation in a very weakened position and that the effect of sanctions is going to be that Iraq's capacity to continue will be rapidly eroded.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade of the House has been hearing witnesses. The witnesses have persistently said that sanctions will take four, six, eight, or ten months before they work. It is our view that the effect of war is going to be so catastrophic that it is critical that the international community give sanctions every opportunity to work. Sanctions combined-
November 28, 1990


Charles Joseph Clark: Except when it counts on it.


John F. Brewin: If the minister would be patient for a minute I will get to the rest of it.
Sanctions and the political isolation of Iraq will, in fact, if given time, produce the desired result. That is proposition number one.
Let me give you a second proposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell me about political isolation and how you achieve it without military means.


John F. Brewin: The minister asks how we can achieve isolation without military means. The minister's thinking is locked in the Second World War.
It is a tragedy that the minister and the leaders of the international community have not been prepared to take the additional time necessary to understand that the continued isolation of Saddam Hussein will, in the long run, produce the results that are necessary. Turning him into a martyr to international exterior power will itself be a problem, but beyond that the minister completely discounts the impact of war in that region. Innocent civilians-


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not.


John F. Brewin: The minister says he does not. Let me suggest the minister fails to make an adequate balance between the cost of military action and the desired effect and object.
The desired effect and object is to bring Saddam Hussein to his senses over time, have him move out of Kuwait, and produce the kind of solution that the international community needs. All of the evidence is that sanctions, if given time, will work. Sanctions undercut prematurely, as the UN resolution proposes to do, will in fact move us to war much faster.
There is the bluff theory. I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be a peaceful person and I suspect, deep down in his heart, that he believes in the bluff theory, that if the Security Council passes this resolution, somehow between now and January 15 Saddam Hussein will see the light and back away. The problem with the bluff, Mr. Speaker, is that Saddam Hussein appears to be the sort of person who may well call the bluff of the international community.
Government Orders
The Secretary of State himself said that it is important that he get the message we are not bluffing. A resolution at the United Nations is not going to do that. No resolution will do that, because he is still going to be persuaded, I suspect, that all that is happening here is a bluff and he will be very tempted to call the bluff of the United States. That appears to be the way in which he works.
The risk is that, on the other side of it, the international community has given itself a deadline beyond which it must move. If he calls the bluff, the options of President Bush and others have been removed and those in the United States who urge war will have their way. What happens on January 16 if he has not moved? What happens if he has not moved on January 17?
The minister says this was not a deadline that could be interpreted as an ultimatum and that would be counterproductive. Precisely, Mr. Speaker. There should be no deadline. Sanctions should be given every chance to work and that should be the message to the international community.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is important, of course, that one consider carefully the effect of all of the permanent members of the Security Council, save perhaps China, appearing to be ready to vote for this resolution.
Let me contrast briefly the experience of the permanent members of the Security Council with that of Canada and suggest that our different perspective and our different experiences are also worth something and should be expressed clearly and independently at the United Nations.
The superpowers, perhaps by their nature and by their history, see military action differently than we do. All of them in their different ways have, from time to time in their history, shown a propensity to rely on military force to achieve political solutions: the United States in Vietnam, and in other places such as Panama and Grenada most recently; Britain in Argentina; France with its nuclear testing in the Pacific; and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
We, in Canada, I submit, have quite a different experience. It is critically important that this experience be reflected at the United Nations. Our experience is

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
that when there is no choice, such as in the Second World War, we are ready to do our part, but clearly when there is no choice. In Korea, we did our part.
But our essential experience from the end of the Second World War is that military action is in fact counterproductive in producing useful solutions to difficult crises and difficult problems. Our experience is that it is important to work through the problem. It is important to contain militarily a country such as Iraq, and that is being done. It is critically important to apply economic sanctions and we have supported that against South Africa, for example, and in Rhodesia. But it is equally important that war not be acted on precipitously.
When I was home last weekend, it was interesting for me to talk to some of the people from Victoria. A Second World War veteran said he had two ships shot out from under him. He said the push towards war in the Middle East was madness.
A widow who lost a husband and a son said she could not believe that the international community is contemplating war in the Persian Gulf. Young students at Monterey Elementary in Victoria, got together to write letters to the Prime Minister, urging him to speak at the United Nations on behalf of Canadians, saying there must be peace and not war in the Middle East.
It is time that the government listened to Canadians. It is time the government acted independently of the United Nations. It is time the government was a voice for peace and not war.
This is a difficult issue, but it is one that calls for patience and that calls for sense. I would urge the government to speak for Canadians tomorrow at the United Nations, to commit itself that Canadians will not go to war in the Middle East without the full approval of this Parliament and until it is absolutely clear that there is no option.
We call on the government to act with sensitivity, to act with patience, and to act on behalf of Canadians. If the amendment of the Liberal Party is not adopted, we will vote against the resolution and continue to urge this government to act on behalf of Canadians.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate, a debate in which we are discussing a motion put forward by the government to support the resolution expected to come forward tomorrow at the United Nations which would provide further opportunities for the UN to find ways to resolve the situation in Iraq.
I would like to talk a little bit today about the role of our Canadian Armed Forces in the current situation and bring both the House and those members of the Canadian public who are watching up to date on our activities.
First, Mr. Speaker, it is important again to come back to the groundwork of the issue that we are dealing with. On August 2, the Government of Iraq launched a massive invasion of Kuwait. This unprovoked aggression was quickly followed by Baghdad's declaration of a comprehensive and eternal merger between Iraq and Kuwait, an ill-disguised phrase for Iraq's outright annexation of Kuwait.
The speed and brutality of this invasion aside, it is the maintenance of civilized norms of international behaviour that is at stake in the Persian Gulf, namely, how Canada and like-minded members of the world community can best forestall similar behaviour in the future by compelling Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. We all know the lessons of history and that we cannot allow appeasement, we cannot allow incrementalism. It has been quite a unique experience how the world community has come together on this issue to say: "We will not allow one country to take over another country".
As my colleagues on all sides of the House are aware, a vital component of Canada's international defence policy is to work toward maintaining a stable international environment. It is in support of these long-standing objectives of both Canadian foreign and defence policy that our ships and aircraft have been committed to the Persian Gulf region.
By agreeing to participate in the multinational effort in support of the United Nations, we have indicated that this invasion will not stand. Saddam Hussein must recognize that it is unacceptable for larger, more powerful states to attack or to intimidate their weaker neigh-
November 28, 1990

bours. Canada stands by those who seek to affirm the Charter of the United Nations, and signal that such gross violations of the charter will not be tolerated.
That is why I was surprised to hear the member for Victoria saying that Canada should act independently of the United Nations, when it has indeed been the very history of our country to support the United Nations in these efforts for international peace. This example is a unique example where the United Nations has indeed been able to bring together east and west on this issue. We should be doing everything we can to support the United Nations efforts.
I would like to assure the House and Canadians that the government considers the deployment of our Canadian forces abroad to be a matter of utmost seriousness. As such, any discussion of our participation in the multinational effort to support the United Nations' efforts to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait also compels us to conduct a very sober assessment of the Iraqi military capabilities.
On the whole, from the information that we have available, the reinforcement of Iraqi forces in Kuwait and southern Iraq would appear to have as their objective the consolidation of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. These capabilities are impressive, but I must emphasize that a thorough assessment of Iraq's posture-something that is being conducted on an ongoing basis by my department-shows that our air and naval personnel are not at undue risk in performing their duties under their current mandate.
The size and the deployment of the Iraqi ground force contingent make it well positioned to defend Iraq's gain in Kuwait. However, in the event of hostilities, Iraq would likely find that the task of co-ordinating and resupplying its forward-deployed troops to be beyond its current capabilities. In addition, allied air and naval superiority would go a long way in addressing Iraq's ground force advantages, while the morale and training of many Iraqi troops in Kuwait also remains a major question mark.
I have alluded to some of the capabilities of the multinational forces that have been deployed in the gulf. Upon closer examination, the composition of these forces reflects an unprecedented degree of international consensus on the need to provide a substantial military undeqrinning to the United Nations efforts to compel an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.
Government Orders
At the moment, over 30 countries have committed, or have indicated their willingness to commit, military assets in support of the UN effort, while some 24 countries have currently deployed these resources in and around the Arabian Peninsula.
The diversity of the coalition is striking. The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned this as well. There are western countries, including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. There are Arab states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Morocco, and even Syria. There are non-Arab states with substantial Muslim populations such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as a number of African countries including Niger and Senegal. Additional support has come from the new democracies of central Europe-Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Poland.
This remarkable array of countries has contributed forces which are formidable in and of themselves; these are capable of deterring further Iraqi aggression and enforcing strict implementation of the United Nations embargo. The manpower total for these multinational forces currently exceeds 300,000 and is expected to grow to some 500,000. Some 17 countries have deployed over 110 ships in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Red Sea. Allied air power is prodigious, with over 1,500 aircraft deployed from 11 countries. As I mentioned earlier, allied forces enjoy overwhelming naval and air superiority and this will substantially redress the Iraqi advantage in ground force capabilities in the event of hostilities.
The contribution of the Canadian forces to this effort has been prompt and significant. The Canadian naval task group has been assigned to a critical zone in the Persian Gulf, and although our three ships comprise less than 3 per cent of the total multinational naval deployment, our personnel have been involved in more than 20 per cent of the activities surrounding the enforcement of the maritime embargo. Our squadron of CF-18s has also carried out its air defence role with great proficiency. If I may echo the remarks of the all-party group from this House which visited the Canadian forces contingent in mid-November, Canadians can be very proud of their men and women who are serving in the gulf.

Government Orders
As we know, Canada's commitment to the multinational effort involves nearly 1,700 men and women. Some 950 of these are with the Canadian task group, while our deployment of eighteen CF-18s and their associated support staff accounts for an additional 570 personnel. Both elements of our contribution are under the command of Commodore Ken Summers, whose joint task force headquarters reports directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff here in Ottawa, thus ensuring that our forces are employed only in those roles to which the government has agreed. Thctical arrangements for the employment of Canadian forces personnel as part of the over-all multinational deployment have been arranged for the Canadian task group and the CF-18s.
As all hon. members are aware, the deployment of the Canadian task group was announced on August 10 by the Prime Minister. After the ships were prepared for departure, they sailed across the Atlantic and through the Mediterranean before passing through the Suez Canal on September 16. That task group began its patrol in the assigned areas of the Persian Gulf on October 1 and has been able to utilize port facilities in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
The deployment of the eighteen CF-18s from 409 Squadron, which is based in Baden-Soellingen, was announced by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs on September 14. These aircrafts are based in Qatar, and have been flying defensive air patrols over designated areas of the Persian Gulf since the middle of October, and Squadron 409 will soon be replaced by Squadron 416 from Cold Lake, where I visited last week.
The Canadian task group and the squadron of CF-18s have been deployed as part of a multinational effort to deter further Iraqi aggression and to ensure strict implementation of the United Nations embargo. As I noted before, Canada has certainly pulled its weight in this endeavour. At one point, Canadian ships and aircraft have been involved in the monitoring and interception of nearly 1,000 ships in pursuit of effective maritime trade sanctions against Iraq. Beyond this, they have participated in a number of actual boardings, all of which have taken place, fortunately, without incident. In addition,
our squadron of CF-18s has been able to increase its number of daily patrols when required, and has been asked to cover critical air space over the Persian Gulf.
I think all Canadians can take great satisfaction from the way in which the skill and professionalism of the Canadian forces personnel has contributed to the controlled, yet effective enforcement of the UN trade embargo. What has been especially striking has been the way in which our personnel have adapted to the very challenging circumstances. Not only have they adjusted to the extremely demanding climate of the Persian Gulf, but our naval personnel and pilots have received outstanding support from Canadian forces personnel in Canada, Germany and in the gulf, all of whom have responded with innovation and a great deal of hard work in organizing and sustaining Canadian air and maritime operations there.
In summary, quoting the all-party committee that went over, as it reported, it said:
In summary, we give top marks to the Canadian contingent in the
gulf. They are contributing in a proficient way to Canada's highest
traditions of outstanding international service in the cause of peace.
I want to say, as well, how much we appreciate the support of many individual Canadians: school children, business people, Canadians across the country who have been sending letters, calling and showing their support to Canadian men and women. It really means a lot to them when they are over there in the Persian Gulf.
Canada's security also depends on a stable international order. Ib this end, a continuing feature of our foreign and defence policy has been a broad-based commitment to promote international peace and security. We have pursued these objectives over the years in a variety of ways, in collective defence arrangements and multilateral peacekeeping operations. Canada has an outstanding record in those areas, one of which we are very proud.
However, Canada's commitment, as well, to international order has also entailed and must continue to oblige a commitment to collective security and defence, a commitment which we have seen as Canadians have fought in Europe in the world wars and in Korea. Since 1945, Canada has helped create a system of collective security which looked to Europe as the first line of defence. These commitments have taught us that security at home is meaningless unless all members of the
November 28, 1990

international community can feel secure from military threats and intimidation.
I want to emphasize that the government is not considering the prospect of conflict in the Persian Gulf in anything but the gravest terms. As Canadians, our abhorrence of war is informed by the sacrifices that we have made in the past in the pursuit of a better world: in two world wars and in Korea and as part of peacekeeping operations, which have given us a very sober approach to conflict. Certainly, no one must have a keener sense of this than the families and friends of the Canadian forces personnel who are currently serving in the gulf, and I am sure that the thoughts of all hon. members are with them at this time.
Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait once again presents Canada with a severe challenge. How we respond will be a test of our maturity as a society, and of our willingness to actively pursue the principles which will promote the type of world community we keep for ourselves and future generations. Our ultimate objective, after all, is a safer and more secure world.
What Canada and the rest of the multinational coalition are doing in the gulf supports the goals of peace and security contained in the Charter of the United Nations. We are adhering to the notion that peace must be protected if it is to be kept. The best guarantee of peace is the guarantee that unprovoked attacks will not be tolerated.
I submit that it is imperative for Canada to insist and assist in enforcing the ground rules of a new international order where the kind of outrageous behaviour we have seen by Iraq is not tolerated. This new order is within reach, but only if it is supported and strengthened by all civilized nations, by the United Nations and of course Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time might be up but in conclusion I would like to indicate that at this point I want to emphasize that the UN resolutions in themselves do not in any way change the mission assigned to the Canadian forces and that any change of mission that the Canadian government might assign to the Canadian forces in the future would indeed be commensurate with our capabilities. Should that occur I wish to reiterate that
Government Orders
it would be on the basis of a deliberate decision made by the Canadian government.
For now, Canada, along with the other members of the UN Security Council and like-minded nations around the world, endeavour to ensure that future measures are implemented under UN auspices. This has been our preferences from the very beginning of the crisis. We are also mindful of the need to provide the multinational force with additional options so that it may better implement the aims of the UN resolutions.
Of course, we hope and will continue to do everything to try to ensure that war does not break out. But if wiser counsel does not prevail, rest assured that our men and women in uniform are equal to any of the tasks that may be demanded of them. Most important, they are not only serving the interests of security in the Middle East, but also of peace and stability in the world at large.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her presentation. I think she really brought us up to date with some of the facts, figures and numbers of the operation in the Persian Gulf. I was particularly pleased to hear her compliment the men and women of the Canadian forces who are over there, who are prepared to put their lives on the line to protect our way of life, peace, liberty and freedom.
I have a question, and it is important to me. Even the three, four speakers that we have had, and with the follow-on speakers that we are likely to have for the rest of this debate, I think it is important that we focus on any differences that we may have. I think it is very important that those men and women, of whom I just spoke, understand that if there are differences in this House, that the differences are substantive, that they are not for partisan reasons and that legitimate concerns are shown where there are differences. I think it is very important in an issue of this kind that that principle pertain.
To that end, I have great difficulty in understanding, if indeed the deadline of January 15 is in this particular resolution that we are asking for support, why we are asking for a deadline of any kind at this particular point in time. My understanding is that the sequence of events should be, as far as the United Nations is concerned, that identification of aggression has taken place. That certainly has taken place. There is call for compliance, non-military sanctions and blockades, which is where we

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
are to date. Only if these measures fail do we consider military enforcement.
I have here a record of the sanctions and their descriptions. I see that on August 25 sanction 665 was invoked. It called upon maritime forces to use such measures as may be necessary. My understanding is, using the best information I can get, there seems to be general agreement. I have heard it mentioned a couple of times here in this House this afternoon that in order for the allies, or the United Nations if you like, to find out if the sanctions are biting they need from six to twelve months.
There is general agreement that sanctions can work because the economy of Iraq is semi-developed. It needs to import three-quarters of its food. Most on its manufactured goods and foreign currency depends of the export of oil, which it cannot do now. We are looking at February 15 as the minimum time that sanctions are likely to bite, or perhaps up to close to the end of 1991.1 would like the minister to explain to this House why we seem to be taking this premature action to talk about all necessary means, which I believe certainly includes force. I equate all necessary means, the ultimate being force. Why are we entering into that debate at this particular point in time? Why not give embargoes a chance to work?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate has had a long and honourable career with the Armed Forces. I know his sincere interest for the well-being of our men and women serving in the Persian Gulf and has much knowledge of their activities.
I agree with the member. This should not be a debate along partisan lines. It is something we are all concerned about. It is the future of peace and security in the world, and the role that our people will play there.
The hon. member has raised a very important question. The Secretary of State earlier today during Question Period tried to respond to the question about sanctions, are they working?
As I understand it, through the United Nations there is a committee which is asked to review the enforcement of the sanctions, particularly dealing with resolution 661, which was the overriding resolution involving sanctions.
Canada serves, I believe, as the vice-chair of that committee.
It is the assessment that the sanctions are not working effectively in the sense that while indeed the ordinary person in Iraq may suffer and there may indeed be shortages of various commodities, it is not affecting those who are empowered to make the decisions. As long as Saddam Hussein keeps his own agenda of maintaining his involvement with Kuwait ahead of the well-being of his own people, it is not really having the kind of impact that we would like it to have.
Among the international community there is a consensus that we have to keep the pressure on. As my hon. colleague knows, the resolution coming forward at the United Nations tomorrow provides this pause-this time of goodwill-in a sense saying: "Okay, we give you a chance to get out of Kuwait".
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said earlier, perhaps there is even some provision there for discussion on some of the grievances that have been involved through the United Nations. But there will come a time when through the international community, we will be prepared to say that other methods or other measures may be required. The resolution does not say they will be, but it does indicate that they may be. It creates a pressure to get this issue resolved because it is apparent that to date at least the resolutions of the UN do not seem to have had that bite and that kind of impact. There has to be that continuing pressure.
It is for that reason that certainly Canada, along with other countries on the Security Council, believes that it is important to provide for this further resolution; provide for that option. It does not necessarily say it will happen as I have indicated, and as I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated. It does not change Canada's role in and of itself because that would have to be a discussion and a debate at a further time. It does create a new sense of pressure which we hope will have an impact on Saddam Hussein and bring him to his senses to realize that he is not going to win. He cannot win in the long term. He might as well cut his losses, get out of Kuwait and have peace and stability restored to that part of the Middle East.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister. I listened with care to her assessment of the sanctions not having a bite against
November 28, 1990

Saddam Hussein and those who are in military control in Iraq.
Those members of the House and those Canadians who have taken the time to read UN resolutions 660 to 674 know that the intention of the UN and of the Security Council was, through a variety of measures and resolutions, to make the sanctions against Iraq increasingly airtight, to make sure that all kinds of commodities that could get in or get our of Iraq were being controlled by the international community. Is the minister suggesting that it is the view of the committee of the United Nations that the sanctions are not working or is that the minister's interpretation? Certainly those of us who have taken the time to read the views of international experts on sanctions know that they have said the real bite of sanctions vis-a-vis Iraq and its economy, both military and non military, is not expected until some time either early or perhaps well on in 1991. That is where the targeting of the January 15 date does not makes sense in terms of the information made public by international experts who have observed sanctions in many different situations.
Is it the view of the committee of the United Nations that the sanctions are not working, or is that the interpretation that the minister and perhaps her government are giving to the matter of sanctions?


Mary Collins: I thank my colleague for his question.
I think sanctions apply differently in different situations. Obviously the time frame can vary. I think in South Africa it was a very different kind of situation than we are facing here in Iraq and that one cannot necessarily compare as some people have tried to do from some of the information I have seen. As I understand it, not only is it this government's view, similar kinds of concerns have been expressed by the committee which is involved in review and has that responsibility at the UN.
While I think the blockade from my understanding is working well, there may be possibilities of things coming in and out in other areas. We recognize it has not had the impact on deterring or changing Saddam Hussein and those others who are involved in making that decision. That ultimately is what has to happen. That is what this is all about. We cannot simply step back and take the attitude that it is okay and we will just wait. There has to
Government Orders
be continuous pressure put on Iraq and Saddam Hussein so that he knows all the time that the international community is watching carefully and will not tolerate this, and that increasing pressure of turning the vice on him is what hopefully will bring him and others in Iraq to their senses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Christine Susan Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for recognizing me, but before we continue debate on this very important motion, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) I would like to move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of consideration of government business
No. 24.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


@Acting Speaker: According to the provisions of Standing Order 26(1)(6), if 15 members rise in their places to object the motion is defeated. Shall the motion carry?
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


@Acting Speaker: There not being 15 members rising in objection to the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 26(1)(6), the motion is deemed to be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Christine Susan Stewart: At the beginning of this debate I would like to outline some of the points that were mentioned in the last debate that we had in this House on this issue.
First, I think it is extremely important to say in this House that I, and all members of the Liberal Party, condemn outright the actions of Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait in August of this year. However, we continue to be appalled by his subsequent actions taken in that area of the world.
We heard reports yesterday in the United Nations and from other sources of atrocities that have been perpetrated against Kuwaitis. This should not come as any great surprise to us because we have known for years of

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
the horrible human rights abuses that this man has perpetrated against his own citizens in his own country.
We have been aware of the fact that this man used chemical weapons against his own population in the past. We should not be surprised that subsequent to his actions taken in August of this year that he has continued to abuse the people not only of Iraq but of Kuwait as well. I think it is important to make that statement.
I also think it is important to clarify here in the House that we do support current UN resolutions taken with regard to the Middle East crisis which endorse the use of sanctions against Iraq, and demand the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.
again, I will read what that amended motion says we do support.
It reads:
That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its current efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions adopted as of 28 November 1990, and that this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation with and approval by this House.
If it is not possible for this House to approve the amended motion, the Liberal Party will be unable to support the resolution of the government.
As well, I think it is extremely important to say here at the outset of debate that we totally support the United Nations as an institution, in particular as outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We support the founding principle of the United Nations, which is the prevention of war. We want to see this continue to be the major binding principle of the United Nations.
However, if we provide such total support to the United Nations as an institution, it is important that we be very vigilant about the instruments which the UN puts in place. We support the UN resolutions that have been approved to date with regard to Iraq, but we do not, on this side of the House approve of the draft resolution that is proposed to come before the Security Council tomorrow at the United Nations.
As well as not being able to support at this time such a UN resolution which will endorse the use of force in the Middle East, we cannot support the government's Motion No. 24, the resolution which we have before us in the House today. One of our major problems with the government's resolution today is that thereby we are giving a blank cheque to this government to carry out in our name, members of the House of Commons, in the name of all Canadians, whatever action this government deems responsible and appropriate. We cannot agree with giving that power to this government.
However, it is important to add what do we support, and to say that indeed we do support the motion that is on the floor of the House today, as amended by the Hon. House Leader and seconded by myself. Perhaps to clarify
Before dealing with some other points, I would like to address in particular the comments made in the speech today by the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would also like to draw attention made this day by the Prime Minister. As I understand it, he was saying today that he felt any nation that did not support a UN resolution-and the UN resolution he had in mind was the resolution proposed for tomorrow at the United Nations-should be condemned. Yet, in the past two weeks we have heard the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that this government was prepared to use force in the gulf with or without UN resolutions.
I feel there is quite a discrepancy between the Prime Minister's comments this morning with regard to the Middle East crisis and what we have heard from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in past weeks. It appears that the Prime Minister is prepared to support whatever policy supports his position at the time. It also seems obvious that this government wants to use force in the gulf. That is why we have on the floor today the motion from the government which we cannot support.
I go on to speak to some of the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He commented that the actions of Saddam Hussein were a terrible breach of faith to the United Nations. It is illegal and abhorrent internationally for any nation to invade and occupy the territory of another nation. He talked of the evil of Saddam Hussein, the fact that he has not only the
.
*

November 28, 1990

capability to use chemical and biological weapons in war, but the fact that indeed he has used chemical weapons against his own population.
Is it not that we sometimes prefer to forget or not look at human rights records, in this case the human rights records of Saddam Hussein which we have ignored?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that there was a steady flood of conventional arms into the Middle East, and particularly into Iraq. I would say that prior to the particular crisis we address today we as a country were involved in assisting the steady flow of conventional arms into Iraq, despite all the comments made and written by Amnesty International about the horrible human rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs explained that all peaceful means have been explored and that we have done everything, but we still arrive at where we are today. He said that he hopes sanctions will help to convince Saddam Hussein but, to quote the Secretary of State for External Affairs, "sanctions in and of themselves are not sufficient".
One of the most important questions on the floor today is: What are the criteria by which the Secretary of State for External Affairs can make such a statement? The fact is that despite questions no material has been provided by the government with regard to sanctions.
Twice this week I have put questions to the House asking that the government provide us with information concerning the effectiveness of sanctions, so that we could be involved today in a full and informed debate on what is happening at the United Nations. In response to my question on Monday, the Minister for International Trade stated with respect to the gulf situation generally:
- I am quile sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is quite prepared to make available to the House, or to the Standing Committee on External Affairs, the full information on how effective the sanctions policy appears to be.
Yesterday a question was put to the Prime Minister in which I asked him to fulfil the promise made in the House and to table information. The Prime Minister said that he would see what information was available. He also said:
Government Orders
-but I will ask to see what information is available that might be relevant.
Despite persistent calls subsequent to Question Period yesterday, no information whatsoever has been provided to the House to tell us what the government's impressions are and what the experience has been in the application of sanctions and how effective they have been.
The hon. House leader explained that there is international evidence that sanctions are working. In addition to what has been quoted already as material indicating that sanctions are working, it seems to me that it would be important, before decisions are made about Canada's stand tomorrow at the Security Council on the proposed draft UN resolution, to listen to the evidence from our parliamentary delegation which is currently returning from Baghdad. Through telephone conversations with them while they have been in Baghdad, we have statements which suggest from their view that sanctions are having an effect.
Yesterday, in testimony before the Senate armed services committee in the United States, James Schle-singer said that he believed sanctions were having an impact. Also he said: "A year to me seems to be in the right ball park". That was his comment in response to questions from the committee. He went on to say that the economy in Iraq would be in severe difficulty in 10 months' to a year's time, but that it may take somewhat longer for those difficulties to lead Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to change his mind and withdraw from Kuwait.
It is important to understand, no matter what the costs of imposing sanctions by UN resolution at this time, that the cost of maintaining the embargo against Iraq is much less than would ever be the cost of becoming involved in a war in the Middle East.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to say that Canada would participate tomorrow in debate in the Security Council on the draft UN resolution which, in his words, would authorize use of whatever means necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. In support of Canada's supporting this UN resolution, he commented that international order was at stake.
On what basis do we feel or what evidence do we have to guarantee that using force in the Middle East at this

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
time to roust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait will bring about peace, maintain or improve international order?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to say with regard to sanctions that many believed a peaceful solution was impossible, whatever their desire. Yet, again I say, we do not have enough evidence from this government upon which we can base such a statement. He also said whether or not the UN resolution will mean using force was entirely up to Saddam Hussein.
In describing the draft UN resolution which is to come before the Security Council tomorrow, he made a very curious statement. He talked about what he called the built-in constructive proposal which we see, in other words, as a deadline. I found it personally amusing to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs comment that the Prime Minister interprets deadline as a pause of goodwill and that a pause of goodwill cannot be misconstrued as a deadline. It is important for the Prime Minister to make this fine distinction because our Secretary of State for External Affairs is on record for believing that a deadline, in his view, is artificial and should not be used. Now, instead of talking about a deadline, we talk about a pause of goodwill. To my mind, in reading the UN resolution, by any other word that means deadline.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to talk about the post war situation vis-a-vis Iraq and about what accommodations could be made. It sounded so unrealistic, as if a war in the Middle East would be a very clean, neat operation. I reiterate that it is important for people to understand that a war in the Middle East will have enormous costs in terms of human life, if nothing else.
Saddam Hussein is somebody who has been known from past experience to use the weapons at hand that he has. There is no reason to believe that he would not use those weapons again. The weapons in hand would have a tremendously devastating effect, not just on Iraq and Kuwait but on the whole region. However, the loss of life will be beyond reckoning anything that we could condone or support, certainly at this time.
There were a few encouraging notes from the Secretary of State for External Affairs-and I hope it is so-in his comments wherein he said that this crisis had given
us a new sense of urgency to deal with other Middle East problems. If this is so, we welcome it. I personally feel that the addressing of other Middle East problems is long past due.
Also he said that there must be elements of a peaceful resolution of this conflict. I think all of us would like to see a peaceful resolution of this conflict. I believe that at this time it is possible to do so in a peaceful way and not to have to use force through supporting the draft UN resolution which will come before the Security Council of the United Nations tomorrow.
I know that my time is nearly up. As a final point I just wish to say that the Liberal Party on this side of the House for which I speak cannot approve of the blank cheque the government has presented to us today with regard to the situation in the Middle East. We can support an amended resolution and hope that the government would agree with it.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the speech of the hon. member. She began by saying that the Liberal Party condemns Saddam Hussein for what he has done. I am not sure he will toss and turn in his bed at night worrying about our condemnation, if that is all we do.


Mr. Allmand:: Sanctions too.


Benno Friesen: Sanctions too, yes. She went on to say that the UN was created to stop war. Nobody would deny that, but I wonder why she stopped there. Let me read the first article of the UN charter:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1.	To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
2.	To develop friendly relations-
And so on. I think she may have read this herself at some time. It continues:
3.	To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
November 28, 1990

4.	To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
I wonder why the hon. member stopped only at the fact that it was created to stop war.
In responding to the Secretary of State for External Affairs' address, she went on to say that there has been a flow of arms to Iraq, and I hope I quote her accurately, and that Canada was wrong in assisting in the steady flow of conventional arms to Saddam Hussein.
In light of the fact that Canada has very strong legislation proscribing the flow of arms to countries such as Iraq, I wonder if she could give us evidence to support her claim that we assisted in the flow of arms to Saddam Hussein?


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would begin by answering the hon. member's first comments about the UN Charter. There is nothing in the Charter that the member read here in the House with which I would disagree. I support that totally. It is how we institute and bring about those principles that is important.
In the United Nations itself we have all been so pleased with the universal adoption of UN resolutions imposing sanctions against Iraq and the participation of so many countries from all areas around the world in trying to make sure that those sanctions bite.
At the time that those resolutions were put in place, the thought was that through this peaceful means we would be able to get and convince Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. There is evidence internationally today that those sanctions are beginning to bite. They are beginning to work. The problem is that we have not had provided to us, as requested, any information from this government which would lead us to believe that those sanctions are not being effective.
We listened to experts world-wide who are saying that it requires more time for those sanctions to be effective. If we can provide for those sanctions to be effective, we will have achieved our goal of driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in a peaceful manner. That surely is our objective. We should be doing everything we can, in keeping with the principles of the United Nations, to work in a peaceful way for peace and security in our world.
Government Orders
With regard to the flow of arms into Iraq and the implication of Canada being involved with that, it is well known that the disclosure procedures and records of the government are inadequate. There have been constant and repeated requests for improved recording of Canada's trading in arms world-wide.
Canada is very involved in the production of parts of armaments that do not necessarily go directly to the end user of those parts. We need better records and a better method of disclosing publicly how arms flow around the world. There certainly have been strong allegations to the effect that indeed Canadian production has been implicated and that arms with Canadian parts at least have found their final residence in Iraq. We want to see measures taken by the government to prevent that occurrence in the future.


Ron J. Duhamel: First, I want to thank my colleague for her address. I found it most useful and helpful. I appreciate that she has put forward our party's position. I am going to make a comment, but with a series of questions that have been raised by my constituents. My colleague may choose to answer any one of them, or perhaps none at all, depending upon the time.
The constituents have called about a series of three concepts. The first is why the government did not consult Parliament before committing troops to the Gulf. There is a real concern that, whenever there is a possibility of major conflict, that should be discussed openly in the House of Commons.
The second question relates to the debate today. Why will the government not accept to wait for UN authorization before considering armed conflict, unless attacked of course? There is a real concern there that we ought to be going forward only with the UN resolution.
There is a concern, I believe, in further discussions, that this motion is really quite vague. I do not say that in a partisan or unkind way. Perhaps it is a blank cheque. The government is looking for a lot of flexibility and manoeuvrability and where will this lead?
Concerns are also related to casualties. For example, there is the whole question of what are the expected casualties if we were to go to war. That is a very important question that has not been addressed. When I

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
tried to raise it on the Order Paper, it was ruled inadmissible.
What is the expected cost of hostilities for a day, a week, or a month? I am informed that if we were to go to war, the total costs of a 10-day conflict-and that would be a short conflict, I suspect-would equal the total cost of the United States conflict in Vietnam for one year, ten days equal one year. Those are astronomical sums.
Why the January 15 deadline? It seems quite artificial. Of course, related to that is: Have we really had the time to know whether or not the sanctions have worked?
Why is Canada, so rich in energy resources, still dependent on foreign oil? This is a major concern of Canadians. What is the government doing to control the price of fuel, including gas for Canadians? Will there be shortages? That is the second series of questions.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, where does the government find the money to send three ships, a squadron of F-18s and the necessary troups to the Persian Gulf when it is unable to adequatly help at least 5 million Canadians who are poor? Among those poor are senior citizens, a majority of women and more than one million children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has a minute to wind up.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the number of casualties that will be envisaged, there are discrepancies in numbers, but one of the numbers that is bandied about is 65,000 dead if war were to break out in the Gulf at this time.
In terms of other costs-the costs of lives is no doubt the greatest cost that we are concerned about-we can be assured that the cost of war will be far beyond any cost of maintaining sanctions at this time.
I have just a final comment with regard to the UN resolution itself that we cannot support at this time. We feel it is premature. We believe that sanctions can work and the wording of it is very vague in what it authorizes, "that member states use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolutions and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
Any of the western allied countries could take action under this resolution. That includes Syria.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: On August 2nd last, Mr. Speaker, Iraq launched an unprovoked attack against Kuwait, a small neighbouring state, which, to defend itself, sought the assistance of the international community, as it was authorized to do under the United Nations Charter.
Concerned that the Iraqi forces would go beyond the Kuwaiti borders, Saudi Arabia also asked for international assistance to check the Iraqi threat. The United States and a group of other countries from Europe, the near East, Asia, as well as Africa, responded by dispatching forces to Saudi Arabia.
On the basis of a strong international consensus never achieved before, the Security Council quickly condemned Iraq and ordered it to leave Kuwait immediately. It is clear today that the decision of the Security Council has the support of almost all nations.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Shefford rises on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, while thousands of Canadian soldiers are probably risking their lives, there is not even quorum in the House. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like you to check whether or not there is a quorum. Because of the tremendous importance of this debate, I suggest it would be worthwhile.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member asks if there is a quorum.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are 20. There are enough people for a quorum.


Marie Gibeau: So, Mr. Speaker, I continue.
It it therefore clear today that the decision of the Security Council has the support of almost all nations.
November 28, 1990

Ever since its first resolution, the Security Council has constantly reaffirmed its will to force Iraq to leave Kuwait. This will was reaffirmed in a number of other resolutions whose purpose was to give force and effect to the initial decision. Clearly, the world community speaks as one when it asks Iraq to fully respect the decision of the Security Council.
The impact of the Iraqi invasion extends far beyond Kuwait's borders. Saddam Hussein has caught in a trap thousands of third country nationals and created long lines of refugees. For weeks on end, we could watch on television Egyptians, Sri Lankans, Pakistanis, Filipinos and many more leaving Kuwait. We especially witnessed the suffering inflicted by the Iraqi invader upon these people who, having lost their jobs, houses, possessions and savings, were forced to return to their respective homelands to face an uncertain and precarious future, even darker days.
To these human tragedies was added, for all the countries involved, an economic and social burden which they can hardly carry. Most of the refugees had in fact come from developing countries already grappling with poverty and a lack of resources. The return of these refugees adds to the hardships already suffered by these economically weak nations.
Fortunately, the community of nations was quick to respond to the refugee problem. As a matter of fact, Canada was one of the first nations to financially contribute to the patriation operation. Later on, our Prime Minister announced that for humanitarian purposes, an additional $75 million would be provided to the countries most affected by this influx of refugees.
However, the Iraqi aggression made other innocent victims among other third party nationals whose situation in a way is far worse than that of the refugees. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the hundreds of people, including Canadians, who are forbidden by the Iraqi authorities to leave either Iraq or Kuwait. These people, who had done nothing to deserve such a treatment, are detained against their will by the Iraqi authorities.
These human beings are nothing but pawns in Saddam Hussein's hands. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the hostages may be free to travel anywhere in Iraqi territory but they cannot leave and are thus used as human shields. Some of them-not Canadians-are held in strategic sites and
Government Orders
this is an obvious attempt to discourage any attack against these military facilities. The international community has strongly condemned Iraq's use of hostages and the Security Council has asked that these people be released immediately.


Jean-C. Lapierre: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to the remarks read by the hon. member and I seek your guidance. Is there a Standing Order to the effect that a member must make a heart-felt contribution to the debate on the basis of personal knowledge rather than be content with reading a text which has obviously been prepared by others? Would you enlighten me on that rule?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In this House we do have an opportunity for a person to reflect on notes used in debate and we have done this continuously. I think I recall that the hon. member at one time had an opportunity to do that too. The hon. member for Bourassa has the floor on debate.


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, all the more so since my heart was so moved that I would have been hard-pressed to say everything I want to say within the time allocated to me. So I will continue to read my notes. Thank you very much, dear colleague.
Iraqi officials recently announced that they would free all hostages between Christmas and March 1991. If they can free them then, why can they not do so now?
In fact there should never have been any hostages. Iraq will have to own up to this despicable gesture and admit that the Security Council made a wise decision when asking that the hostages be released unconditionally and forthwith. Iraq's stubborness in not coming to its senses makes the injustice of its attack against Kuwait still more flagrant.
The United Nations organization was set up at the end of World War II to protect the international community against acts of aggression and to maintain peace and stability in the world. Canada is one of the UN founding

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
members and its support for the organization has always been strong.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my heart-felt remarks are driving out of the House our colleague who was so upset earlier because we did not have a quorum.
Lester B. Pearson was the driving force behind the peacekeeping efforts to strengthen the role of the United Nations in the preservation of world peace and security. But it is not always good enough to intervene after the dissenting parties have found a compromise which calls for supervision. What happens when one of the protagonist is too weak to defeat the invading forces? Obviously that is a case where there is a need for United Nations protection.
If somebody attacks your neighbour, takes over his house and holds captive a visitor who happened to be there, you will immediately conclude that the neighbourhood is no longer safe and you will undoubtedly want to correct the situation. Canadians have always been the champions of the rights of others, not only because they support justice but also because they have utmost respect for the principle that breaching the rights of a person is tantamount to attacking and threatening those of others.
Law and order are essential to the well-being and peace of a community and its neighbours. And so it goes for each nation and for the international community as a whole. The United Nations is an organization which is essential to protect the international community.
Were we to remain passive or at best indifferent if a country invaded its neighbour, particularly a weaker neighbour, we would undermine the very foundation of international justice, to the detriment of all. Were we to make one exception on the pretense that the country invaded is thousands of kilometres away or that it does not deserve our consideration, we would be throwing our doors wide open to anarchy.
In the early years the United Nations was never able to exercise full influence. The cold war divided the world and thwarted the efforts of the United Nations, yet in spite of that-perhaps more by chance than as a result of enlightened management-it did successfully intervene in Korea.
We now have an opportunity to call upon the U.N. to play the role for which it was created, and that is make the world safer for all countries-large or small, strong or weak, rich or poor. This action-the will to object to undue use of force-involves a risk, with all the consequences and costs that go along with it. If we fail, as has
happened in the past, the potential danger and the price to be paid will be even greater.
The United Nations reacted quite properly to the Iraqi act of aggression. Canada was involved at the Security Council level and has tried to maintain the remarkable consensus of all those who wish to see Iraq abide by the decisions of the Council.
It has been several months since the Iraqi invasion, and many official representatives of various countries, including Canada, have sought ways to make Iraq see reason. However, Iraq remains unmoved and the hostages are still being held.
So far, the UN has proved its mettle but has failed to reach its objective. Even the vigorous application of global sanctions decreed by the United Nations and the presence of a multinational force on its doorstep have failed to persuade Iraq to change its course.
We do not want to go to war against Iraq. We merely want it to abide by UN decisions that have received universal support. Mr. Speaker, anyone who took Latin in high school is familiar with descriptions of Roman military strategy, which included a basic principle expressed as follows: Si vis pacem, para bellum, which means: If you want peace, prepare for war. That is more or less what is happening today. In its actions and decisions, the UN has always tried to avoid provoking hostilities, but at the same time, Iraq should be well aware of the firm resolve of all who support the United Nations in this crisis.
The UN is a highly valued institution which Canada holds in high esteem. If we fail the UN now, it will be at the peril of the global village to which we all belong. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that in the final instances, the House will support the motion before it today.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short comment on what the former speaker was mentioning and to pose a question to her, if she would accept it.
The hon. member said: "If you want peace, you should prepare for war". There is another truism that we must face and it is that there are very few nations in the history of man who have prepared for war and readied their weapons who have not actually used them. As a matter of fact, in the history of man, there have not been any weapons developed that have not been used in war. It would seem to me that it is always better to dialogue, to speak, than it is to take lives.
November 28, 1990

We, who are in this Chamber, make the decision to send our young women and men into combat. It is important that we exhaust all other avenues before we even contemplate taking that decision. I am of the opinion that it is better for us to negotiate for as long as we can. No, not from our knees, Mr. Speaker, but from a position of strength, that is to say the strength that comes from knowing that what we are doing is right. We must negotiate from a position, also, of knowing that by speaking now, we may avert war. We know that war, if it does come, is going to finish some time. Once again, we must go back to the table and speak, either with our defeated enemies or at least our wounded enemies.
The hon. member mentioned Kuwait, which is the country Iraq attacked. I wonder if my hon. colleague would address herself to the fact that Kuwait, after all, is not a democracy as we know it. My understanding is that the rulers of Kuwait leave a great deal to be desired in the field of human rights. I would like the hon. member to give us her opinion as to why, exactly, we are going to fight there. If it is to free the Kuwaitis, what are we going to replace it with or is it a fact, very simply, that we are fighting for oil rather than principles?


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his questions. I may remind him of the Latin saying: "If you want peace, prepare for war". I did not say wage war.
There are two comments I would like to make. First of all, I would like to remind hon. members that our government is not, to use the English expression, trigger happy. This summer we had the so-called native crisis. There might have been casualties, but for the exceptional restraint and dignity of our military forces in the face of all kinds of provocation. I think that what happened this summer, considering that it was very close to home and very violent, offers ample proof of the fact that our Canadian forces and our government are not trigger happy.
Government Orders
My second comment, Mr. Speaker, is that last week I had the privilege of being in Rome and discussing this matter with Italian parliamentarians who had been talking to some of their counterparts from other European countries. During those discussions, I had the distinct impression that Canada, through our Secretary of State and our Prime Minister, helped to moderate the urges and sentiments of certain other countries that were eager to start a war immediately, a war they felt could be over very quickly.
I also had the distinct impression that our leaders were determined to make use of all diplomatic resources, all peace mechanisms, negotiations and discussions. As you mentioned earlier, it was certainly not a matter of rushing in and acting like medieval knights on a quest, entirely oblivious of what was involved, not just at the geopolitical level, but also as far as the lives of our Canadians were concerned. I am going to say something terrible, but I am sure that the first Canadian corpse to come back would be a nightmare for each and everyone of us.


Gilles Duceppe: We do not have a quorum, Mr. Speaker! [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Just a minute, let us see.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, there is a quorum. Where did the hon. member for Laurier- Sainte-Marie go?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He disappears.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Bourassa has the floor.


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, I think a comment is in order. I deplore the fact that members of one of the parties in this House should find it necessary to indulge in such childish stratagems while we are discussing this dramatic situation. I find it very upsetting that junior members of this House should show an utter lack of respect for the House during a debate of this kind.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
I will answer the hon. member's question. I shall proceed, Mr. Speaker, because his comment was quite sensible. Mr. Speaker, the last part of the hon. member's question was about what we were going to defend in Kuwait, which did not necessarily have a spotless record on human rights. I think it should be pointed out that we are not going to defend a political system but a principle that says a nation is sovereign and that other nations have no right to attack or violate the territory of a sovereign state.
That is why Canada went to the Persian Gulf. What Canada is asking now, through the motion tabled by the government in the House today, is that the principle of a country's sovereignty is respected.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I do have a comment or two to make to the hon. member since she brought up the precept that if you want peace you have to prepare for war or at least be prepared to go to war. It seems that we are preparing to go to war.
The Canadian forces sent into the Persian Gulf were initially there to perform picket duty outside the zone and ensure that sanctions would be effective. In that regard, our members have already indicated that there is an element of effectiveness that the government is refusing to acknowledge, elaborate on, or at least refusing to take into consideration when it is discussing what step we must take next.
The government has already authorized our forces to move into a very active role of intercepting within the military zone and participating very actively in offensive American military manoeuvres that, unlike UN manoeuvres, are not sanctioned by our Parliament.
If we are to prepare for peace, we should not only prepare for war, which is what the member has suggested that we must do. The associate minister for defence took pains to demonstrate in a very detailed fashion that we are represented by Armed Forces that are second to none in quality. That is not the issue that this House should be considering. The question of the quality of our troops, the quality and commitment of our personnel in the Persian Gulf is not at issue.
Let no one for one moment suggest that to question the government's policies in the Persian Gulf is in any way questioning the commitment and the quality of our
men and women stationed there. It is absolutely irresponsible of the government to do that. It is very important that no member of the House on the other side be allowed to raise that issue again. What is at issue is whether the government really believes the commitment which it says it is addressing. That is the one of peace.
If we are going to be preparing ourselves for a new international order, which this member suggests and the associate minister for defence says we are doing, are we making plans for the peace that must follow the end of this crisis? What steps is the member from the government side willing to divulge to this House as part of the government's plan to prepare for the re-orientation of the military, economic, and political realities of the Persian Gulf which it sees as being so very important as to require the deployment of military activities-I am just about finished, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is only going to be a minute left for her to answer.


Marie Gibeau: I thank my colleague for his question, Mr. Speaker. This is the place to express our views. I would like to come back to the subject of the sanctions. They are probably beginning to work, as they were intended to by the members of the international community participating on the blockade, and that is precisely why it is working.
The problem is that we must remember that, while this is going on and starting to work, a territory is being violated, people are detained as hostages and crimes are being committed on some territories. Someone mentioned human rights earlier. You probably noticed-you must be following the events on TV-that some people's physical integrity is certainly not respected, nor their intellectual, political, or other rights.
Nothing proves for the time being that the sanctions will work. There is no way of knowing when Saddam Hussein will give in, but since he is not known for his logical and coherent actions, we have to make alternate plans. That is precisely what the international community is doing.
Its ultimate goal: peace, a peaceful resolution in the form of Iraq getting out of Kuwait. That is their goal. That is why the international community will make a decision tomorrow through the United Nations Security
November 28, 1990

Council. I therefore urge my colleague to support the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now over. On debate, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party, as pointed out by my leader earlier this afternoon, cannot support this Conservative government motion, Motion No. 24, because it asks for a blank cheque to approve subsequent UN resolutions that we have not seen. We cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. It is too open-ended. It is too vague. The government is asking for carte blanche and, as I say, a blank cheque to approve subsequent resolutions of the United Nations that we have not had an opportunity to examine and do not know the content of. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, we do not support this motion as it stands and have suggested an amendment. We do support the first part of the resolution which asks that we support the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660. Then it says "and subsequent resolutions".
We are proposing an amendment which would say that we support the efforts of the United Nations to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions until this day because we know what the subsequent resolutions are until this day, but we do not support any resolutions that might be submitted tomorrow or thereafter until we examine them.
Does it mean that we are against the United Nations because we will not support a vague, open-ended resolution as the government submits to us today? No, it does not. We in this party are strong supporters of the United Nations. We are the party of Lester Pearson, a man who won the Nobel Prize for his innovative proposals for peacekeeping at the United Nations. We have long been a supporter of the United Nations and we remain a strong supporter, but we do not accept this proposal put to the House today by the government nor, Mr. Speaker, do we support the draft resolution to be put to the Security Council tomorrow.
Government Orders
I will comment more on that in a minute. Just because that resolution might win support by those governments which are on the Security Council at the present time does not mean that we would necessarily support it. We do not, and I will explain that in a minute.
I want to make very clear to this House and the Canadian public that we voted for the government's resolution, as amended, on October 19. In that resolution we in the Liberal Party joined with other political parties in this House condemning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and asking for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. We also approved in that resolution the imposition of economic sanctions against Iraq as a result of that invasion and also the military support of those economic sanctions.
We have so far supported the government in its initiatives except, I might say, the fact that it sent those troops to the Middle East in the first place without the support of Parliament and sent them at the request of the United States and not the United Nations.
After the UN intervened, we have been on side with the government so far in this matter, and with the United Nations.
I say we cannot support this resolution or the draft resolution to be submitted to the United Nations tomorrow. At least we cannot support it in the form in which it was distributed to us today. Let me refer to the key paragraph in that resolution. This is the one to be presented to the Security Council tomorrow. It asks that the Security Council authorize its member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.
Let us examine that. This resolution does not ask for the authorization for the United Nations to use all necessary means. It asks for authorization for member states to use all necessary means to implement Security Council resolution 660. This means they are asking for the United Nations Security Council to authorize Syria, Egypt, the United States, individually as member states, to use themselves all necessary means to uphold and implement the Security Council resolution 660.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
It goes on not only to uphold and implement resolution 660, but to restore international peace and security in the area. What is meant by "the area"? How broad is that to be interpreted? Does it mean all of the Middle East? Does it mean just the Arabian Peninsula? Is it just the Persian Gulf?
Does "This resolution is to be presented to the United Nations" mean that we are giving authority to states such as Syria to use all means necessary to restore peace and security to the region? What are the implications of that?
I first of all criticize the resolution to be presented tomorrow for its wording, which I think is very loose and, in many respects, says things that none of us would want to support.
This is the main reason for not supporting it. We think it is premature. It is too soon to authorize member states to use all means necessary, which means military force at this point. It is premature because the economic sanctions were only authorized a little over three months ago. They have not been given enough time to bite.
For years we have been supporting economic sanctions against South Africa, for example. No one suggested after one, two, or three years that we should give up on the economic sanctions and send our troops into South Africa. No. We believed in economic sanctions, and we pushed hard with them. We improved them. We tightened them over the years. We made them more effective.
A little more than three months is not enough to test the efficiency of the economic sanctions against Iraq. In the testimony that has been presented to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and Foreign Trade, all the experts said that we must expect to wait at least six months to a year for those sanctions to bite hard and to have some effect.
Those people who are watching closely feel that they are beginning to take effect, but they will not have the full force of their effectiveness for some time yet.
I point out again that it is premature to suggest that we authorize all means necessary, that is outright war, to accomplish our purposes at this stage.
Economic sanctions are not the only measure that is being used in trying to achieve a peaceful settlement to this dispute. We are also using, and the government has
pointed this out very often, diplomatic initiatives. As a matter of fact, if some of these diplomatic initiatives were taken more seriously, they could lead to a peaceful settlement, because there have been compromises suggested on both sides that could form the basis of discussion that might bring about peace if the two sides were not so inflexible.
Another major difficulty with the use of military force at this time is the double standard in doing so.
If we look at this attempt to use military force against Iraq, in other words to drive Iraq out of Kuwait at this time, and compare this initiative with what we have done in other similar examples around the world in recent years and which still exist today, we will see that there is a great deal of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
There are many examples where today sovereign territories and countries occupied by the armies of other states has been condemned by the United Nations, but where there have been no sanctions and no military action taken against the aggressor. I refer to the U.S. invasion of Panama about a year ago.
If you look at that case, Mr. Speaker, it really gives rise to some of the suspicion of hypocrisy and so on in this case. At that time there was a motion put to the Security Council on December 23, 1989, to condemn the United States for its unilateral military action in Panama, asking it to withdraw and respect international law.
What did the United States do at that time? They vetoed the resolution. The very sort of resolution that they want us to support today, at this early stage before the sanctions have been given a chance to work, they themselves vetoed before the United Nations Security Council on December 23, 1989.
I want to point out, talking about respect for United Nations resolutions, on December 29 the General Assembly did pass a resolution condemning the United States for its unilateral military invasion of Panama and asked them to withdraw and to respect international law. The United States paid no attention to it.
We also have the examples of the Soviet Union invasion into Afghanistan a few years ago-there were no sanctions, no attempt to use chapter 7 of the UN charter-the U.S. invasion of Grenada, the Chinese takeover in Tibet, and the present deplorable Indonesian
November 28, 1990

occupation of East Timor. Where is all the self-righteousness in the world with respect to that? Here we have a country like Indonesia invading and occupying East Timor, with some pretty terrible human rights violations. Where is the consistency in principle? We also have the invasion of Lebanon by both Syria and Israel at different times in 1982. The same approach was not applied at that time.
To give other examples, we have the attempt by Morocco to occupy the western Sahara. We have the example years ago of Turkey occupying the northern part of Cyprus, and it still occupies the northern part of Cyprus. We have the examples of the U.S. complicity with respect to the overthrow of the Government of Nicaragua, the funding of the Contras, and the mining of Nicaraguan harbours contrary to UN resolutions and contrary to a decision of the World Court.
Today we hear the brave statements from the President of the United States about respect for international law, respect for the United Nations, and respect for the World Court. Where were they a few years ago when confronted with these decisions of the World Court and the resolutions of the United Nations?
When we are considering what is being attempted tomorrow in the United Nations, one must also understand the suspicion with which many nations of the world look on this attempt by the major powers at this time to do things that they did not accept themselves, whether the Soviet Union, the United States, or other countries, when they were in similar positions, when they unilaterally occupied and invaded territories which were not their own.
We are totally in favour of a new order at the United Nations where there would be no acceptance of unilateral offensive military action, where all grievances against other states would be dealt with through the United Nations, the World Court and other international bodies, and the use of UN military action against aggressors as suggested in the resolution with respect to Iraq to be presented tomorrow. We would accept that as a new world order if it was to be consistent and universal.
Government Orders
Would the countries that are putting forward the resolution tomorrow at the UN be willing to amend that draft resolution to adopt a universal policy against all aggression, and not simply this aggression of Iraq against Kuwait? Would they be willing to apply the principles that they are putting forward with respect to Iraq? Would they be willing to put those into operation against all cases of occupation of foreign territory which are presently existing in the world today? Would they make it apply to cases which might come up in the near future? In other words, would the major powers renounce all unilateral aggression on their own part and accept the same sanctions that they want to impose against Iraq?
If we were to cast ourselves back to a year ago, would the United States agree now with respect to Panama to the same sort of regime that it is suggesting with respect to Iraq? I might say that Noriega is just as serious an international outlaw as Saddam Hussein. Both of them are not people to be congratulated. They are people to be condemned for their actions internationally.
The question is: Do you deal with the Noriegas and the Husseins of the world by unilateral military action, or do you deal with them through the United Nations? Do you pick and choose according to your own national self-interest when you do that? In other words, you suggest one plan of action through the UN when your oil and energy interests are at stake, but when there are some other interests at stake, you do it another way.
One might ask: Why this double standard? Why this lack of consistency? There is no doubt that it has something to do with energy resources. If we look at statements of the American government over the years, we see that it has always considered the energy resources in the Middle East to be of utmost importance.
In the 1940s the State Department issued a statement that the Arabian Peninsula constituted a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history. Later President Eisenhower described the Middle East as the most strategically important area in the world. As a result, a driving concern of the United States over the years has been to protect its energy resources in that area.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
I want to refer to an excellent article on this whole subject by Noam Chomsky in the October issue of Z Magazine. In analysing the whole situation in this article, Mr. Chomsky said the following:
Also worth discussing would be the striking fact that from Mussolini until today, fascist killers and tyrants are quite acceptable allies as long as they line up on the right side of important matters- such as keeping the world safe for profit-but suddenly become beats who must be exterminated when they reveal a lack of appreciation - for the same doctrine.
In other words, the non-democratic countries, the Chiles, the Philippines, are quite acceptable. You can tolerate them as long as they vote with you at the UN and support you in international affairs, but when they stop doing so, you must take steps to get rid of their dictatorial government. You also try to get rid of those so-called dictatorial governments which do not agree with you at the United Nations whether they are dictatorial or not.
It is interesting to note how strongly the United States supported the same Saddam Hussein and the Government of Iraq only a year ago, a man they now denounce in the strongest terms. Once again referring to Mr. Chomsky's article at page 23 of Z Magazine, he said:
It was also necessary to deal somehow with the fact that prior to Hussein's attack on Kuwait, the Bush administration and its predecessors treated this murderous thug as an amiable friend, encouraging trade with his regime and credits to enable it to purchase U.S. goods. Before that, Washington had supported his invasion of Iran (and perhaps more, we may learn some day), and then "tilted" so far towards Iraq in the Gulf War that military forces were sent to "protect shipping" from Iran -
He pointed to an example of an Atlanta based bank which extended $3 billion in letters of credit to Iraq, $800 million of it guaranteed by the Department of Agriculture.
He went on to point out that the United States became Iraq's largest trading partner just a few years ago. As a matter of fact, from 1982 Iraq became one of the biggest buyers of U.S. rice and wheat, purchasing some $5.5 million in crops and livestock. Also he said:
According to 1987 data, the latest available, over 40 per cent of Iraq's food was imported from the United States, and in 1989 Iraq received $1 billion in loan assurances, second only to Mexico. The Reagan and Bush administrations scarcely reacted when Iraq purchased U.S. helicopters and transferred them to military use in violation of promises, used poison gas against Iranian troops and its
own Kurdish citizens, and relocated half a million Kurds and Syrians by force, among other atrocities.
All this went on just a short time ago, but Mr. Hussein was a friend of the United States. Despite those atrocities they supported him, gave him economic development funding and credits, and so on. One might view with some suspicion the principles involved in this action that is going on at the United Nations.
I will repeat once again that we have supported the resolution before this House condemning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. We have asked for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. We have supported the economic sanctions and the military support for those economic sanctions. But we are not going to give the government a blank cheque and we are not giving the United Nations a blank cheque. We want to have input into the United Nations so that it truly does what it was founded to do, which is to preserve peace with the least conflict necessary. That is what we want, and we do not think that the resolution to go to the United Nations tomorrow is acceptable. We do not think the resolution to go to this House is acceptable. We want it amended as we proposed, and then we will support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I go to questions and comments, I believe there is a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is consent for the following motion:
That the following provisions, respecting the conduct of business in the House, be made, notwithstanding any order:
(1)	That today, Wednesday, November 28, 1990, the House continue to sit, to consider Government Business No. 24 (motion respecting the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq), beyond the normal time of adjournment until 1 o'clock a.m. or until no member rises to speak in debate, whichever occurs first, at which time the debate shall be deemed adjourned and the House shall adjourn; provided that no dilatory motions or quorum calls shall be receivable this day; and
(2)	That on Thursday, November 29, 1990, the Speaker shall interrupt Routine Proceedings, if required, at 11.20 o'clock a.m., when the resumed debate will be called on Government Business No. 24, with each of the three recognized parties to have the opportunity for debate as each sees fit, at the conclusion of which time but no later than 12.30 o'clock p.m., the Speaker shall intermpt any proceeding then under way and put forthwith and successively, without further amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of the said business and any amendment thereto, with one 15-minute bell to call in the members, if required, following which recorded division the House shall recess until 2 o'clock p.m., when Statements by Members and Oral Questions shall be called in the usual manner until 3 o'clock p.m. when
November 28, 1990

resumed debate on the report stage of Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, shall be called and continue until 5 o'clock p.m., when such debate shall be adjourned and Private Members' Business and proceedings on the adjournment shall be called in the usual manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?
Motion agreed to


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hon. member for Victoria is rising on a point of order.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, I believe I have unanimous consent to put a further amendment to the motion that is on the floor at this point. The motion would read as follows:
That the motion be further amending by adding the following
words:
"and further, that this House oppose the use of force against Iraq until sanctions and other UN measures have had time to succeed and urges the government to seek amendments to the currently proposed Security Council resolution to that effect".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On the same point, I must say that this is an exception to the rule. There will be two amendments to the main motion, not a subamendment. It is two amendments to the main motion.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, this particular motion was put earlier and unanimous consent was denied. Now, there ought to be some fair play around here. I understand what is happening, the members of Parliament that did not give their consent to this particular resolution are absent from the House at this point in time. So I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to determine whether it is appropriate to bring forward a motion that it was already dealt with by the House.
I would like to also ask you, sir, whether this would, if adopted by the House unanimously, set a precedent. The NDP are asking that the rules be changed in order to accommodate them. The rules quite clearly state that they would not be in a position today to put an amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the hon. member who raises a concern. First, yes, the motion had been put previously but the House can do again by consent whatever it chooses to do. Second, because it is done by consent, it is very clear that it does not establish a precedent or a change in our procedures. They are legitimate questions and I just wanted to speak to those.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The consent is to have two amendments to the main motion.
Questions or comments. I will ask the hon. member for North Island-Powell River for the first question and then go to the hon. member for York South-Weston for the second question or comment.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech, he alluded to something that agrees with my point of view on this and I wonder if he could confirm it.
This motion before the House will be construed by the government as the authority to deploy the Canadian Armed Forces in the Persian Gulf and engage the Iraqis in active warfare if the United Nations declares that that is going to happen. What we are in fact debating today, in the minds of the Prime Minister and the government, is actually a declaration of war, or the equivalent of a declaration of war.
If the United Nations subsequently authorizes force, Canada has already had its debate on that issue in the mind of the government. The House will go forward. There is much talk about adjournment and we will not come back until March. In all probability, we could have become involved in a major war with Iraq in the Middle East by that time.
Consider the vagueness of the United Nations motion. It is a fact that any member nation can use whatever measures it requires. The scale of this war could be enormous and any measure could mean even the use of nuclear weapons, or theatre nuclear weapons, if the costs on the United Nations or United States side were thought too great. The hon. member's point about the vagueness of the government's position and the vagueness of the United Nations motion were well taken.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
Are we, in fact, looking at a declaration of war and will we not get another attempt to debate this? Is the government in fact looking at this as their authority to deploy Canadian troops in a war in Iraq?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the resolution that is before this House today asks us not only to support Security Council Resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions up to this date, but it is asking us to support all subsequent resolutions, including those that may come after this date, including one that will be presented tomorrow to the Security Council.
The government is asking us to support the resolution which will go to the Security Council tomorrow and the draft that I have before me would authorize member states to use all means necessary to implement Security Council Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.
Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, if we were to vote for this government resolution as it stands, we would also be approving the draft resolution to be presented to the Security Council tomorrow which would allow the United States, or any other individual member state of the United Nations, to use all means necessary-I guess it could include nuclear weapons, it is horrible to think about that, but that is what the resolution says; there is no limit on it- to implement the Security Council resolution and all future resolutions, including the restoration of peace and security in the area.
This is virtually giving a carte blanche to the government and to the superpowers at the United Nations. It is not acceptable. It could in fact be a declaration of war.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for York South-Weston, then the hon. member for Athabasca, and the hon. member for Davenport.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, at times I have to pinch myself to determine if what we are doing here in the House of Commons is real, and if this discussion is fully comprehended by the people of Canada.
What we are doing here in the House is debating a resolution that would authorize war, that would authorize the United States and other member states to use
whatever means possible to force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
I do not think Canadians have been sufficiently involved in this debate for the House to take this position tomorrow, when the vote is called. I certainly was not elected to support war, or to support the sending of our troops to fight in battle, anywhere in the world. I certainly was not elected to support American foreign policy that could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. We have to ask ourselves why the United .States and other states are asking for this authority to declare war and, in effect, to attack Iraq or Kuwait.
Let us not lose track of what the situation is. We went to war in the First World War and the Second World War for principles and those principles were democracy and freedom. Those values were important to fight for to ensure that people around the world were free.
What is the principle that the government wants us to fight for today? It wants to risk hundreds of thousands of lives, but for what? It is not freedom and democracy. It is aggression. As the hon. member has pointed out in his speech, there are all kinds of inconsistencies, hypocrisy and double-standards when we talk about this very principle of aggression.
Does the hon. member believe that the circumstances that exist in the Middle East justify war, whether it be today, tomorrow, or at any point in time? In other words, does aggression by a state-whether it be Iraq, the United States or the Soviet Union-justify declaring war? That is the question I would like to put to my friend and colleague.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that this party and I, personally, do not support the aggression of Saddam Hussein. We are totally opposed to that. I tried to make it clear that we condemn that. But we also approve of a means of dealing with it: economic sanctions, supported by military forces, and diplomatic initiatives.
Every expert will tell us that the diplomatic initiatives and the sanctions have not been given enough time. So, in answer to my hon. colleague, this is not the time for war. We must exhaust every possible means to settle this politically, through diplomacy and through economic
November 28, 1990

sanctions, before we consider sacrificing the lives of thousands and thousands of individuals.
I point out to the House that, in the other examples that have happened over the last number of years, we used economic sanctions. Such was the case in South Africa, where we have used economic sanctions for years and have been hoping that they will work. We did not think of a war when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. We condemned them in the United Nations, but we did not suggest a war.
In this case, it suggests that we are moving into a new order because the cold war is over. Good, Mr. Speaker, I want to see this new order, but I do not want it to apply selectively. If it is going to apply here, let us make it universal, and let us make sure that all nations, including the superpowers-the Soviet Union, the United States, France, Britain, and China-will accept for themselves the same sort of regime that they are suggesting to others.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend suggested that this is no time for war. No time is a time for war, and I think we all accept that in the House.
There were accusations of a double-standard when comparing actions that we have taken as a government against Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, and the American invasion of Grenada and Panama, and things like that.
There has been the accusation, in the media and obviously by my friend across the way who just finished speaking, that we are applying a double-standard in the approach to the present crisis in Iraq. That has become a recurring theme in the debate today, this double standard.
Canada has been forthright in its attitude in the Iraqi occupation. The opposition is saying that we did not show the same firmness when faced with other similar breaches. Well, it would be wrong to consider this act of aggression of Iraq against Kuwait in the same way, regardless of their context. Is the hon. member suggesting that all kinds of supposedly similar historical incidents can be brought up to argue that the world is behaving differently toward Iraq? The Canadian position on other issues is very clear, well known, and well justified.
Government Orders
For example, I would if ask Canada's policy with regard to the occupied territories is a matter of record. We have opposed consistently the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel. That is clearly on the record. But to compare the situation of a more powerful nation such as Iraq, heavily armed, unilaterally moving in and taking over another country, to fully occupy that country-not to occupy, restore order, and then move out, but to fully occupy that country-with the atrocities that are going on, to rape and pillage that country, and to announce clearly to the western world that it is going to annex that portion of Kuwait to the country is entirely different.
Does the hon. member not see a difference in the invasion of Grenada to restore order, peace, and government and then move out. It is entirely different. The United States at no point in time ever said that it was going to occupy permanently Grenada. The same thing happened in Panama. To use these, to me, just does not make sense when we hear Hussein in Iraq saying that it is going to occupy Kuwait, period. It is going to happen. It is going to keep the territory and it is going to annex it. It is entirely different.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that. I do see similarities. In the cases of Grenada and Panama, the United States had certain grievances with respect to those governments. Instead of proceeding through the United Nations, it proceeded unilaterally with the use of its own armed forces and violated the principle of international law that every country is a sovereign state.
I am not saying that those countries, such as Panama, should not have been dealt with, but they should have been dealt with by the United Nations and that was not done. The Americans flaunted the resolutions of the United Nations which were similar to the ones that are now directed against Iraq.
If the member wants an example with respect to double standards, I will refer again to the still-existing occupation of East Timor by the Indonesians. We trade and have diplomatic relations with Indonesia. Why are we tolerating this occupation? The reason we tolerate that occupation, overlook it, and bury our heads in the sand, despite the human rights violations, is that there are no energy interests in that country. There are no interests to the United States, such as I pointed out

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
when I referred to the declarations of the State Department in the 1940s and of President Eisenhower.
For years and years, the Americans have considered that the energy resources of the Middle East and of the Arabian Peninsula are of great strategic value to them. Here they act in a different way than they have done with respect to other places. It is not just the United States. It is China in Tibet. It is the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It is Turkey in Cyprus, and so on.
We have turned a blind eye to those things. I am not saying that is right, but if we are going to do this this time, let us be consistent. Let us act on principle and have it apply to everyone in the same way as we are doing now. That will be a new world order and I will support it.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in congratulating the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, I would like to ask him if in his view, the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech this afternoon discharged the onus of demonstrating to the House that there is an urgency and inevitability and that it is absolutely necessary to subscribe in advance to a resolution which is a potential declaration of war through the United Nations?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, he made his case. What the government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was attempting to do was to gain the support of the House for an exceptional measure, a measure which would give the member states of the United Nations all necessary means, including war, to implement the resolutions of the United Nations. That is an exceptional request of the House and the burden of proving it and gaining support for it was with the minister. He did not give us enough evidence to support it. As a matter of fact, he did not deal with the questions that were raised. Most experts think that sanctions, given time, will have an impact on Iraq and will work. If diplomatic initiatives were used with greater imagination, they would work as well. He did not make his case. The burden of proof is with him. This party will not support him in that resolution.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary' Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Security Council of the United Nations again takes up the issue of the events in the gulf. Tonight, we
again debate this very difficult question in the Canadian House of Commons.
We find ourselves these days in a desperate conundrum: committed to peace but constrained to show a willingness to use force to resolve the gulf crisis. I am as uncomfortable with this state of affairs as I think anyone else in our country is. I want peaceful resolutions to international conflicts and would certainly prefer the deliberate process of discussing the reasons for disputes before they turn into something more serious. Yet we are now beyond that point.
Iraq has already attacked its neighbour, Kuwait, and has begun to efface from the earth all evidence of the existence of that small country. The world cannot allow that sort of aggression to go unchecked, or it will invite further aggression and intimidation. All that stands between the collapse of respect for international order and the obliteration of a member state of the United Nations is the will of other member states that this must not happen.
Last week, I met with the new ambassador from Ethiopia to Canada. I asked him what he thought about the situation in the gulf. He pointed out that his country, Ethiopia, was one of the founding members of the League of Nations. He also pointed out that when Mussolini, the head of Italy, bombed, invaded, and occupied Ethiopia, the other members of the league stood by. While they lamented the development, they, in effect, did nothing about it. It is the ambassador's view that Adolf Hitler, watching that unwillingness of the League of Nations to respond to the wholesale occupation of one of the other league members, a charter member become emboldened in the subsequent course of events that unleashed an unspeakable terror in Europe and throughout the rest of the world in the late 1930s as Hitler occupied the Sudetenland, then Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia and the low countries and everything that came in the wake of that.
In this crisis, the United Nations is facing its first real test since the end of the cold war and international law, and order must be upheld. If there was a peace dividend at the end of the east-west conflict, which ran virtually unchecked since 1945, it was the prospect of a more rational approach to the regional conflicts and of a smoother road to their resolution. We now see how fragile and, perhaps even naive, that hope was. Iraq has not only violated the sovereignty of another state, it has breached the human rights of the Kuwaiti people, as a
November 28, 1990

Government Orders
demonstration at the United Nations earlier this week clearly showed. In the process, it has violated the rights of a number of citizens of third countries, including Canadians.
It has caused economic chaos, seriously affecting oil importers in the Third World and their fragile economy, who see oil prices going beyond their reach. As well, in a very real sense, it has upset the prospects of many nations heavily dependent on remittances from workers in Kuwait.
In the interests of buttressing his uncertain position, Saddam Hussein has tried to open up rifts between those opposed to him, cynically attempting to exploit every possibility for division and dissension.
In the face of this, our country has, on the diplomatic front, worked tirelessly since the beginning of this crisis at the United Nations. There we have played an active part in our role as a member of the Security Council and in our contacts with countries around the world.
The 10 resolutions which have been passed to date on the gulf crisis were the result of the careful attention to the concerns of all the members of the Security Council. It was Canada's expressed aim to ensure that maximum agreement would be achieved.
The result was the absolute unanimity of the permanent five on all 10 resolutions and the unanimous support of the entire membership of the council for five of those resolutions.
Canada co-chairs the 661 committee concerned with the monitoring and enforcement of the sanctions.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have had dozens of meetings with other world leaders. We have used Canadian diplomatic resources world-wide to develop and maintain a united international position on the unacceptability of Iraq's invasion.
That is what we have done diplomatically. Militarily, we have sent Canadian forces to the gulf region to deter further aggression and to assist in the enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

Respect of the sanctions has been what one could have expected. The problem is knowing whether they will have the desired effect in the near future.
Imposition and continued application of the sanctions has not been and will not be sufficient per se to compel the government of Iraq to withdraw, if it continues to give a higher priority to its occupation of Kuwait than to restoration of everyday life for its citizens. It must be remembered that over the past few years, Iraqis have become accustomed to certain hardships because of the eight-year war with Iran from 1980 to 1988.
The invasion of Kuwait was a disastrous decision on the part of the government of Iraq. It underestimated the opposition of the international community and did not take into account the new spirit of co-operation between the superpowers. It misjudged the acceptability of such ventures for other Arab countries.
The United Nations showed unparalleled unity in voting a series of resolutions which unequivocally condemned Iraq's initiative. Canada played a major role in obtaining and maintaining that unanimity.
Some wonder why the international community initiated such harsh measures against Iraq when other disputes and inequities persist.
It is because, in the history of the United Nations, this is the first time one member state tries to wipe out and wholly absorb another.
Past errors by the international community cannot be allowed to stand in the way of a solution to this crisis. The remarkable consensus obtained in the face of Iraqi aggression may show how to resolve other disputes. This is why the United Nations came into being. If a positive and unequivocal example can be made in this case, it may facilitate future solutions.
The progressive destruction of Kuwait, the immense costs of maintaining the military build-up in the gulf, the slowness with which the sanctions are apparently making themselves felt, and the isolation of Saddam Hussein from the reality of his situation, have now brought us to the stage where we face the need for further action.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
The isolation of Iraq within the international community is virtually absolute, but Saddam Hussein seems unaware of it or unwilling to admit it. Perhaps he believes his own propaganda, according to which the steady stream of foreign visitors indicates weakness among his opposition.
Every other indication, however, contradicts such a view of his propaganda. For example, the universal acceptance of sanctions is one. Another is Saddam Hussein's condemnation in those forums which were important to him, the United Nations and certainly the Arab League. A third is the fact that the military forces lined up against him across the border in Saudi Arabia include his fellow Islamic and Arab nations. All of these things contradict the Iraqi propaganda line.
Under the old cold war system he could have perhaps counted upon comfort from his eastern allies, but they have all forsaken him. The Soviets, his former chief armourers, have spoken strongly in favour of his withdrawal from the territory that he has militarily seized.
Clearly the time has come to give a further signal about the international solidarity opposing Iraq, an unmistakable signal of the determination to see the invasion so crudely attempted reversed. That is why the United Nations must act again. That is why we must pile resolution upon resolution. That is why there must finally be adopted a resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not respond to the other calls which the international community has issued through the United Nations to date.
The Security Council resolution does not make war inevitable. It authorizes but does not call for the use of force. The resolution gives Saddam Hussein a further chance to remedy the situation by complying further and fully with the Security Council resolutions on the situation. The resolution is a clear signal that a peaceful solution is still possible but Saddam Hussein must understand that the choice is up to him.
Furthermore, there is a disposition to set a deadline to allow a pause of goodwill before which force will not be used-I stress, before which it would not be used-to allow Saddam Hussein every chance to comply fully with United Nations resolutions and to ensure a peaceful solution. Following that pause, for however long the Security Council decides it should be, force becomes an option available to the countries of the coalition with the
full authority of the United Nations. This is a very clear signal to Saddam Hussein about the importance of full compliance with the Security Council resolutions.
We must hope that reason will prevail and that Iraq, faced with the irrefutable evidence of the will of the international community, will at last comply.
I see the positions that Canada has taken in this as the natural extension of the internationalist spirit which animated the foreign policy of our country for the last 30 or 40 years. When the United Nations was created in those dark, final years of the Second World War, it was hoped that a new approach would be possible in international conflicts. Almost without exception, however, international communities saw the regional conflicts resisting treatment in the United Nations because it was neutralized by the division of the UN membership into the blocs, fostered by the cold war.
Now that the old cold war blocs seem to have dissolved, the United Nations again, and in a sense for the first time, has a chance to act in a manner consistent with the intention of those, including Canadians, who framed the UN Charter.
I referred earlier to this gulf situation being a test for the United Nations, and I take this very seriously. Canadian hopes for the maintenance of international security and peace, despite the situation in which we currently find ourselves, have never been higher. I find this when I speak to people around my Etobicoke- Lakeshore constituency, to other members of Parliament and to people who write to me from coast to coast in our country.
Canada's interests lie in the strengthening of the United Nations and in the enhancing of its capacity, through the co-operative action of its members, to act in such circumstances as these. It is not only the fate of Iraq and Kuwait which is at stake, but the global system for the maintenance of peace and security.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member. First of all, I wish to compliment the hon. member; his French was excellent; his message was very interesting and I sense that he shares a feeling of great concern about the well-being of young people, and the potential for war is as abhorrent to him as it is to us or to me. I will put it that way. Certainly none of us wishes to
November 28, 1990

send young people into war, and that would be the last option.
As a member of the Liberal Party, I have been very supportive of all actions taken with respect to support of the United Nations and the Security Council and rejoice in the fact that, for once, the world is starting to stand up and speak with a concerted and joint voice about actions that are abhorrent to all of us. At the same time, I have serious concerns and reservations as I read the resolutions. I really would like some guidance and help from my hon. colleague.
First of all, in the government's business, Motion No. 24, the government intends to direct the vote tomorrow so that we would accept all subsequent resolutions that come out of the United Nations. I have a worry about that. Knowing my hon. colleague, I do not think he buys anything without seeing the contents or knowing the ramifications of the letter he might sign or the endorsement that he might give.
Knowing that about my colleague and seeing this suggestion to support subsequent resolutions, I looked very carefully today at the resolution that the United Nations is suggesting in its draft before the Security Council. That really has concerned and upset me because of what this resolution says, and perhaps the member can clarify. It authorizes member states, co-operating with the government of Kuwait, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.
I ask him: can he define who can authorize this member state? Can any member state take an activity or an action that it deems worthy without going through the United Nations; and, second, who is and what is the area? Is that what the hon. member wants us to sign? I am really concerned.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. I think that the wording is vague enough that it has given rise to several different interpretations. In a situation like this, it is most unfortunate that there would be any ambiguity because the stakes are very high in what we are dealing with.
I am looking at the text as it is printed in today's Order Paper. It reads as follows:
Government Orders
That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.
In other words, I take this, Mr. Speaker, to mean the resolutions that have been passed to date.


Sheila Finestone: Not the resolution for tomorrow.


Patrick Boyer: That is correct. I raised this matter with the senior-most officials of External Affairs and others whom I consider to be knowledgeable, and this is also the interpretation. Therefore, I hope I can allay the hon. member's concerns about this. Certainly I do not feel that we in this House are being asked to, or for that matter ought to be asked to give some kind of blank cheque or to look into a crystal ball as to what subsequent resolutions might be passed at subsequent dates.
What I see this as being is another step in the systematic efforts of the Security Council and the United Nations to take this step by step. We are dealing here in the gulf with an extraordinarily complex and difficult situation which to date has been very well handled. It has been handled very well in great measure because of the comity of nations; the effort of Canada giving leadership to try to have unanimity at all stages and to take it step by step.
I will conclude my answer to the hon. member by saying very directly that as a Canadian and as a parliamentarian, I would not expect that the next stages where Canadians would be sent into a combat situation would be taken without the process being before the Canadian Parliament.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member. I am very surprised at his comments. On this side of the House we feel that this is a declaration of war, that the Prime Minister has deliberately worded this in a vague fashion and in a manner to give approval to subsequent resolutions and to the present one, that is to allow any member state to take whatever action necessary.
The Prime Minister has a track record on this particular issue of authorizing deployment of Canadian military forces without the sanction of Parliament to the Persian Gulf.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
It is our feeling on this side of the House that this is a declaration of war or the government will interpret it as the right and sanction of Parliament to have this. Parliament will adjourn. There is a lot of discussion that it will not come back until March. It is also our feeling that this is Parliament's last opportunity to debate this issue. We are debating an extremely vague motion.
I would say that anyone in the House who expresses the concerns that the member has, along with the vague resolution, should be voting with us against that resolution because I think your Prime Minister is going to betray you on it.
In the bottom line, if we are right, how many Canadians will be killed? What will be the casualty over there if they engage their Iraqi army, along with the Americans?
The other thing is how many Iraqis will be killed by the multinational force? There will be hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured in this.
In the final analysis, the sad tragedy of this is that blockade will work. It will take time to work. It may not suit the United States and its belligerent war-like effort there, but certainly those sanctions will work if they are given a chance. We ought to be working ourselves as hard as we can to impose those sanctions so that the Iraqis leave Kuwait peacefully, and then sort out the remainder.
There is no way Canadian Armed Forces should be deployed over there when we have a safer, much better and more effective opportunity to use those sanctions to achieve the ends without killing anybody.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing a lot of crystal ball gazing not only as to when Parliament will be rising or being recalled, and all of that-which is quite an uncertain thing-not taking into account the ability to be recalled to his casualty statistics for what may or what may never happen.


Raymond John Skelly: But it may
happen.


Patrick Boyer: He is saying that it may happen.


Raymond John Skelly: You said it may happen.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks on which the hon. member is making his comments, I was very deliberate and very clear about the sequence of events that are possible.
I talked about the time deadline that is going to be included in this resolution and the opportunity that that gives again to Saddam Hussein to recognize what he is up against and the seriousness to the whole international community of what he has done.
I think there is a tendency to sort of obscure the sincere efforts of a lot of people around the world to try to deal with this situation in a way that can contain it and preserve peace. As time goes by and the annexation of Kuwait continues month after month, there will come a point where it is de facto part of Iraq, and the world community will be standing there not having succeeded in what, since the day of the invasion, has been an almost unanimous view of the international community.
I know that the hon. member and the leader of his party have said that they view this as a declaration of war.
This interpretation is more of a statement than I would certainly be prepared to make. On the other hand, that interpretation by the New Democratic Party of Canada may certainly help to contribute to the psychological warfare that is necessary at this stage against Saddam Hussein to try to break through to him some realization that, in this century after all the wars and killings because of all the invasions and annexations, finally the United Nations has got an opportunity to say: "International law and order cannot tolerate the armed annexation of neighbouring countries."


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad-I mean it-to have a chance to speak on this subject. It has meant a lot to me for most of my life.
When I was a boy, I heard the effective beginning for us of World War II in church one Sunday morning, that is that Britain had declared war on Germany. I know that was not the first event, but that was what brought it home to Canadians.
It is not by coincidence that since then this has, for me, been not only a political question but a religious one.
November 28, 1990

On the religious side, I will in this forum simply say that I believe the world was made good, meant to be enjoyed by all and that there are troubles in it. The intention of our Creator is not to wipe us out, even through our own act but to cure what is wrong. That is the basic point of view from which I look at today's debate.
When I look at the government's motion, I feel that it is defective in the sense that we say we support the United Nations and its effort to ensure compliance with the Security Council resolution 660, and subsequent resolutions, with the ambiguity that is loaded into that word "subsequent"-which the Prime Minister refused yesterday or today to make any effort to clarify. If this is not a declaration of war, it is far too close to one. There is too much emphasis on punishment and on destruction.
The reason I prefer the resolution that the NDP supports is that it emphasizes more fully, and I think more realistically, the possibility of change for the better. We oppose the use of force against Iraq until sanctions have had the opportunity to work. We urge the government to seek an amendment to the Security Council resolution requiring member states to give sanctions and other UN efforts time to work and call on the government not to send Canadian Forces into military action beyond the current enforcement of UN sanctions without further approval from this House. The hon. member who just spoke feels sure there will be an occasion for that, but we want it to be laid down clearly because last summer we were denied that very right and responsibility.
In fact the position I am taking and that our party is taking is consistent with the position of the United Nations Association in its testimony before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on November 6 when it said:
Let us be quite clear about this. The harsh economic sanctions which have been imposed on Iraq have not had time to produce results and there are other measures that could be taken before resorting to force. It may be useful to recall that even during the worst moments of its war against Iran, Iraq was still able to continue its oil exports. Under the current UN sanctions, this is not the case.
Others have gone into that question more fully and I do not intend to repeat most of what they have said. It seems to me that at this time and in the foreseeable
Government Orders
future, in the coming months, war, which is envisaged in the resolution of the Prime Minister, would be premature. It would be too harsh both to our foe-and Saddam is our foe; there is no question-and to ourselves. He has broken the law. If he has a complaint, which is quite possible, he should have taken it to the United Nations with some patience, rather than unleashing the beginning of what could be an unimaginably wide war.
If we join as war makers in that, the damage to our enemy, to ourselves, and to many others who may not even be party to it, is beyond our ability to measure and contain at this time.
I was willing in the 1940s, in World War II, to volunteer for the Canadian forces because I thought there was no other way, as far as I could see, to do what was necessary. Some of my acquaintances were conscientious objectors. I did not see their view as mine. I was willing. I have not changed my view on that occasion. In principle I believe that should still in the present situation be a possibility in some cases. I have sons and daughters of an age where they must consider this same question. I know they would think responsibly on this occasion and on others like it.
On this occasion I think it is too soon, both too soon in the case of Iraq and too soon following on these other examples that have been mentioned: the invasion of East Timor, tolerated; the U.S. invasion of Vietnam and its years of war there; the U.S. action in overthrowing the elected Government of Guatemala, the elected Government of Chile, and the elected Prime Minister of Iran; the invasion by the U.S.S.R. of Afghanistan; China's invasion of Vietnam; and France's hard-hearted continuation of testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific, poisoning the land and the ocean.
These are all members of the United Nations, most of them members of the Security Council, that is to say of the big five, the permanent members. I do not think the record shows that these members are to be trusted with the blank cheque that is in the motion before the United Nations tomorrow, which the Prime Minister has asked us to endorse. Especially they are not to be trusted when oil is one of the major concerns. That is not only my opinion. That has been stated by many others much closer to the responsibility. That is the trouble with the government's motion.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
There was no call to Parliament in August. It gives us no confidence that Parliament will be called again unless it is absolutely, clearly guaranteed now before war.
There was no wait for the United Nations decision. When the ships were sent, it was in consultation with President Bush and with NATO officials in Brussels, with General Verner who had said that perhaps now that there is no danger from the Soviet Union we should use our armies in other parts of the world to protect our oil. In other words, oil was a major element in the NATO backed decision of Canada to send those ships to the Middle East.
Now sanctions have been agreed in the UN, but the present UN motion is flawed as has been pointed out. It gives unlimited rein to member states with no UN command, no definition of the goals, no one responsible for defining the goals to tell one country or another it is time to stop: "We won. Don't go on fighting". Every country just does what it thinks best.
However, I am encouraged by some of the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon. I am very glad that he made his visit to the Middle East. I do not agree with everything that the newspapers attribute to him there, but that is a common problem we all have. I took note of some of the things I heard him say today. He mentioned that, rather than an extreme of punishment to Saddam or Iraq, he finds in the region a willingness to live with Iraq. He goes on to say if Iraq has complaints against Kuwait, there is the United Nations in which to take them up.
He also mentioned the possibility of an Arab force likely for the future defence of Kuwait and that there could be further attempts to resolve regional problems such as the Arab-Israeli dispute, in which he said there is a new sense of urgency to resolve it, or words very close to that.
I commend the minister for raising that point. It is a very delicate, difficult point to raise. I think it is necessary to raise it whether we agree or not with the argument that the Arab-Israeli dispute cannot be dealt with at the same time as the Iraq dispute. At least he said that it has to be done in that context or in the aftermath. I am much encouraged by the fact that he reports helpful conversations with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and
that he takes this occasion to reiterate that arms control must come to that region.
I am encouraged by those remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I take them as ground for listening carefully to the many people who have told us, including the minister, that there is evidence that the sanctions are working and therefore ground for giving them time.
I want to state three reasons why I believe we should not only rely on sanctions but avoid, as long as we honestly can, the declaration of war or the ordering of a military attack on Kuwait. One reason is that we have for
1,000	years, give or take a century or so, had hostility between the nations and cultures of Europe, the nations and cultures of North Africa and the Middle East, and now south central Asia, even east Asia.
Roughly speaking, it was the Christians against the Muslims. In school I thought that was old history. Now I find it is very present history with us. It never really ended. Perhaps what has ended is the European expansion into the rest of the countries of the world. That may be giving us some heart searching. Certainly there has been manipulation by European countries and by the United States of the oil that is so plentiful in the Middle East. That attitude seems to be that it is our oil.
The Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 thought that it was oil belonging to the Iranian people. He wanted to raise the price, and the United States arranged to have him overthrown. There has been no stability nor democracy in that country from 1953 until now. It is very unfortunate that the United States preferred to introduce a tyrant, the Shaw, in order to get cheap oil.
For us now to send an armada against Iraq may very well detonate a war that would spread much wider than Iraq. We know that there is sympathy with Iraq among some of the people even in some of the countries whose governments are officially allied with us or have sent troops. There is a possibility of a very widespread war, if we seem to be just renewing what was undertaken 1,000 years ago in the Crusades. We have to be very cautious on that account.
I would like to refer to the minister's remarks, quoted Tuesday in The Globe and Mail'. "The Palestinian question must be dealt with as part of the process of dealing
November 28, 1990

with the after-effects of dealing with this gulf crisis". I hope that will be kept in mind.
If a full-scale war breaks out, what will happen to Palestine, either to the Israelis there or to the Palestinians. I do not think they will be in as good shape after that war as they are now. I do not think the bitterness that has made it impossible to resolve the partitioning of that land will be any less after a war that we might start with Iraq.
Second, it is reliably reported that there are 500 nuclear explosive devices or nuclear bombs in the gulf area. Most of them are on American vessels and some of them are on the vessels of other allies.
The question is: Why are they there? If our allies do not mean to use them, why have them there? If we do mean to use them, when, on what occasion, for what purpose, and how many? Five hundred nukes? How many are we going to detonate under the phrase given by the United Nations: "use any means necessary."
I remember at the beginning of World War n when Hitler experimented with carpet bombing with stuka bombers, wiping out the civilians in the cities and towns of Poland. President Roosevelt said: "No civilized nation could possibly do a thing like that." It wasn't many years before Britain fire bombed scores of thousands of civilians in the centre of Dresden, until the United States atom bombed scores of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and again at Nagasaki. We should not assume that those nukes will not be used. Those are just two nuclear bombs. With 500, it could not wipe out just Iraq. It could perhaps wipe out the world or the human part of the world and perhaps all living parts of it.
We are not ready for a controlled war, as seems to be offered to us. We have no guarantee, no reason to think it would be controlled.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe another reason why we should hold off from pushing to the possibility or probability of war tomorrow is because even in the United States and in other allied countries, there is growing unease about the ramifications, about the uncontrolled possibilities of ordering an attack on Iraq, which seems to be the issue. I have a statement here quoted in a small paper that I picked up in Kingston
Government Orders
recently, Between the Lines, from one U.S. marine corporal, Eric Larson. He says:
On April 21, 1986 I joined the Marine Corp to defend the American dream, which first attracted my parents to this country in 1958. I emerged from boot camp three months later, a fully indoctrinated fighting machine willing to go anywhere in the world to defend the ideals and freedoms stated in the Constitution of the United States of America.
I will not read his whole statement, but he says further down that after further consideration:
I realized 1 could no longer blindly follow orders from my Commander-in-Chief but that my actions were ultimately accountable to a higher authority- namely God.
My deeply rooted moral convictions have lead me to declare my objection to the escalation of tensions and seemingly inevitable war in the Middle East.
And further down:
I declare myself a conscientious objector. I am no longer a Marine.
Mr. Speaker, there are anti-war demonstrations developing across the United States in many cities. They are anti war demonstrations in many cities of Europe. Recently French dockers refused to load certain ships that would be carrying war materials to the Middle East. It is not only demonstrators in the streets. I was amazed to read the transcript of the interview a few days ago or a week ago perhaps between Barbara Frum and Dr. Brzesinski, a former adviser to President Jimmy Carter and one generally considered to be a hawk. He says:
And while I abhor the occupation of Kuwait, I also abhor the occupation of Cambodia by Vietnam or Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, or Lebanon by Syria, but I'm not prepared to advocate a war in every case and I do not see any overriding American national interest in America having to undertake a very risky and very costly military operation in the place of sanctions being applied against Iraq and which are punishing Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, this and the demonstrations in the cities of Europe and in the cities of Canada are only beginning as an opposition to the war. Therefore, I want to reiterate the position of my party.
There should be no attack now or in the foreseeable future. We should concentrate on making sanctions work. Some people have referred to the 1930s, to Ethiopia, to Spain and so on and what happened when we allowed Hitler and Mussolini to go unchecked. That is not the situation that we have. United States, France and Britain refused to impose sanctions on Franco when he was overthrowing the lawful government of his country. They refused to do anything to stop Hitler and

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
Mussolini from sending troops to support Franco in the overthrow of the lawful government. That made World War II inevitable.
We now have an almost total world-wide agreement on sanctions against Iraq. We have a much stronger organization to guide it than was the old League of Nations. I believe that it is our moral duty to see to it that we make those sanctions and other political means work and make war unnecessary now. The old slogan of "a war to end war" was made out of date by the bombing of Hiroshima.


Benno Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with interest and some shock and amazement at what the New Democratic Party is saying here today.
One of the advantages of a debate like this is that people have to stand up and be counted. They have to be counted for some kind of consistency in their policy.
For years, we have listened to members of the New Democratic Party say: "Canada should work with the United Nations. Canada is a part of the United Nations. When we act, we should act in concert with all of the other countries. Canada should not go it alone". Today, we hear the spokesman for the New Democratic Party say: "It is time for the government to act independently of the United Nations". I could not believe what I was hearing. I could not believe it. For all these years we are supposed to work together and now is the time to act independently.
I think the message is clear. It certainly is clear to the House. I am sure it is clear across Canada, and I am sure it is clear among our allies, never count on these people for friends. They say they are friends when the times are good, but when the times are tough, they say: "Please, do not call on us". Then, the time is not now, no. We have to wait a while, you see.
Second, for years we have been listening to these people say: "Help the oppressed. You have got to help the oppressed, those who are hurting". Now, we hear reports about people being killed in Kuwait, hostages in Iraq, women being raped, and children being thrown out of incubators, and these people say: "Oh, the time is not now". No. The Soviets have 3,000 hostages there, the U.S. has so many, Canada has some, but the time is not
now. Presumably, not enough people have died yet. I wonder what it is that makes these people tick. We hear their friends from the Peace Coalition say: "Canada and its leadership are warmongers".
Here is Saddam Hussein, with his tanks poised on the Saudi Arabian border, with a million troops in arms, who has obliterated the boundary of another nation, and Canada is the warmonger? Give me a break. How come the tables have all of a sudden turned?
I know this member believes in peace. Does he believe in peace at the cost of freedom? Which is more important? If he believes in peace more, would he have the freedom to stand here and say what he says today?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a misunderstanding in the beginning on the part of the hon. member. As I understand it, what my colleague, the member for Victoria said, was not that Canada should act independently of the United Nations, but independently at the United Nations. I invite my hon. colleague to check that in yesterday's Hansard. In other words, independently of the United States, which would be very desirable. I fully stand by that and the NDP always has.
On the second point, about oppression, there are oppressions sometimes where we can do something immediately and there are others where we cannot. When the United states massacred more than 3,000 civilians in Panama, Canada's government did not even attempt to do anything about it. Let us not just talk in a vague generality about oppressors.
Finally, on the question of peace or freedom, I believe freedom is essential to peace and peace is essential to freedom. We do not have any of them perfectly, but I do not believe we are going to make either more peace or more freedom with 500 nuclear bombs in the Persian Gulf.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of remarks that my hon. colleague from Trinity-Spadina might comment upon. He has just finished with what I think was a very nice statement, and I want to compliment him on it.
What the government is doing by requesting approval for this motion is, in essence, a whitewash, a blank cheque to go ahead and engage the country in war without coming to Parliament to ask for the opportunity to go in. The parliamentary secretary, who has already indicated that he is unaware of exactly what the ramifica
November 28, 1990

tions of the resolution are, is going to go back and try to figure it out with his department. That is fair. I am not calling into question his motives and his understandings, but there is a problem.
This House has a right to know what is on the government's agenda when it is going to ask Canadians to support its initiatives that are absolutely war-like.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has already, in all of his declarations, indicated that, as far as he is concerned, Canada is headed toward war. The presence that will soon be 400,000 American troops accompanied by 2,000 tanks, four aircraft carriers and the addition of other troops indicates that that is where we are going.
The Minister says that we are moving from peacekeeping to peacemaking. In other words, we are going to go from conflict co-operation to conflict resolution. That indicates that the government has in mind a policeman's role in the area. If the government is that willing to go forward, then will it come before the House and say: "We want to preserve peace, and here is our agenda?"
Has the member for Trinity-Spadina been given any indication from the government side, since it is so prone to looking at the examples of the 1930s and early 1940s, and even as far as 1950 and 1951, that the government is doing what the many governments of the western democracies were doing before the end of World War II at Quebec City, at Casablanca, at Yalta, with the Marshall Plan that emerged, and with McArthur plans for Japan, when they were beginning to reconsider a reorientation of the societies that were going to come after the war?
In other words, the government is making such hay in saying: "We want the opportunity to blow everybody up, because what we want to do is to ensure peace". Has it got a plan where it is going to plan for peace? What is that plan for peace? Have we been given any indication? Are we likely to get any indication from that?
Is the hon. member aware of any indication from the minister or the government that says that this motion is going to lead us in the direction where we are going to be talking about the way we establish and maintain peace in
Government Orders
an area where we have already destabilized an integral and strategic part of the world?


Patrick Boyer: We have stabilized.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: The parliamentary secretary is confused about what the resolution calls for, and he is unaware of what is going on. If he would like to answer the question for the member for Trinity-Spadina, let him do it. Maybe the hon. member could advise him as well on how to go toward peace.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make a very brief answer to the hon. member.
Until today, I had not heard any sign of the willingness that the hon. member speaks of. But today, I thought I heard two signs. The remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which I referred to, and some of the remarks of the hon. parliamentary secretary suggest to me that the reason that the word "subsequent" is so adamantly maintained-in a totally ambiguous sense in what the parliamentary secretary seemed to say, unfortunately-suggests to me that there is serious division in the ranks of the government party.
I hope that the letters that are beginning to come in to me and to others, and the public demonstrations that are going to be heard from, will press the government ranks and the back-benchers of the Conservative Party to re-examine that word and to press for a meeting of Parliament to settle this matter clearly, instead of ambiguously.
It is only a hope, but I said I believe the world was made good, and we should hope for change for the better. The signs are very small, and I will be watching carefully for more. In the meantime, the sign that would make it work would be for the government to adopt the amendment that has been put forward by the NDP.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, as we debate this motion tonight, the world finds itself intricately wrapped in a very serious international crisis. The stage for this crisis was set on August 2, 1990, the day that Iraq blatantly, ignoring international law, invaded its unsuspecting neighbour, Kuwait. Consequently, Canada, along with numerous other nations, finds itself facing the

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
difficult question of whether to use other means beyond the economic sanctions which are already in place.
No one wants war, but Iraq started a war with the brutal and merciless invasion of Kuwait. No one wants war, but Iraq's continued attempt to eliminate the identity and very existence of a member state of the United Nations cannot be ignored. No one wants war, but Iraq must clearly understand the firmness of international resolve. That is the reason why the Security Council will be adopting a further resolution tomorrow and why this House should support the resolution before it tonight.
The Persian Gulf is in conflict tonight. There can be no denying of this fact. Not only has Iraq acted belligerently toward Kuwait, it has since held captive third country nationals as hostage, contrary to the principles of the United Nations.
Bernard Wood of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security stated the following in an External Affairs and International Trade committee meeting:
First of all, let us be clear, there is a war in the Persian Gulf right now. There is an aggression that has taken place, and it has not been rolled back. Saddam Hussein declared and acted in an active war and it has not been resolved. It is therefore not the burden of the international community at this stage to say that we are the ones who are advocating war. What is at stake? I think it is important to choose our terms carefully in this regard. We are talking about enforcement action of international peace and security under the terms of the Charter.
Therefore, can we, as a peace-keeping nation, stand idly by as another nation, fully aware of the United Nation's charter, in fact a member of the United Nations itself, rapes and pillages another member country? Our collective conscience should answer that question.
Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies recently stated to the External Affairs' standing committee:
Canada and Canadians have always been ready to respond appropriately-and may I say more quickly than some of our allies in this century-to calls for contributions to the preservation and defence of international peace, security and stability. In the case of the gulf crisis we have done it again.
Ought we always and ever, without fail, stand aside in the face of clear calls for action? Of course not. Are we only right when we disagree with the United States? No, not at all. Are we wrong when
we agree with the United Nations Security Council? No, we not. Are we wrong when we join some 30 other countries in a multinational military effort to deter aggression? Of course not.
Mr. Speaker, later in that same meeting of the External Affairs committee, Mr. Alex Morrison went on to state the following:
I think it is a very great misperception and it is wrong for Canadians to assume and conclude that Canada acts only under pressure or persuasion by the United States. I have had some experience in this during my six years as a member of the Canadian mission to the United Nations, and I can say that this is not the truth.
It is, however, the truth per se that the opinion of the United States, our greatest ally, certainly is a factor in the determination and in the formulation of Canadian foreign policy. But, as has been said, we were active in 1914, not three years later.
As were the Americans.
We were active in 1939, not two years later.
As were the Americans.
Let us remember that Iraq did not simply pop into Kuwait only for a drink and a friendly discussion. They invaded the country with decisive military force and since that time have systematically attempted to wipe out all traces of Kuwait and its people.
We are talking about a Stalinesque effort to remove all traces of a legitimately constituted nation and its population. Iraq has made no attempt to explain or justify its brutal acts, other than to offer the flimsiest of historical claims to Kuwait. Not satisfied with encouraging the flight of hundreds of thousands of people into the desert from Kuwait on August 2, Iraqi occupation forces have conducted a campaign of terror against those who have remained.
Yesterday at the United Nations some survivors of the ongoing Iraqi atrocities gave stirring accounts of the condition of their homeland and its remaining people. The Iraqis have spared no one from the suffering, the young as well as the old.
I firmly believe that the fundamental issue in this crisis is morality in international behaviour. Consequently, it is Canada's international responsibility to ensure that nations adhere to and fully respect international law. Without this consensus, the world would be captive to every despot's whims and wishes. We must re-establish international order. Without it, as history has clearly shown, chaos and then war are inevitable.
November 28, 1990

As the Prime Minister stated on August 10 of this year:
The international community must do everything possible to ensure the respect of international law and to prevent its transgression. The lessons of history are clear-no civilized nation is excused from its broader responsibilities to the world community for international peace and order.
Since its inception, the United Nations, was designed to be the primary conduit of action on the international stage. Ever since 1945, the United Nations has sought to uphold international law and order. Unfortunately, from 1945 to as recently as this past summer, the cold war prevented any solidarity by the United Nations. Now, however, and in fact beginning with this crisis, for the first time the United Nations is working as it was originally designed. Since 1945, few other nations have worked as loyally and as diligently within the United Nations as Canada.
Since August 2, the United Nations Security Council has passed no less than 10 resolutions pertaining to the Persian Gulf crisis. Contrary to popular belief, propagated by some in the media and some in the socialist party on the other side, it is the world community and not simply the United States, that has acted quickly and decisively in response to this crisis. The UN Security Council resolution 660, which Canada, under the leadership of Ambassador Yves Fortier co-sponsored, states: "Determined that a breach of international peace and security had taken place, and therefore condemned the Iraqi invasion, demanded its withdrawal from Kuwait and called upon Iraq and Kuwait to negotiate".
Clearly it has been the world community, under the auspices of the United Nations, that has stood up to Iraq. Let us not be misled into thinking that we have blindly and naively followed just the United States into the crisis; we have not.
Again, Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies has said:
We (Canadians) act differently from the Americans in many ways. We have a different South African policy, a different Cuban policy, a different Middle East policy, a different Central American policy. At the United Nations, where I was part of the delegation for six years and a member of the Security Council delegation, Canada voted differently from the Americans on international security and arms control issues 66 per cent to 75 per cent of the time each year.
Government Orders
This situation is no different. Canada, in fact, has played an instrumental role at the Security Council. In fact, nine out of the 10 resolutions have been co-sponsored by Canada. Additionally, according to a New York Times article, of August 30, 1990, at a time when the Americans were considering acting alone with naval interdictions of Iraqui commerce at sea, Canada's United Nation's representative, Yves Fortier argued, and I quote from The New York Times article:
- that the Security Council should instead take a step-by-step approach under the Charter's Article 42, which provides for blockades and other military actions but only with explicit Security Council approval.
Subsequent actions by the Americans attest to the strength of the Canadian argument.
Nevertheless, there can be no denying the importance of the leadership that the United States has provided in this crisis. Acceptance of their responsibilities as a world power may even have prevented greater international repercussions and perhaps forestalled any expanded attack by Iraq on the oil lines in Saudi Arabia itself.
Mr. Speaker, what has led to the impression that Canada is subservient to the Americans? The question is deeply disturbing to me and, I am sure, many other members of this House. Obviously, our role at the United Nations has been overlooked by our own media. How else can we explain the lack of media coverage of the positive actions of Yves Fortier at the United Nations?


An hon. member:: There is no positive action.


John Henry Reimer: I am not alone in my concern. Dr. John Sigler, political scientist at Carleton University in Ottawa, in response to a question at the external affairs and international trade committee meeting, stated-and I invite my socialist friends to do a little listening for a change. Instead of talking from the seat of their pants, why do they not listen and then speak a little more in informed debate. Dr. Sigler said:
We do not have someone, as far as I know, in the Canadian media who is an expert on the United Nations, who sits there and systematically has told the story of what has happened. We have all read The New York Times. The French do a much better job.
And then Dr. John Sigler went on to say, and I quote:
I only learned, frankly, that Fortier had strongly stood up to the Americans on the blockade from (the) cable news network from Atlanta. I never saw any of it here. There was quite a story there about the fact that Canada, France, and the Soviet Union had taken a strong

Government Orders
lead in criticizing the United States for moving unilaterally. I do not think I can find that story back in the Canadian media.
Mr. Speaker, nor could any of us. Tragically, our media was not even there to inform us. EIow could it be that a country, with membership on the Security Council of the United Nations, would not have media representation at such an important juncture in our history? Is our media provincial, only concentrating on pasta demonstrations, or is it a reluctance to report the truth when it goes against the chosen political philosophies of some in the media?


An hon. member:: Shame on you.


John Henry Reimer: Surely this must be remedied.
Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with tonight, implicitly at least, is the United Nations Security Council resolution that will come to a vote tomorrow. For the record, let me read into Hansard section 2 of the draft resolution which will be voted on tomorrow at the Security Council:
2. Authorizes Member States cooperating with the Government of
Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before January 1,-
-or the 15th, which will be decided tomorrow-
1991 fully implements, as set forth in Paragraph 1 above, the foregoing Resolutions, to use all necessaiy means to uphold and implement the Security Council Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant Resolutions and to restore internalional peace and security in the area;
Accordingly, as I have already mentioned, the Security Council passed, unanimously I might add, resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions, including 661 which imposed strict economic sanctions against Iraq in accordance with article 39 and 41 of the UN Charter.
I would also like to quote from article 42 of the United Nations Charter which states:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate, or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary' to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockades, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of members of the United Nations.
It is important to note that article 42 should only be implemented after the economic sanctions of article 41 have been tried. That is exactly what resolution 661 did.
The resolution that will be presented to the Security Council tomorrow reiterates article 42, chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. Additionally, a majority of member nations on the Security Council have committed themselves to supporting this motion. The Soviets will support it. The French will support it. The British will support it. The Finns will support it. The Americans will support it. So, too, should the Canadians.
Support for the motion before us tonight is a vote for peace and security, not war. It is a vote for international law and order. It is a vote against Saddam Hussein and his armed forces. It is a vote for Canadians still trapped in Iraq. A vote for this resolution before the House and that of the one before the Security Council of the United Nations builds in a pause of goodwill. This pause offers one more opportunity for Iraq to withdraw. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a vote for the resolution to the Persian Gulf conflict.
It places the entire conflict back into the hands of Saddam Hussein and it is his decision whether it should be resolved peacefully or by other means.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the member and his party are supporting a resolution that would in effect give the UN resolution if passed tomorrow, and there is no doubt that it will pass, authority to the Americans and other member states to use whatever means necessary, whatever type of force necessary, in order to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
In effect, he is saying that this Parliament should support a declaration of war, not as a defensive means, but as a way of removing an aggressor from Kuwait.
I believe that it is important that the member ask himself what precedent is being set here. It is important for Canadians to understand the circumstances which that member across the way and others are suggesting exist to warrant the declaration of war and the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
November 28, 1990

We know what the principles were in the first and second wars. We know why the Americans were in Vietnam. We know why they lost. We know why 57,000 Americans lives were lost. A lot of people regret the fact that the Americans went into Vietnam. But what exactly is the principle? What are we trying to defend here by allowing the Americans and others to go to war? Why are we asking Canadian men and women in the Armed Forces to put their lives at risk, to remove an aggressor from Kuwait? What kind of precedent do we have?
That is my question to the member. What kind of precedent will be set here if that is the reason why we would allow member states of the United Nations to declare war or to go to war? Would it mean that in the future, it would be acceptable if the Americans were to invade Panama or another similar country? Would the precedent be set today to allow the Soviet Union or another country to declare war on the Americans?
If we were to have another regime similar to the South African regime that supported and endorsed the system of apartheid, would that be enough? Would that be sufficient reason to allow the declaration of war? I think not. War is brutal. It is ugly. It is hideous. It is the mark of madness to support war. Frankly, I am concerned about the direction this House and the world is going with respect to this particular set of circumstances in the Middle East.
I would like to ask the member: What type of precedent will be set if this particular resolution is passed in the House and at the United Nations?


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, there is one point on which I can totally agree with the hon member and that is when he said: "War is brutal. It is ugly. It is hideous". There I totally agree with him. There is no question about that, and no one wants it. We are both saying the same thing.
He went on to ask what precedent was being set. He wanted to know what we were engaging in by putting this motion tonight, and then the Security Council approving the motion before the United Nations tomorrow. Was it a declaration of war.
No, it is not a declaration of war. I have read the resolution. It says that that it will authorize member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, that unless Iraq on or before January 1 or the 15, to be resolved tomorrow, fully implements resolution 660 and all the other 10 resolutions. Then it authorizes them to
Government Orders
"use all necessary means to uphold and to implement the Security Council resolution 660".
The member said the only definition or interpretation he places on that is a declaration of war. That is the only one he places on that.
What it also does is send a clear signal to the Government of Iraq: "Look, we are giving you a pause of goodwill. Seize it. You can solve this problem. After all, you started it". The United Nations is saying to Saddam Hussein: "You decided in a classic case of aggression to aggress upon your unsuspecting neighbour. You did that. Now we are saying to you, for six months we will have had economic sanctions and you have not withdrawn".
Then we are saying we are now authorizing all of the member states of which there are many, not just the United States-and we are just one of over 26 others-to use all the necessary means to uphold and to implement the Security Council resolution 660. That is what it says. So, what is the principle? What is the fundamental issue at stake? Well, as I said in my comments, in my opinion the fundamental issue in the Persian Gulf is morality and international behaviour. Iraq broke it. The UN has now put in economic sanctions. The UN is now saying: "Here is another period of time. Think seriously about it because the consequences are severe". That is what we are saying.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the deliberate vagueness of this motion and the motion before the United Nations can only lead a person to conclude that this will authorize this Prime Minister to engage the Canadian Armed Forces against Iraq. I am convinced of that. I am convinced most Canadians believe that will happen. We are tonight dealing with a declaration of war.
I challenge the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley to debate this issue in any place in British Columbia that he chooses. They will stone him off the platform, if he has the guts to take up that challenge.
I am also convinced of how serious this is and how deceptive the Prime Minister is, that people in Canada will have to go into the streets in order to stop Canadian Armed Forces from engaging in a military action in Iraq. That is how concerned I am. That is how concerned people in the opposition are that there will be a betrayal

Government Orders
by this Prime Minister. He will use the Canadian Armed Forces in Iraq and he will use them without any further consent from this House of Commons. Fourteen per cent of the people in this country support this government. Everyone else holds them in nothing but contempt. It is earned contempt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I don't know whether there is a question there. That was a comment.
I think I will allow the hon. member a short rebuttal.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, just a very brief response. I am amazed at how our socialist friends can always find the right statistic to quote and all the right ones to ignore. When it comes to this issue, he uses the one statistic that is in his favour. What about looking at another that we saw on the CBC news last night, if we watched the CBC national news. It said that if we were working in concert with the United Nations, as we have from day one, then 67 per cent of Canadians support that decision. Why did he not quote that 67 per cent instead of selectively looking at one other statistic that has nothing to do with the issue before us tonight?


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have sat in the Chamber all day and listened to the various comments made, and I trust the public is being instructed in precisely what is happening here. It may be difficult because I must confess to a certain amount of confusion myself as to what the points are that have been made without belittling or denigrating any of my colleagues. There are a number of issues that are under consideration here.
What I would like to do in the next 20 minutes or so is to just look at where we are now, what we have all approved in this Parliament of Canada, what it is we are debating here today, my position, some of the reasons I take that position, the position that my party has taken, and then I would like to cast ahead a little bit to the future.
Without reading the motion to which we agreed and was passed in the House, this is the point at which we are now, that this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, that it demand the immediate unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and that it affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's action in the Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2. This was at a point in time when that automatically included resolutions 660, 661, 663, and 664. I want to talk a little later about those resolutions.
We went on to say: "and for the sending of members, vessels and aircraft of the Canadian Forces to participate in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula, and in recognition of the seriousness of this matter, accept the undertaking of the government to present a further resolution to this House in the event of the outbreak of hostilities involving Canadian forces in and around the Arabian Peninsula."
I am not sure right now whether that is the debate that is going on. I do not believe it is. I believe there has been a disclaimer that that is the debate that is going on.
Let me move on now to what I believe we are discussing. I think there are three things before us today. There is the motion that has been put forward by the government, as amended by the Liberal Party and as further amended by the NDP. There is the United Nations resolution to which that motion refers, and that has been discussed here today. Then there is an unspoken thing that we are really thinking about, but we do not really know how to describe it because we are predicting the future. The only thing right about predicting the future is that you will probably be wrong.
We are looking at what happens after. After what? The way I see things with the positioning of forces that we have in the Persian Gulf now, with 26 nations, we are looking at 500,000 men and women, 115 ships and 1,600 aircraft. It is a large force, and it is there for what reason? I think the objective is Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, to begin with, but I think the follow-on is important: with enough effective constraints being placed upon it so that it will not menace its neighbours again. I think that is the ultimate objective.
I am sure the government has asked itself questions about where we go from here, if indeed through the numbers that the government has this resolution is approved and is subsequently approved by the Security Council. I would like to have some indication of how our force is going to be used. Is it going to continue in the interdiction blockade role? Are we going to take more participatory action? Are we going to stay longer when Hussein gets out of Kuwait? Surely it has to end either
November 28, 1990

by peaceful means or by other means with Saddam Hussein getting out of Kuwait.
I do not know the answers to those questions, but those are questions that are called up by the motion put forward by the government and by the resolution that will be put forward and discussed in the United Nations tomorrow.
My party has rejected the motion put forward by the government for a very simple reason as discussed by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. It is because we are giving a blank cheque for subsequent resolutions of the United Nations. We have always supported the United Nations. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my party has always been behind the actions of the United Nations, but only after discussions.
It has taken us from August 2 to September 25 to have the 10 resolutions that we now have. Presumably there was a lot of discussion. How can we now say: "Yes, and all follow-on discussions we will give you blank agreement for?" What we are about to embark on, whether it is this month, next month, six months or a year from now, deserves much more discussion and debate than that.
I am sure the public listened to resolutions 660, 661, 662, et cetera. We have now a total of 10 resolutions passed by the United Nations, all voted on and agreed to by Canada. Time does not permit that we go through them all, but I took the time to look at them and tried to relate them to what it is we are trying to do in the United Nations and in Iraq.
I believe the United Nations action that has taken place so far has been a model of the way the United Nations was supposed to operate and had not been able to operate because of the difficulty of the larger members of the Security Council not being able to agree.
In other words, it was the unique and remarkable unanimity of the Security Council that has allowed us to get these resolutions that we now have. We began first of all by identifying the aggressor. This was done on August 2 with resolution 660. It stated that there was a determi-
Government Orders
nation that a breach of international peace and security had taken place, and they condemned the Iraq invasion.
The second sequence in this drill is a call for compliance. This was achieved in resolution 661, which stated that Iraq had not complied with resolution 660 and affirmed the right of individual and collective self-defence under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter.
The next procedure was the declaration of non-military sanctions. That too was achieved by resolution 661, where it was stated that there would be an imposition of strict economic sanctions on Iraq until it complied with resolution 660.
Then the next step in the procedure was to call for compliance. This was done on August 9, a week after the invasion, and the resolution said that there was a decision that the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq was null and void and demanded that Iraq rescind its declaration of the annexation.
The next step was military sanctions. This was achieved by resolution 665 that called upon maritime forces to use such measures as may be necessary to halt all maritime shipping in order to prevent cargoes from reaching Iraq.
The next level is force. That is agreed. The next level has to be force, but only if these measures that we have discussed and that have been debated in the United Nations from August 2 to pretty well the end of September do not work.
My major concern with the resolution of the United Nations is that I believe it is too early. I have difficulty understanding why the deadline of January 15 has been used. I agree there has to be a deadline, but I would like to spend a few moments talking about the reason I have difficulty with that deadline.
It is agreed that military sanctions can work. I am not going to go through a great litany, but it goes back a long time. Britain maintained naval blockades of the main French ports during the Napoleonic Wars and they were successful. During the U.S. Civil War the union navy was unable to do a lot of things, but it was able to prevent the south from exporting cotton and getting cash so that it could buy weapons. That was a factor in determining the outcome of the Civil War. During World War I, the allies

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
blockaded German ports, stopping supplies of war material and food from reaching the Kaiser's realm. By the end of the war in 1918,1 think it was agreed by everybody that the Germans were hungry and they were short of munitions.
There were other examples where sanctions did not work. I refer now to the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy in 1935, where the League of Nations did impose sanctions for two years and they did not work.
A set of rules has been worked out by the experts addressing the question as to whether or not these sanctions will be able to work. The determinants are not difficult. There are four questions that you use in the litmus test, if you like.
The first one is that the country under embargo must have a weak economy. Iraq is a semi-developed country. It relies on its foreign exchange for the export of oil. It imports three-quarters of its food and most of its manufactured goods. As we stand in the House today, the Iraqis have spent billions of dollars. They have difficulty. They cannot export their oil, and their foreign exchange is being spent at a rate that they cannot replace. Therefore we answer yes to the first litmus test.
Second, there should be a relatively small number of geographical or financial points which international action can control. Iraq is surrounded by countries that are basically friendly to us, with one exception. It has 29 miles of coastline and is looking for more. Because of the confluence and the nature of the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the fairly narrow Strait of Hormuz, it is an ideal country in which to operate economic sanctions.
Another test is that its domestic political conditions must a little shaky. I do not think I need to go on about that. Any country that has to use chemical warfare on its own citizens to keep them in their place would come under the guise of being a fairly shaky country.
Finally, and I think this is very important, the leaders of the international community should be as clear as possible about their own objectives, which must be widely supported. I think we have that. Certainly in my knowledge of warfare and histoiy, this is one of the first times we have had such world order being put together by 26 countries to try to deter the aggression of another country. Force may well be necessary. I agree with those
who say that we may have to use force. That is why you have armed forces, so that you can if you have to use force.
Inherent in that statement and inherent in the possibility of new world order, where we may have a United Nations policeman made up of 26 countries and all these forces to which I made reference, it is incumbent on those who do the ordering of force to try every means in the book to make sure that they have tried every possible measure, means, and avenue to ensure that force has to be used.
The embargo started in the middle of August. Wherever I turn and whatever I hear, it is indicated to me that it is going to take six months as a minimum for the embargo to bite, that is to hurt Iraq. It could take a year as a maximum before we know where we are in this situation. We will not be at six months until the middle of February. A year from August is going to be August 1991. This is why I have difficulty with the ultimatum date of January 15. It it were March 15,1 may not be making the same kind of presentation this evening.
Let's have a look at some of the costs. I see the Minister of National Defence is here. This not meant as rhetoric and it is not meant to get at the government. I understand how difficult it is to cost an operation exactly. The peacetime cost to Canada is anywhere from $1 million, to $3 million, to $5 million or thereabouts per day. The real cost is in the tension, although the morale is good, created in the country by having forces there. That is the real cost.
How long can we sustain this? We can sustain the peacetime operation as long as we want. We have to suffer, as indeed we have seen last Friday. The cost of force, whether or not it works, is a tremendous estimate. It is anywhere from 250,000 casualties on both sides,
65,000	deaths, and between $65 billion and $100 billion. God knows what will happen to the oil fields and the economies and where it will stop.
World War I started with a small scrimmage on June 28,1914 when a nationalist killed Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. I do not have to tell the House how big that became. World War II started from a fairly small thing. It started small and ended with 50 million people being killed. I am not conjuring up that kind of an image for this kind of an operation, but the implications of force are fantastic.
November 28, 1990

If I may be permitted a personal note, in an Armistice Day presentation in my riding we spoke about the remembrance of those who had given their lives in sacrifice to their country. We also talked about those in the Middle East who were preparing to fight for liberty, peace, and freedom. We all hoped that their sacrifice would be in the preparation and not in the giving.
There was a couple there, Mr. and Mrs. McGurk, whose son, Darren, was in the Middle East. Mrs. McGurk went through a terrible evening listening to this. I spoke to her afterward and assured her that this Parliament would make sure that everything in the world was done to have a peaceful settlement of this operation.
My son is an RMC graduate. He happens to be in Montreal now, but he may well be in the next contingent to go to the Middle East. He belonged to a band at RMC, The Happy Days. The lead guitarist in that band is the squadron navigator for the force in the Middle East, Lieutenant Roger Boulet, and I know him quite well.
Another member of the band serves in submarines and he may be going. I talked to him three or four days ago. His name is Chris McLaughlin. He said: "What do you think is going to happen?" I said: "Well, we are all hoping for a peaceful settlement".
In looking at the human dimension of this, there can be no greater dimension and there can be no greater motivation than to try within every single perimeter that we can put on ourselves, in Canada, in Parliament, in the United Nations, and in the world, to try to settle this peacefully.
Few of us, here in the House, have lived through the horrors of war, but most of us know about them. I think it is safe to say that democratic wars, as just as they are, are not small; they are large. They are not short; they are long. They are also bloody.
In all the considerations that the government has, all the motivations-which I am assuming and I am positive are for the right reasons-I do not subscribe to the idea that we are supporting one nation. That is an insult to the 26 nations that are there. I do not want to subscribe to that. I think we are there for the right reasons, but I implore members of the government to look at the
Government Orders
human dimension and to seriously consider what they are doing when they stand up to vote. If they all voted, they could, in numbers, pass this motion. This is probably the biggest decision they will make in this Parliament.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member's speech very helpful and thorough. I certainly agree with a lot of the ideas he was expressing including, in his words which were identical to the words I used in the House two hours ago, that we must still hope that there can be a peaceful resolution to this. I sincerely believe that the steps that are being deliberately taken, step by step, is the way to proceed in trying to achieve that.
The hon. member made many observations. I just want to return to one, where he was trying to clarify the meaning of the UN resolution. It struck me, while listening to him, that we had not really progressed in the debate tonight, beyond the exchange that the hon. member for Mount Royal and I had about two hours ago on whether or not this meaning is vague.
The motion refers to resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions. After that earlier exchange and my discussions this afternoon with senior people at External Affairs and elsewhere, and continuing to be concerned that there would be vagueness or uncertainty about this, I spoke this evening with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He said that he will not support a resolution or resolutions that he has not seen and he will not ask anyone else to do that. One cannot reasonably ask people, including hon. members of the House, to discuss resolutions that do not exist or that no one has seen. This is not what the government is suggesting by its motion before this House. The government is referring to Security Council resolutions which exist or are before us, including the resolution which will be addressed at the Security Council tomorrow. No one has ever suggested that this government will not endeavour to return to this House in the future when the need for that arises. I would say that again because one of the hon. members opposite-.


Raymond John Skelly: Let's get the Minister of Defence to say that.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders


Patrick Boyer: I make that comment in response to the approach which the hon. member with his own distinguished military career has raised in this House. I hope that clarifies the point.


John V. Nunziata: It doesn't. It doesn't clarify anything.


Fred J. Mifflin: I do thank the hon. member for those comments and I am delighted that he does share this view. After all it is a very key consideration. If this has clarified it and if that is the true meaning of it, then certainly I am at least more sympathetic to the resolution as it stands. There are still some problems with it but that certainly was one of the major problems.
Again, if I could be permitted, the term 'all necessary means' has been equated by some to mean immediate force. I do not believe that, quite frankly. I am worried about the date. I am worried that there will be another debate. The hon. member, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has assured me that there would be. I will take that as face value. I feel a lot more secure since he has mentioned that, and I mean that genuinely and sincerely.
All necessary means could mean a lot of things. It could mean force in the middle of September next year. There is an important element to this term and let it not be lost on the public that this surely means something to Saddam Hussein as well. I think in fairness to the government and in fairness to the resolution itself, surely that has to be one of the reasons for that term. I do not quarrel with the term. We may eventually have to use it. I do quarrel somewhat with the time.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not need to tell members of this House that there is a divergence of opinion amongst Canadians on our involvement in the Middle East crisis situation. There are those who would not support any military action of any kind and I understand and appreciate their view. All I can say is that it is not my view. I think it is the view espoused by the members of the New Democratic Party, but it was not the view espoused by the members of the Liberal Party when they supported the resolution on October 23, 1990. The member was one of those who did support that resolution which made our position very
clear. We support the United Nations actions. We condemn the actions of Iraq. We condemn the invasion of Kuwait.
Our difficulty and problem is what we do in light of that condemnation. Our colleagues in the New Democratic Party did not share in that condemnation so they really have no issue to raise in this debate. Surely we must appeal to our colleagues in the Liberal Party to continue to support not the government but Canada in this situation. We call upon all members to support the efforts of Canada because what is at stake is the peaceful settlement of the dispute. It is not governments that are on trial. It is not ministers of defence, it is the process of peaceful settlement.
How are we going to contribute to that process? I cannot believe that the member believes defeat of a resolution proposed in this House will contribute to the process of peaceful settlement. He saw, as I did, our service people sail to the Middle East. He knows the commitment that he made. Surely he will ask himself: What can I do to support the commitment that our men in the armed forces are making.
Does he really believe that defeat of this resolution now before the House will help? We still reserve the right to make the final decision on what our forces do in the Middle East, that is the decision that will always remain in Canada. He knows that. Why would he stand there and attempt to defeat this resolution which is really in support of Canada and our Canadian forces?


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Halifax West, whom I have known for many years. He is not normally this garrulous. I am surprised at his question to me because the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indeed suggested and clarified the difficulty I had. When I read these terms, it is the clarification the House has been seeking to ensure the compliance of the Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions up to now, that is up to October 28. He said that, if I understood him correctly, and that the support should not be interpreted as approval of the use of the Canadian forces for offensive action until there will be further consultation. He definitely said that. So, that is the subject of our amendment. What we are trying to do-
November 28, 1990


John V. Nunziata: He includes tomorrow's resolution as well.


Fred J. Mifflin: That is where we differ, then. If tomorrow's resolution is included, then that is indeed where we differ. It is a shame that it has taken six hours of debate to sort this issue out.
In response to my friend from Halifax West, I could assume that he would agree with this as well.
I find it somewhat difficult again that there has been this kind of confusion in the House. I will say to the public who are watching that these interpretations are so important that perhaps it is necessary for the Parliament of Canada to debate it word for word, sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase, so that the public does indeed appreciate what is happening. I only wish that we had had this debate before we committed our forces. Those are the kinds of questions that we could have asked and the whole operation itself could have been thought out a little more clearly. The answers to some of the questions that we are now asking could have been at least anticipated.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, because in spite of what I thought was an effort to try to clarify this, it seems there still may be one point that is not clear.
What I said four or five minutes ago was that the government is referring in the resolution to the Security Council resolutions which exist or are before us, including the resolution that will be debated by the Security Council tomorrow. Whereas the Liberal Party amendment, I believe, refers to the date of November 28, which is today. Clearly, the intention-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I think that I am certainly confused by what is going on here. What we seem to get from one Liberal member, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, is a very clear statement that the Liberal Party is opposed to this resolution.
Now, we hear from the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, in response to the parliamentary secretary's assurances that it is-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lynn Hunter: I am trying, if you would give me a chance, to clarify for the Canadian public, and I think that is the very least we can do when the issue we are
Government Orders
talking about is going to war. If there are divisions in the House, I think they should be exposed.
I would like the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception to please indicate how he will be voting if the Liberal amendment fails? Is he going to vote in a different way than the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace?


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the hon. member is so exercised about this.


An hon. member:: There's the enemy right there.


Fred J. Mifflin: She is exercised at the government, I hope.
I think I made it very clear in my comments that I am not going to support a motion that says I signed a blank cheque, irrespective of what has been said. The hon. member is asking me if I would approve the understood version of the government's motion, that is, to approve the UN security resolution, whatever the next one is? Is that the question she is asking?
I think I made it very clear. I have great reservations with that. Normally I do not support something on which I have those reservations.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have just one very short comment and question for my colleague.
First of all, I want to congratulate our gallant colleague for his remarks earlier today. I want to bring just one issue to the attention of my colleague. He indicated in his remarks that there might be a point in the future, regrettably, where force will be necessary, but we have not reached that point yet.
I think he said that first we must do everything that we can in order to ensure that force is not used.
I just want to remind the House of an expression used by our leader earlier today when he said-

"Every possible effort must be made to find a peaceful solution".

In other words, we must turn the world upside down if we have to in order to try to find a peaceful solution. To me, those words were very well put. In other words, we must not spare anything. We must try everything that we can. I think my colleague has told us that we have not reached that point yet. I want him to confirm that very clearly to all members, particularly the one who was

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
asking a question a moment ago, obviously not having listened as well as she could have, and perhaps for all Canadians, as well, who want to be sure what it is that we stand for.
I am sure I am clear, but at least I want that member who did not hear correctly to be sure as well.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, you have been very indulgent and I would like to thank you for that. I do not believe that we have reached the point when we have to use force.
Yet I cannot predict the events. Knowing what I know now, projecting it into the future and relying on the economic sanctions that we are using as a tool, I do not believe we will be ready by January 15.
I am going to end by once more saying that history has shown that democratic wars are not short and small. They are long, big and bloody.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, being able to observe this debate both in the House and as it is being broadcast, I can assure you and the Canadian public that this is a worth-while debate.
I have some concern about the context in which the resolution we are debating here and the amendments that have been placed by the two opposition parties to the motion that has been put forward by the government. I think it would be important to read the motion that has been put forward by the government:
That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of the third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.
Canada is a relatively fortunate country. We have little direct military threat. We have great opportunity because of that to play a part in the world that other countries are not allowed to play because of their circumstance and the region within which they are located.
We have an opportunity to work towards a more stable and peaceful world and a better international order. Typically, we have done this through multilateral agreements and alliances. We participate as a country in
collective defence arrangements with like-minded nations. We participate, as an example, in NATO. We participate in NORAD.
As a matter of fact, although being large in mass, Canada would not be considered a country of large military capacity. Therefore, we rely on the support of other nations for our own security. We join with other nations to have a secure Canada. I think it is important to understand that in the context of today and in the context of the aggression that Iraq has perpetrated upon Kuwait.
Canada has had opportunities to become involved in resolving disputes. The Canadian forces have joined in some 26 different peacekeeping operations in the world. Some 80,000 members of the Canadian forces have been involved in peacekeeping operations since the Second World War. Canada has participated in all but one of the United Nations peacekeeping missions. As a matter of fact, 78 members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been killed while participating in peacekeeping duties.
We have to take a look at the multilateral operations for collective security that we are discussing today. The last opportunity to be involved under the flag of the United Nations was the Korean war. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that because of the increase in tensions and east-west mistrust and lack of confidence since the Korean war, the United Nations has not been able to act with strength, concert or unity up until this time.
What allowed the United Nations to act this time with the strength it has shown and with the principles that are embedded in its charter for the first time in 40 years was the demise of the cold war. That came about because like-minded nations had the NATO alliance which was strong and steadfast and which assisted in bringing about the end of the cold war.
When we view the current crisis, the original dispute was about production quotas of oil. This escalated as Iraq revived some old territorial claims against Kuwait. As negotiations did not seem to progress, Saddam Hussein started a build-up of his military might along the border of Iraq and Kuwait. This dispute became the subject of intense negotiations and efforts on behalf of the countries in the region. As a matter of fact, Saddam Hussein assured President Mubarak of Egypt that there would not be an invasion of Kuwait and shortly thereafter when
November 28, 1990

the Iraqi negotiators walked out of the negotiations, Iraq launched its massive invasion of Kuwait.
Since that time Iraq has proclaimed a comprehensive and internal merger between Iraq and Kuwait, offering a series of justifications for its behaviour.
I have heard members from the opposition talk about the action of the United States in Panama. I suggest to them that the United States is not and has not annexed Panama. I suggest to them that the United Nations has withdrawn from Panama. I could suggest to the hon. members that they are comparing apples and oranges and that their visceral distrust and their visceral hatred of our friends across the border sometimes allows them to be carried away with their rhetoric.
But what kind of a nation are we dealing with when we are dealing with Iraq? The hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception just spoke. He identified four points around which he built his argument as to why the sanctions should be allowed to continue and why he believed that they would work in the long run because, as he said, he would accept the use of force reluctantly if there was more time to apply sanctions.
I suggest that his argument would have some justification with a lot of countries and a lot of regimes. But I think the third point in his argument was that they must have a shaky political regime. He suggested that that was the case in Iraq.
Perhaps that would be the case in ordinary circumstances but when you have a leader who uses chemical weapons on his own people; when you have a leader who entered an eight-year war, where a whole generation of teenagers between the ages of 16 to 25 were removed permanently from the population; when you have a leader who refuses to recognize the well-being of his own people; when you have a leader who dominates and controls his people by summary execution; when you have a leader who does not rely on what we would consider to be ordinary norms, then I would say that unless the hon. member really believes Saddam Hussein has a greater feeling for the Iraqi people than he does for the occupation of Kuwait, he cannot accept the fact
Government Orders
that sanctions will work on Saddam Hussein as they would on other people.
I draw this to his attention because I know the member understands force and he understands and has said that he would reluctantly accept the use of force if there had been a proven time for sanctions to work.
It is important to understand what we are dealing with. There has to be some limit to the drive that we have seen for the military dominance of the region by Iraq. There has to be a demonstrated willingness by the rest of the world to put a stop to it.
There is a calloused disregard for human life that is not to be accepted in our society or other societies. These 10 resolutions are the most powerful statements of the United Nations Charter since its inception. I believe what the Government of Canada and like-minded nations have done has added to the support and the strength of the United Nations.
For the first time since its inception, the true characteristics that were enunciated in the United Nations Charter to provide peace, security and stability in the world have been enunciated in those 10 resolutions against Iraq.
I want to go on about our own response. Canada's response has traditionally been to provide forces to multinational organizations, and always in the pursuit of a more peaceful and stable world. That is what we debated in this House earlier. That is what the majority of the members of this House agreed should take place.
I would suggest that the speed in which Canada responded, both with its naval and air operations, which were set up under very challenging circumstances, are an appropriate response for a middle-sized power such as Canada.
Members of the House and the public should be aware that although our naval force in the Gulf makes up only 3 per cent of the naval assets in the gulf region, it is doing 22 per cent of the work. As of yesterday, they had been involved in some 1,000 interdictions and hailings and they have been involved in some 8 boardings. The men and women who are serving there, not missing one day on station, are doing a superb job and they are doing it with the professionalism that we all expect of them. When one looks at the CF-18 squadron, which is located in Qatar, one recognizes its ability to change its daily

Government Orders
activity and the numbers of sorties, to constantly keep from 17 to 18 aircraft in operation in a difficult climate and provide cover for ships within that Persian Gulf region.
When we look at the buildup of the Iraqi army, we have to ask, why is it there? As King Fahd said, why was the army built up on the border of Saudi Arabia? Why was the Iraqi army there? Saudi Arabia was not going to attack Iraq so, obviously, one must ask the question, why? I think the answer is quite obvious. There was a determined pattern in Iraq's aggression against Kuwait and it has continued to work toward a military dominance of the region, which is resisted by other countries in that region.
We look at the difference between the conflict, as Canada sees it. We have been opposed to conflict in other areas; we have brought forward resolutions, stating that opposition; we have been involved in peacemaking. I have trouble with some members who would say that peacemaking is not part of peacekeeping tradition. It flows, naturally, in a democracy that is proud of its peacekeeping heritage, as we should be, that peacemaking also is an important part of Canada's heritage and our tradition and is consistent with bringing about a more stable and peaceful world.
When I take a look at the resolution that I see here, and in the United Nations, the resolution commits us to no change in our current status. I hear the members on the other side talking about blank cheques, but I tell you that it commits us to no change in our operations. What it does is send a signal to Saddam Hussein that those countries which have joined together in the United Nations to condemn his aggression, starting with UN resolution 660 and the other nine resolutions that have followed to this point, will not allow him and the Iraqi army to occupy a small country which had legitimate borders, just as Canada's borders are legitimate, which were invaded, occupied and annexed.
I have a lot of trouble with the argument that we should wait before applying more pressure, because what this resolution that will be voted on tomorrow at the United Nations does is give a signal to Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people and the army of Iraq, that their future is in their own hands, that the world has condemned their
action, that the world will respect the legitimate borders of Kuwait, and that that effort and that conviction by the world powers can only lead to one thing: either Saddam Hussein believes that he has to remove himself or he believes that the world will take whatever steps are necessary to restore the legitimate borders of Kuwait.
I believe that the UN resolution is appropriate to the traditions of the UN, particularly to the UN Charter. Obviously, it is not just my belief or Canada's belief, it is a belief of the assembled nations in the United Nations. It is not U.S. led, as our friends in the New Democratic Party would say. That is an affront to all the other nations which are presently in the gulf, all the other nations which have voted to condemn Iraq, all the other nations which are going to vote in support of the UN resolution tomorrow.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Wrong.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I see the member from Toronto is talking from his seat. His party has consistently said to the government: "Why don't you co-operate with the United Nations?" Tomorrow we are going to co-operate with the United Nations. The Liberal Party is condemning the government for doing just what it suggested we should do.
I suggest this is a difficult time. I really have concern about some of the members in the Official Opposition. I know they find the resolution that has been put forward by their leader difficult to support. They have to understand that any change in the mandate of the Canadian forces deployment in the Persian Gulf will only be consistent with the capabilities of the Canadian forces. I can assure hon. members that if there is a change in the mandate, it will be raised in the House of Commons if and when that time comes.
What the hon. members are saying now to the government is to assume-


Mr. Caccia:: You didn't do it last summer.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: They say we did not do it the last time. We had a debate. The hon. member from Newfoundland referred to the debate. I know the hon. member from Toronto was not able to take part in it. It would be interesting reading, I am sure, if he had.
November 28, 1990

As things currently stand, the government along with the people of Canada, as it has from the start, hopes there is a peaceful resolution to this aggression.


Charles L. Caccia: Declaring war.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The members talk about declaring war.
I have one final point. I suggest to them and to the members in the New Democratic Party that war was declared on August 2 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The world is now condemning that action and is prepared to legitimize the borders of Kuwait. I ask them to support the government in its efforts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have five questioners in 10 minutes. I will start with the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, then South West Nova, the hon. member for Portneuf, Davenport and Victoria.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, all of us want a peaceful solution. There is no doubt about that. However, we have to live with this resolution that is on the floor.
What this resolution demands of us parliamentarians is that we endorse the use of force. That raises the question that I would like to put to the Minister of National Defence. How far do you go with this particular kind of force and to what end?
With respect to the use of force, does the hon. Minister of National Defence tolerate or endorse any kind of force? Is this government in support of wiping out the entire country of Iraq? Is the government prepared to level Baghdad? Is it prepared to wipe out maybe tens of thousands, if not scores of thousands of Iraqis and Kuwaitis? Is that the position of this government? I think it behoves this government to make itself absolutely clear as to how far it is prepared to go with this kind of force. I do not think the government should be asking us to buy some pig in the poke. When you ask us to use force, you better be very explicit how far you are prepared to go.
The other thing is to what end? Is it your end by using force that you are to settle this dispute once and for all? Does this government think for a moment that it can wipe out Hussein who is a despot, a despicable creature? Does it believe that if it wipes out all his generals and armies, that will be the end, there will be nothing more, the disputes will be settled, calm will set in and there will be peace? Or do you think perhaps that that would just simply-
Government Orders


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Do you want an answer?


John Harvard: -deliver instability in the region? In fact, maybe the confrontation will actually spread.
It is incumbent upon this minister to come absolutely clean.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: If the hon. member's logic matched his rhetoric, I would not stand up and answer the question because it would be very difficult.
The member for Winnipeg-St. James talked about the use of force. I want to read to him the draft of the UN Security Council resolution. Point 2 authorizes member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq, on or before January 15, 1991, fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions: To use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660, and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security to the area.
No one wants war. The hon. member throws his hands up and goes like this.


An hon. member:: Then start answering.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I ask the members opposite: What is your alternative?


An hon. member:: Economic sanctions.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What is your alternative?


Some hon. members:: Sanctions.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear the bark and the cries of "sanctions, sanctions". I want to ask the hon. members how long we should allow Kuwait-


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: As long as it takes.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I see. One of the Liberal members says "As long as it takes". Two years? Three years? While Iraq occupies a sovereign nation? What the hon. member is saying is that the use of the United Nations and the original Charter of the United Nations to bring about peace and security in the world-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I was very kind with the hon. member. He asked a couple of questions. There are other people here who would like to ask the hon. minister some questions. Would you please allow them to ask and get an answer to their questions. The hon. member for South West Nova.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be quite short because I know there are others who want to speak. I do not think there is anybody in this House who has any dispute with the process of the United Nations to date.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear, as I concluded my address, that if there were a change in the mandate of the Canadian Forces we would have it raised in the House. I do not know what else I could say to the hon. member.
The government is proposing a motion to go with subsequent resolutions, one of which may be passed tomorrow. One cannot prejudge what those 15 people in the Security Council will do tomorrow.
The government wants us to pass a draft resolution to give it sanction to go ahead. It can then come back tomorrow and say: "We passed that resolution here in this House". I think Canadians are smarter than that.
On top of that, this wording is vague. I do not want to repeat the minister but he referred to No. 2 in the resolution. I want to ask him about "to use all necessary means to uphold the existing and subsequent resolutions". This is the part that galls me. Let us pass that resolution. Let the UN pass it tomorrow, if it goes in this form, to restore international peace and security in the area.
I ask the minister: Are our troops there today for that reason? Is that what the Order in Council said? Or, is the minister going to bring in a new Order in Council next week to change the reasons why our troops are there? There are 26 member states in the gulf. Any one of them can use their interpretation of this and start the war that we are talking carelessly about here. The economic sanctions that were put in place at the UN have not been given the time. I ask him that question for the sake of Canadians out there.
The Order in Council said that it was for economic sanctions in the shipping. I cannot see that we should be even debating future resolutions before they are even passed in the UN. We should not even be talking about restoring international peace when our troops are not over there. They are only 3 per cent. Yes, I know they are good troops. I come from an area where they are trained. I am all for that training.
I think Canadians have a right to know why they are over there. I thought it was to keep the economic sanctions, not for a proposed resolution that may not get passed.
We have indicated that we will provide an opportunity for further debate if there is a change in the mandate of the Canadian Forces. What we are asking the House, and what we would have expected of the hon. members opposite, would be to support the United Nations and the charter that founded that organization, and not to abuse this opportunity provided by the government after there was a request.
A request came from the opposition suggesting that there should be a debate and the government said yes, we would welcome this debate. We have become involved in the debate, and now the members of the opposition are saying that the debate is taking place at an inopportune time, that this is not a good time for this debate.
I would suggest that the time for the debate and the support of the members in this House should be concentrated on the support of the United Nations which, for the first time in 40 years, has been able to bring the member states together, and take a stand that is totally consistent with the charter on which it was founded.
I would expect hon. members to support the government and the men and women who are serving the Canadian forces, to support the United Nations Charter, and to support what the United Nations wishes to do with the world, that is make it a more stable and peaceful place. I cannot believe that the members opposite do not wish to do that.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: During the week of November 13 to 17, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to visit the Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf along with my colleagues from Victoria and Labrador. I was able to see for myself that the morale of our troops was good and that they were doing an outstanding job. I also had the firm impression that the military are fully conscious of their role and of the significance of their presence there.
When we came back last week, we three decided to hold a small press conference and, in the last paragraph of the release we all agreed on, we said: "We urge the government and all parties to take a unified approach so
[Translation\
m
November 28, 1990

that the opinion of Canadians on the international scene will carry more weight and so that our troops in the gulf and our team with the United Nations will have the full support they deserve".
I would like to know whether the minister agrees with me and my two opposition colleagues to say that it is of the utmost importance at this time to obtain the support of all members of Parliament so that the Canadian position will be clearly heard throughout the world and that, above all, our troops, the men and women now stationed in the gulf area, will have the clear impression that all Canadians and particularly their Parliament are behind them.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I agree, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague. I compliment him on taking the time from his recess, along with two colleagues, to visit the Canadian troops in the Persian Gulf area. I want to thank him on their behalf for that effort.
What I think is important is what my colleague concluded with. By putting forward this resolution and asking for support of the United Nations sanctions and United Nations actions, what we were hoping to do would be to show Saddam Hussein that Canada among the majority of countries in the Security Council was-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it might be a bit presumptuous to suggest that this question and answer period began at 9.20 p.m. and it is now 9.35 p.m. We are looking at 15 minutes. The government decided on a deadline here. I gather there are a number of approved speakers who would like to make speeches. If we could limit the period to strictly 10 minutes, we could then accommodate the established group of speakers in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say that it was because it was the Minister of National Defence that I felt I should extend the questions and comments for another couple of minutes.
I am at your disposal. I have one more questioner, and that would be it for the Minister of National Defence. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be brief. By using the United Nations and gathering support from the world for increased pressure and condemnation of the action is an important part in getting Saddam Hussein to recognize the world is against his aggression in Kuwait.
What the members opposite are doing is giving him comfort. What they are saying is that they are not against his aggression in Kuwait, and they do not support-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.


John V. Nunziata: You are a war monger.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The member says that I am a war monger. I draw to his attention that the United Nations, which they say they support, is taking an action to remove an aggressor from a smaller country. Members opposite are saying that the United Nations should not be supported in its action, and the Government of Canada is saying that it should be supported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Davenport.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, but I do not want to abuse the rules. We are running out of time, so I will defer to a later opportunity.


Don Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to use up just a moment of the House's time but, in conformity with what we have done in the past, I want to indicate that after the next speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West, other Liberal members tonight will be speaking in two successive 10-minute slots for the rest of the evening, if that is agreeable to the House.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has made a speech and is still in the House it would be interesting if we could extend the question period. Other members who will take the floor will certainly have interesting comments to make, but if we ask questions to our colleagues we will get nothing but rhetoric and their answers will not be as specific as those of the minister. I wonder if it would be possible, with the agreement of my

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
colleagues on both sides, to continue to ask questions to the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. There is no consent. The hon. member for Hamilton West has the floor on debate.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic that we are prepared to ask the Minister of Defence very important questions instead of asking other members across the way. We achieved almost unanimous consent until the NDP decided we did not want to ask any more questions of the Minister of Defence. That is intolerable.
The Prime Minister declared while speaking on the motion dispatching Canadian troops to the Persian Gulf on September 24, that Canadians have never looked for a free ride and would not begin to. I want to begin my remarks with a plea to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Defence to exercise patience, to re-examine our role in the Persian Gulf. 'lake a step back.
Unlike governments before him, the Prime Minister's refusal to recall Parliament once our troops were given their orders further illustrates the Prime Minister's unilateral and cavalier attitude toward Canadian public opinion. That action has brought discredit on this country, which has turned a country once highly praised for seeking peaceful solutions to world problems into a subservient partner of American militarism.
'Phis House will remember that even recently deposed Margaret Thatcher recalled the British Parliament in order to deal with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq; the French National Assembly in Paris was similarly recalled, but not our Parliament, not our Prime Minister. He was in Kennebunkport, Maine, with George Bush, absorbing, agreeing, and then regurgitating the policies of the American way.
I wanted to speak on this matter earlier this fall, but the debate was extremely short, despite pledges that the
House would give ample time and opportunity to discuss the matter. Part of that earlier motion before this House called on Parliament to affirm its support for resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council, which imposed sanctions against Iraq over the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. I supported those resolutions. The actions of the Iraqis are reprehensible and are to be condemned. Sanctions are a necessary component of forcing Iraq out of the sovereign state of Kuwait. However, I do not support the resolution which will go before the United Nations Security Council tomorrow, nor do I support the blank cheque, through this blanket motion before us tonight in the House.
In fact, for 18 of the 20 minutes I listened to the Minister of National Defence I did not have much argument with his speech until the last couple of minutes when he enunciated, and made it quite clear that we had to support the resolution, referring to the- last three words, "and subsequent resolutions".
Canadians are simply looking to the Minister of National Defence and the Conservative Party to spell out the end of the resolution. That is what the motion by my colleague is prepared to do.
The resolution which will be voted on tomorrow in the Security Council demands that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. It "authorizes member states-to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolutions 660 and, subsequent resolutions and"-this is a caveat, "to restore international peace and security in the area". Members of this House will know that Canadians-especially Canadians tonight-should know that, if passed, this resolution does not create a United Nations force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. There would be no direction from the United Nations for any military action. No, the United States would be at the head of any military operation along with its allies, which include Canada, lire resolution would merely rubber-stamp the desire to expel Iraq by force.
The caveat is that the resolution has been framed in such a way that it authorizes those nations that have troops and weapons in the Gulf against Saddam to restore international peace and security in the area. This resolution can be construed no other way than not only to permit the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait by force, but also to continue the battle in Iraq for who knows how long?
November 28, 1990

Iraq knows it has to go, but stands defiant against the currents of international condemnation. By the time Iraq uses up supplies in its country, it will still take about a year for the sanctions to take their full effect. Analysts have confirmed this to be so. I do not support the ultimatum that says, unless Iraq withdraws, it will be forced out with tanks, fighter jets, bombs, and who knows what else.
Canada has not given the sanctions enough time to work. We keep hearing, how long? We heard it from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We heard it again from the Minister of National Defence. How long? I screamed out from this side of the House "as long as it takes". The minister said: "What if it takes two years?" Well, what if it takes two years? Is it worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals? We know that is a possibility. We know that the U.S. is going to embark on an air strike. We hear through our television sets and the national news from the United States that that is the way they have to proceed and they would rather not use ground troops. They say: "Let's get them from the air. Let's get them from the sea".
In a Toronto newspaper today, Canadians read the Prime Minister's statement that sanctions are working. The Prime Minister said yesterday that "we seek to defend the interests and the integrity of the United Nations and that we seek to assist in the deterrence of aggression". A curious statement. The Prime Minister, if I have this straight, seeks to assist in the deterrence of aggression with the threat of aggression. Is this Canada talking? No, this is the U.S. talking, a country that has been badgering other nations of the world to fall into line.
In our new and modern world of instant communications and new found democratic freedoms, world-wide war, or even the threat of war, is not the answer. In fact, the prevention of war is one of the founding goals of the United Nations, and I will get to that in a moment.
The trade-offs have been enormous. One day, not a month ago, the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev declared that time should be given for the sanctions to work. After pleas to the U.S. for aid in helping to stave off a looming famine, Gorbachev is now onside. Such delicate diplomacy usually takes weeks, but the trade-off was made.
Government Orders
China, disgraced by the actions taken at Tiananmen Square, now holds the trump card. As a permanent member of the Security Council, and therefore with a veto over any decisions taken by it, China has promised something, too. Will the American sanctions imposed on China after Tiananmen be lifted, resulting in China abstaining tomorrow. Not vetoing the resolution tomorrow, but abstaining at tomorrow's meeting?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs proclaims, that although he does not like deadlines, he and the government are prepared to back the American call for an ultimatum. Why? The U.S. loses its presidency at the Security Council on Friday, so it wants to push ahead, full steam ahead. But should Canada be prepared to act so hastily?
Canada should be at the forefront of diplomatic efforts right now, not abetting those who would go to war. As the pot is about to boil over, Canada is right there turning up the heat. Should Canada follow along in that pressure-cooker atmosphere of American politics and agree to an early date for a military strike against Iraq? No. There has been no decision and no debate, despite what the Prime Minister says. He and his Conservative government are prepared to support the ultimatum, to go to war, needlessly.


An hon. member:: What are the Liberals talking about? Appeasement.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The hon. members asks if the Liberals are talking about appeasement. No. We are asking that we continue the resolutions of sanctions, that sanctions can and will work if given time.
The Conservative government has reached the limits of its absurdity. The Prime Minister rules by Order in Council. He has divorced Canada, for the sake of cosying up to the United States, from our traditional role in international diplomacy, that of occupying the middle ground, not because we are too weak to occupy any other place, but because we were interested in the welfare of international peace and security.
What has happened to our traditional role, our peacekeeping role? In this situation, Canada has lost that golden opportunity to exercise its influence on the other nations which make up the Security Council.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
The United Nations was born out of the carnage of the Second World War. The first sentence of the preamble of the United Nations Charter states:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind -
Again, I say to the Minister of Defence, if it takes two years, we continue sanctions. The preamble then calls on member nations:
-	to practice tolerance and live in peace with one another as good
neighbours -
I say, not only is our government forgetting the important place Canada has occupied in international diplomacy, but members of the United Nations are forgetting these important words in the Charter. I stress the word "tolerance" because that is what we are debating tonight. That is what the government is ignoring. United Nations resolutions are not some kind of blank cheque to be used by those able to coerce others into their schemes. Of course, part of the intention of the United Nations Charter is to ensure that armed forces not be used, save in the common interest. We must ask ourselves, is the use of all necessary means-let us be honest here, it is the use of force-truly in the common interests of all UN members. Second, is this of such importance that the guiding principle of tolerance be ignored? Tolerance should be given the greatest opportunity. As the great historian, Edmund Burke, noted: "Our patience will achieve more than our force".
Through the motion before us here today, the government is seeking tacit approval of its actions. Should the House approve this motion, it will be interpreted by the Prime Minister as an approval for the Parliament of Canada to use all necessary means to enact punishment on Iraq.
The motion reads:
That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and -
-here is the caveat, again-
-	all subsequent resolutions.
We cleared that up a little bit here this evening, not too long ago. All subsequent resolutions does not mean
the resolutions we have brought forward to the 28th of this month, but what will happen tomorrow and beyond?
By carefully couching its words with this blanket search for approval of military force, the government has not been as clever as it had hoped. The wolf in sheep's clothing has been exposed. Yes, we denounce Iraq's action. We denounce the detention of third country nationals. But we also denounce the attempt by the government to manipulate this important and sensitive issue and denounce its unwillingness to prevail over others, show leadership, and allow cooler heads to prevail.
We, in the Liberal Party, support the United Nations in its efforts to encourage understanding and peace among all member nations. In addition, solidarity between member nations is required if UN resolutions, such as the sanctions presently under discussion, are to have effect. But they must be left in effect.
This being said, it is not enough for member nations of the UN, such as Canada, to operate under the current multinational military effort. Canada, as well as other countries involved in this military effort, must only take direction under the auspices of a co-operative United Nations force. Now is the time. We have the opportunity as members of the Security Council to further enhance the role of the United Nations.
The Prime Minister has taken the easy way out. He jumped on the bandwagon. I say Canada has never accepted a free ride because Canada has the global reputation of solving international problems through conciliation, patience, and thoughtful negotiations. Ours is a positive agenda, not a reactionary one. The Liberal Party believes that, apart from the Security Council resolutions, primacy must be given to the United Nations to negotiate an end to the crisis.
The Prime Minister attempts to justify his arbitrary actions by pointing to history. Canada has never been faint of heart, he says. Well, no one denies Canada's capacity to defend freedom. Canadian soldiers have paid the supreme sacrifice, but always in the knowledge that their government tried everything in its power to resolve the situation peacefully before sending them away from their homes, their families, and their country.
November 28, 1990

Canada has participated in many officially sanctioned United Nations peacekeeping forces. Perhaps the most memorable to Canadians was the participation of Canada in the United Nations Temporary Commission for Korea. In June, 1950, Parliament was still sitting and the Liberal government of the day took great pains to keep the House informed of developments, including the use of Canadian military forces. In fact, when the Canadian military was requested to participate in a UN force, that is, one with UN helmets, clothing, et cetera, the announcement was made here in Parliament. It was done with the full opportunity to discuss the issue. Parliament was subsequently recalled later that summer in August for an emergency session to deal specifically with events in Korea. The traditions in respect of Parliament were upheld and the view was that Canada would not fight for Korea, but for the United Nations and the principle of collective security.
I see by the clock, Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute left, so I would like to summarize.
Let us not forget that Canada could go to war. Our troops are already shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, as deep as you can get in the Persian Gulf. We are on the front-line. As what? Peacekeepers? Or order takers? God forbid the worst scenario comes true, we will have no alternative but to take our orders from George Bush.
Canada was not even a member of the Security Council when Canadian forces were sent to Korea under the UN flag. Now that Canada is a member of the Security Council, it has a special and valued opportunity to defend a multinational force. By jumping on the bandwagon called the multinational military force, Canada has lost that golden opportunity to be respected, to be counted on as the initiator of independent, thoughtful diplomacy. Failure to do so is nothing short of shameful.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words this evening with respect to the motion before the House, which reads:
Thai this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure
Government Orders
compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent
resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, outside the Parliament Buildings, there was a sign held by a number of Canadians which read, "Canada is for Peace not War". I think that that very well sums up my own personal feelings, the feelings of all of my colleagues on the government benches and I know, from the parts of the debate that I have heard in the House this evening, that it certainly sums up the feelings of the opposition members. I truly believe it sums up the feelings of all Canadians. Canada is indeed for peace and is certainly not for war.
This feeling has not burst forth in the last day or two, it is something that has been around for many, many years. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, as I do, the days of the early and middle 1980s in particular, when one of the principal concerns if not, perhaps, the principal concern of Canadians was the whole question of peace of disarmament. The desire for peace and disarmament heightened a fear that we would be engaged in a nuclear holocaust, a fear that there would be an escalation of the cold war, and concerns about nuclear missiles in Europe.
Those concerns led to the establishment of many groups and committees dedicated to peace and the cause of peace in Canada and around the world. I am sure that in every constituency in this country there are a number of these peace committees. Certainly in my own constituency, the East York Peace Committee has been established for many years and makes its points exceedingly well on this principle that Canada is for peace and Canada is not for war.
You will recall as well, Mr. Speaker, that during the 1980s there was a tremendous amount of focus in the schools, a lot of classes where the teachers focused on many, many occasions on this issue of peace and disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament. It parallels one of the phenomena that we have right at the moment where, in many of our schools, we have teachers focusing on the environment and environmental issues, as the hon. member for Davenport is well aware.
The issue of peace and not war is certainly not a new one but it really boils down, not really to the question of whether people are for peace or war because I think we would agree, unanimously, that we are all for peace but, as there was at that time, there is a legitimate difference of opinion on how peace can best be achieved. Of course in the 1980s, there were those who argued that peace could best be achieved by not only disarmament but unilateral disarmament. Perhaps by disarming ourselves

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
first, that would inspire others to disarm and lay down their arms as well. On the other hand, there were many who believed that the only way to achieve true lasting peace and disarmament at that time was through some form of negotiated, balanced and verifiable arrangements in order to reduce armaments and arrive at peace.
It was that difference of opinion that characterized the discussions that related to the peace issue during the 1980s. Both sides had the same objectives as far as I can see. What they did was disagree on the best way of achieving peace and disarmament.
There were a good many flash points or points that raised concerns on both sides of the House and at times there were different parties on both sides of the House making the points in different ways. Hon. members will recall the debates over cruise missile testing, something that from time to time still rises to the surface. There were debates over whether or not NATO should increase the number of nuclear missiles in Europe during that time and that generated very heated debates.
As well, those debates brought into question the very issue of NATO itself and whether we should be supporting NATO or withdrawing from it altogether. All of these issues are not really new ones and we have been living with them for a long time. Certainly in recent years they have been at the top of the agenda.
At the same time, fortunately, the cold war has now apparently come to an end in eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R. In Berlin itself the walls have come down. The Iron Curtain has been removed and now we have agreements on troop withdrawals from Germany, we have agreements on nuclear arms reduction, we have agreements on conventional arms reduction. Interestingly enough, the Soviet Union which for so many years was viewed as the enemy is now considered to be not the enemy but our friend.
There are again legitimate disagreements on what role, if any, NATO and what role, if any, Canada's part in NATO played in bringing about those events of the walls coming down and bringing about a situation where the Soviet Union is now our friend and not our enemy. There are many who feel quite strongly that NATO was a minimal part or perhaps no part at all. Personally, I believe that it played a very important part in the entire process. It played a part in halting potential aggression.
It means that we stood firm and united with our allies and it allowed for those negotiated, balanced and verifiable arms reduction agreements to take place and to become reality. Hopefully we will see a time before too long when there will not be any weapons, conventional or nuclear in Europe or perhaps, hopefully, anywhere in the world.
By playing a role in that process, Canada was making a significant and a continuing contribution to our military defence force in Europe, which for that matter is still in Europe, through many years. Because we were playing that role, were involved and made a commitment, not just a commitment in words but a commitment in forces and troops, we had a voice in policy. We had a voice in influencing the disarmament positions of NATO and, for that matter, of the United States.
I would like to contrast that with what happened in New Zealand. New Zealand decided to opt for a position in which they banned United States military ships from the harbours of New Zealand on the basis that they might be carrying nuclear weapons. New Zealand took a stand on this issue.
In effect, New Zealand opted out of playing a role within the council of nations of the western world who were trying to bring about the peace and disarmament for which we all strive. In my view at least, New Zealand became irrelevant in that entire process.
The situation in the Persian Gulf as it now stands and the situation at that time have a good many parallels. Canadians want peace and not war. Again, they differ on the best way of achieving this. It is not just a debate that goes on in this House, it is a debate that rages probably in all of our constituencies. Each and every one of us has heard from constituents, perhaps not all the same way as I have, but I am sure opinions have been voiced on both sides of the issue, with a few shades in between.
I have heard from many who are most concerned about the fact that Canada is in the Persian Gulf at all. Those voices and concerns are voiced by people like Father Mahoney and Vi Thompson, who are prominent members of the East York Peace Committee. They are voiced by Gary Hayes as well. He is more concerned about the financial commitment that Canada has to
November 28, 1990

make. They are also voiced by people like Helen Pe-trowski, Norman Vale, and Vi McIntosh.
On the other hand, there are those who take exactly the opposite position. They feel very strongly that Canada should be in the gulf and that we should be doing all that we can to resist the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait. There are people such as Richard Kerfoot, Nancy Tittel and Mr. Tooke who have all been in touch with me. Their positions are quite legitimate and understandable.
There is another group. I referred to them during the debate in late September when the issue first came before the House. This group of Canadians are of the Muslim faith, particularly Canadians who come from the Middle East. They have a point of view to bring forward on this issue. Their concerns are somewhat different from the concerns of other Canadians. I believe very strongly that they should have a forum in which to voice those concerns.
They should have a forum somewhat similar to that which was put in place with the problems in China. It was one of a consultative committee of Canadians of Chinese origin who had an opportunity to exchange views with the government, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in particular. They had an opportunity to make their feelings and those of others with similar feelings known. At the same time they heard first hand from the Secretary of State for External Affairs the views of the government, and had an opportunity to have those explained to them.
In September, I put forth the suggestion that we have such a consultative committee. We have been working with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his staff to put that together. I am hopeful and optimistic that it will soon be reality, and we will have an opportunity for Canadians of the Muslim faith, particularly those from the Middle East, to have a voice in the whole process relating to this issue.
While there are many different views and concerns, all of them have been legitimate and understandable. As we know from what this House has debated before and is debating now, the government has taken a position very strongly in favour or peace. At the same time it has held
Government Orders
the belief that peace can best be achieved not by pretending that there was no aggression on the part of Iraq against Kuwait but by opposing that aggression, and by doing it under the auspices of the United Nations, by working hard to ensure that there is United Nations endorsement for any actions that are taken with respect to the Persian Gulf.
You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that of the 11 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council to date on this issue, some nine of those have been co-sponsored by Canada. Canada has played a very significant role in trying to ensure that this entire process comes under the United Nations itself.
At the same time, the government feels, and I think a great many Canadians agree, that we have to back up our specific support. That is why, we have our ships in the Gulf, our squadron of CF-18s, and Canadian military personnel there as well. Canada has been trying to work through the system, just as we did in Europe with NATO, to try to influence the system, not toward war but toward peace; to make sure that there is no unilateral action on the part of anyone, the United States or anyone else; to make sure that nothing happens there without the authority and the full sanction of the United Nations. As in the case of NATO in the 1980s, we want to apply as much pressure as possible but always for the purpose of achieving peace, not war. That is what this motion is all about tonight. It is a motion to apply pressure. It is a motion to send a signal. I believe it is a motion in keeping with the kinds of action that were taken by NATO during the 1980s with respect to the Cold War, not in an effort to start a war but really to maintain peace and achieve disarmament.
There are some differences as well between the Persian Gulf situation today in the 1990s and Europe in the 1980s. One of them quite clearly is the fact that we are dealing now with the case of unprovoked aggression on the part of Iraq. Another is the fact that the Soviet Union and virtually all of the other countries are on our side as well.
Another difference is that this time it is not just a group of western nations through NATO but the United Nations that is taking this stand against aggression. It is acting, in my view at least, as a world policeman. Perhaps

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
it is a very modest step in the direction of some form of world government order.
The United Nations was founded with great hope and great expectations but has been rather impotent for a long period of time. If that is going to suddenly turn around, and if we are going to have some sort of world order, then we must start acting together. We will have to start working together and start striving to apply the rule of law right across the entire world.
Canadians may not be able to agree on the kind of action that should be taken to preserve peace but I truly believe that Canadians want peace, they do not want war, and that this motion is in keeping with those expectations.


Mrs. Marleau:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the intervention of my colleague across the floor, and I would like to make a comment, first of all, on the United Nations.
I would like to remind the people of this august Chamber that the United Nations is not a god. It is a fallible group of people representing different nations who are every bit, as if not more, political than we are, and therefore are very much capable of being influenced by different sectors of the world.
I would venture to say that we as a country,-perhaps not as powerful a country as some-should play a very key role in influencing the resolutions that might be put forward. In other words, much as I appreciate the role of the United Nations and respect its decisions, I think we have a key role to play in the decisions that it is going to take.
That is not giving it a blank cheque and saying: "Whatever you do, we know we will be just fine". How do we know that? Why are we not standing up and saying: "If we endorse the resolution,"-which they have not passed yet-"we are, in essence, endorsing war". Do we, as a country, want war? I do not think we do.
We do not like what Saddam Hussein has done. I do not believe that this is the time to be passing a motion endorsing war. I do not believe the people of Canada believe that. I believe that we need more time for sanctions, and the hon. member is right, we must work together, but not by endorsing war, because the cost of war is very great.
I must ask: "What do we as Canadians have to gain from endorsing war at this time?" I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have absolutely nothing to gain right now by endorsing war. We have not given sanctions time to really take effect.
As a matter of fact, we are even now endangering the fate of the hostages that we have in that country. Let's give it a little bit of time. If we declare war tomorrow, it is not going to be over six months from now. We are going to have tremendous casualties.
I am a mother. I have children who are of age to fight in a war. I do not know that I want to say to my children and to the people in my constituency: "Go out because you are going to defend the country". Defend it against what? What have we as a country, as Canadians, to gain by endorsing a resolution at the UN or saying to the UN: "We want you to pass this resolution. Whatever resolution you take, we will endorse at this time".
What have we to gain as a country? What do our children have to gain from this kind of a resolution? I am asking this in all honesty, because I do not believe we have anything to gain. I do not know why Mr. Bush is so anxious to have a war in the gulf because there has been aggression by others. We have not seen the Americans rush in.
Is it because there is oil there? We have oil here. Why are we in such a rush? What do we have to gain? I keep asking. We have everything to lose, and absolutely nothing to gain.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone would quarrel with the hon. member when she says that no one wants to see war.
In fact, the resolution before the House tonight certainly does not refer to war. I think I had better read it again for the hon. member so she will hear it. It reads as follows:
That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with the Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.
There is nothing in that at all that refers to war.
There is a resolution coming before the United Nations tomorrow. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in that that refers to war. I will read that for the hon. member as well, particularly paragraph 2, the action paragraph. I hope hon. members will try to keep order
November 28, 1990

on the other side so that I can complete my answer. The hon. member's question was a long one. I know she would love me to give a long answer as well. That is truly what I intend to do in keeping with her wishes.
Paragraph 2 of that UN resolution for tomorrow states: "authorizes member states to co-operate with the Government of Kuwait unless Iraq, on or before January 15, 1991, fully implements as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions: To use all necessary means to uphold and implement the Security Council resolution 660".
That does not refer to war either, Mr. Speaker.
In addition, the Minister of National Defence in his comments indicated quite clearly that this government has given a mandate to our forces in the gulf that if there is to be a change in that mandate in any way, there will be a debate in this House specifically on any change in that mandate.
There is nothing in any of that that refers to war in any way. The hon. member also asked what we and our children had to gain from all this. I think it is quite clear that we and our children have an enormous amount to gain from standing firm with the United Nations to standing against aggression.
A few years ago the Second World War got off the track when people refused to stand up against aggression. Now, at long last, the world seems to be united, not just the United States, not just Canada, not just the Soviet Union, but countries around the world are united in standing against aggression.
If we can finally get the world to stand up against aggression, albeit once, then there will be a second time, a third time, and pretty soon we will have a rule of law applying right across the world where we will have a peace which is meaningful and permanent. We are going to have disarmament, all the sorts of things that the hon. member would wish for our country, and certainly I do. I know that the government shares those wishes as well.


Raymond John Skelly: I congratulate the previous speaker for a balanced and incite-ful description of what exists here.
Government Orders
On this side of the House there is a group of people who believe that two open-ended resolutions exist for the purposes of allowing the government the opportunity to make war.
We have no assurances over here. If the Prime Minister were to stand up and say we absolutely commit ourselves to not using the Canadian Armed Forces but are going to work to make sure that the economic sanctions, the blockade, the diplomatic initiatives and any other measures and pressures that can be conjured up, will be put on Iraq. If that is what we are dealing with, we could take some comfort in that. The Prime Minister's track record is honestly bad. The members have to admit that. This government's track record is so bad that the majority of Canadians are absolutely opposed to it.
I do not even know why we are here debating this. If the members who have spoken believe that the government is not going to use this as an opportunity to use the Canadian Armed Forces without the consent of Parliament, the motion would say that. That is what we would be dealing with. The government has left it open-ended because the opposition forced it to do so. There is very strong circumstantial evidence to assume that the government is going to follow Mr. Bush to war.
We should not be here debating an open-ended motion like this. I thank the member for his presentation. He certainly has defined it very clearly. We believe on the track record of that Prime Minister that we will go to war.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now completed. Debate.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I was pleased to be rising tonight, but I am not.
Just over two years ago I was elected in what was called the free trade election. During that election campaign I made it clear that that election was a lot more than about a trade deal. That election was about a closer cultural-military link with the United States. We are seeing now that that is happening. What I was saying during that election campaign has turned out to be prophetic. We are seeing our independence in developing our foreign policy withering away, and now it seems that our foreign policy is practically indistinguishable from that of the United States.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
The government members in this debate tonight have been pointing at the support of the United Nations. It is very selective support for the United Nations. They would not bring back the House to talk about sending troops to the gulf in August. They did ask the United Nations what it thought at that point. Theirs was a slavish following of the U.S. line. So this high moral fibre that they are talking about now in support of the United Nations is very dubious, Mr. Speaker. The ebbs and flows of support for the UN from this government seem to go with political expediency.
I want to talk about sanctions. A number of members have pointed out that there has not been sufficient time for sanctions to take effect. We have seen in the South African experience how there have been sanctions for nearly 30 years, and it is only now that we are seeing change. I am not advocating that we wait 30 years, because in this instance there has been unprecedented unity of the international community in following up on sanctions. I think it would take months, not years, for sanctions to take their effect.
What is the rush? We have heard the high-minded arguments of the government members for proceeding with this tack of going to war. That is what we are talking about this evening in this House, going to war.
One of the government members talked about the morality in international behaviour. If that is so, where is the consistency? Where was this government and where were these members when we talked about the invasion of East Timor in Indonesia? What happened when China invaded Tibet? We did nothing. There was no response.
I think what we have to look at is the real agenda here. There are numerous examples beyond East Timor and Tibet.
The government is also saying that we condemn Saddam Hussein. We all condemn Saddam Hussein. But what we have seen with the kind of rhetoric in this House and in the United States is an attempt to personalize this issue in one man, to make him so evil. He is evil. I believe he is evil. But the attempt is to personalize this issue to one man so that we are capable of taking unthinkable action, of sending our young men and women into war, the kind of war that is beyond imagination.
I have a document that was provided me by Greenpeace, Mr. Speaker. It is four pages, dealing only with the U.S. capability in the Middle East, the nuclear capability: seven aircraft carriers, each with over 100 nuclear bombs on them; two battleships; eleven cruisers; three destroyers; then there are all the support ships that go along with them, and the submarines, all nuclear capable. That is only the United States capability. We do not know about France, we do not know about the Soviet Union, we do not know about Iraq. There are probably biological and chemical weapons there. This is what we are sending our young men and women into, Mr. Speaker.
I know that some of the Liberals were saying that I was getting exercised earlier on on this issue. You are damn right I am getting exercised. I think war is something to get exercised about, when we are talking about going to war.
When I came to this House I was here as a member of the New Democratic Party and someone who had worked for a long time for peace. This is not the way of achieving peace. We should be allowing time for sanctions to work.
That whole picture of Saddam Hussein as a madman, as an evil being, is of course true. I believe that is true, but we have to look beyond Saddam Hussein. One newspaper article that I have read recently gave an interesting statistic, and that is that 50 per cent of the population of Iraq is 14 years of age and under. That is who we would be going to war against.
As a mother of a child who is 14 and another who is 17, I am not willing to put my vote for that action. It is always women and children that are the first victims in any war. It is the civilians, especially in the kind of war that we have already seen Saddam Hussein quite capable of waging, using chemical weapons against his own people. We do not want that to happen. We do not want our young men and women injured. We do not want the children of Iraq injured, the innocent victims of war.
Why are we doing this? I think all of us know why we are doing it. It is because Kuwait and Iraq have vast quantities of oil.
As the associate critic on the environment for my party, responsible for the international aspects of the environment, this is another aspect: we have been working for the past 18 months in the environment committee on the whole issue of the changes to atmosphere, of global warming, and of carbon dioxide emis-
November 28, 1990

sions. Carbon dioxide emissions come from fossil fuels, come from oil. This is an opportunity to reduce our dependency on oil.
The government would have the public support to say no, we have to reduce our dependency on oil. But, no, the government has decided to take another tack. It has given away its independence on foreign policy. It is lock-step with the United States. It is leading us down a path, not only for our destruction, but for possible world destruction. I am not talking inflated rhetoric. We are playing a very dangerous game here.
In conclusion, there is no way that I will support this resolution, this government motion. I think the high-minded talk about supporting the UN is political expediency. They only do it when they figure that it is in lock-step with the United States. Let us be clear, my party and I are opposed to war in the gulf. We will be working diligently to make certain that the peace activists right across Canada contact their members of Parliament in every party of this House to make certain that they vote the correct way.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her performance this evening. I note that she is a known pacifist and that she truly believes in what she says. But what I did not like about her speech was that she hinted that Canada, with regard to the Iraqi situation, has climbed onto the American band wagon. That is not true. If she has followed the debates during the last few weeks, if she has kept up with the reactions of all the presidents and heads of state including Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Mitterrand and others, then she knows that UN members for the first time are unanimous in saying that it is wrong, that it is unacceptable for any country to invade another by the force of arms, to rape the women, to kill the children, to destroy. I believe this is taking place at this very moment and that we must act; we must show all the other nations that we can unanimously tell Mr. Hussein:
"If you do not leave Kuwait, if you do not respect the freedom of the Kuwaiti, if you do not stop killing them and torturing them, we shall unfortunately have no choice but to take action". And this is what all countries
Government Orders
are saying, not just the United States. Mr. Gorbachev clearly said so not long ago.
The Chinese made the same statement recently when they said: "No, Mr. Hussein, we shall not use our right of veto to support you in this action. It is unacceptable; we are heading towards a new world order". This is what we hear from all national leaders except Mr. Hussein who says: "I have my own vision of things. Using brute force, I shall attack any country I choose. I shall make them say that their land is now my land and I shall do as I please in those countries".
I consider that unacceptable and everyone in this country, all the men and women of Canada, disagree with what Mr. Hussein is doing at this time.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I think that we all share mutual abhorrence of Saddam Hussein's actions. I do not think that there should be any doubt of that, and I would take extreme umbrage if that was what the member intended to say. Where we differ, though, is on how we are going to move him to change. Are we going to kill millions of women and children in a holocaust in the Persian Gulf, or are we going to allow economic sanctions time to work?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it has almost been driven out of my mind, the searing question that I had on the eloquent speech the member for Saanich- Gulf Islands has given.
I would like first of all to make this comment that in dealing with the issue that is before the House we have one item in background. We heard the other day that the government was making various cutbacks to public and social services, allegedly to pay for the war. It even has $17 million in preparation for actions beyond March 1991.
What does the hon. member think of the idea of cutbacks in public and social services to pay for war in the gulf?


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Victoria for his question. This is what I was speaking of in my initial comments.
The increased militarization of our country is what we are seeing here, and that was implicit with the trade deal. If you are going to have a closer economic relationship with a country, it is a given that you are going to have a

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
closer social policy and environmental connection. That is why we are seeing the increased budget items for the defence department. It is not just because of the Persian Gulf war; it is because of the increased militarization of our country.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon -Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I would feel much better about this debate tonight if it were a little more honest and if we were debating in this House whether we should be sending our troops to war. That would be a much more honest debate than the one we are having here today.
The position being put forward by the government in its motion does not even suggest that it is planning to use force. The government's motion, which asks us to support Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions before the Security Council, does not even suggest that the resolution that will be before the Security Council tomorrow is part of this debate. But the resolution that is to be debated tomorrow is very specific because it:
2.	Authorizes Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before January 1 (15), 1991 fully implements, as set forth in Paragraph one above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security to the area;
3.	Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph two of this resolution; and - .
It goes on. This provides a blank cheque to any country, Canada, the United States, or any other country to begin war in Kuwait. All other countries would be expected to support it. That is what we are debating today.
It goes on to make three other requests. If we pass this resolution, we are supporting the movement of troops, planes and ships into a war zone and into a war. To whom are we giving this support? To whatever country decides to go to war. The only country that has been talking about war in the last month is the United States. The decision to go to war will not be made by the Canadian government, but by some other government and from our understanding of Mr. Bush's comments, the United States government.
I think that the President of the United States has misread his people because there is a growing concern in the States that this is not the way to solve the problem. The sanctions seem to have been working but they have not been given a chance. As my colleague suggested, sanctions in South Africa took 20 to 30 years to work. I am not suggesting that there is a parallel here, but it does indicate that sanctions take time to work.
A declaration of war or an acceptance of this resolution gives someone authority to attack another nation, to attack another people. The products of war are death. The member from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley talked about the atrocities of the Iraqi. Violence begets violence. Should we kill thousands of Iraqi children by declaring this war? Do we punish Saddam Hussein by killing children and the civilians of Iraq?
There has to be a better way and the United Nations,until now , has been advocating that better way. It has advocated sanctions, isolation, and strong world opinion. We have come a long way on that track. We have acted together in the United Nations to keep the peace. Are we going to take a backward step now? Are we going to take a backward step because the President of the United States sees this as an opportunity to shore up his image in his own country? Again I think he has misread what his people believe because the U.S. people are not going to be supportive of this war.
What about the cost? The cost of keeping these troops in the Gulf in that area has been veiy high but it is small compared to the cost of going to war. As the critic for official development aid, I know that we can do a lot more for the people of this world by taking some of that money and spending it for aid in underdeveloped countries than spending it in war.
I am not alone in my concern.
In a letter from the Canadian Council of Churches to the Prime Minister, signed by my old friend, Dr. Stuart Brown, several points were made which I want to read into the record. A communique from the council states:
A gulf war could have no beneficial results.
Quoting the letter, it continues:
November 28, 1990

"The modern high-technology warfare for which the Gulf region has been prepared would result in mass destruction," with the loss of tens of thousands of lives and increased long-term instability in the Middle East.
It is more than just that. The communique goes to state:
While Iraq's aggression against Kuwait is unacceptable, the most effective instrument against this aggression is economic sanctions. Sanctions must be accompanied by two fundamental assurances: that "the innocent people of Iraq and Kuwait will not simply be starved into submission" and that "there will be an openness to negotiate the terms of an Iraqi retreat." Canadian churches and churches in the region are committed to monitoring the effects of sanctions to ensure that the basic dietary and health needs of the people are met.
The letter commends the government for agreeing to debate this issue in Parliament. "This is not the time for ultimata; rather it is the time to search for non-military solutions, even if that means compromise and a less than ideal resolution. War will most certainly not produce an ideal solution".
The Council letter, signed by Dr. Stuart E. Brown, general secretary, was prepared by a joint working group of the CCC bodies: the Committee on International Affairs, the Middle East Working Group and Project Ploughshares. It was formally endorsed by the Anglican, United, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches.
Each member of the House, and each Canadian, who supports this resolution or the idea that we should go, should ask themselves if they would sacrifice their son or daughter for this war. Would they sacrifice their son or daughter if there was another way to save them? That is what they are asking other people to do.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the member who spoke, given what he has said, if he and his party have ruled out any military option, or if they still envisage that that is a possibility at some stage?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the idea of war under any circumstances is abhorrent to me.
We understand that security sometimes is backed up by military force. The need to use it is usually because there is an intent to gain something by it. I do not believe
Government Orders
there is anything to be gained by it here, and I do not think it is necessary.
My suggestion would be that only under extreme circumstances and possibly on attack would we suggest that it go, but it is something that we have not ruled out entirely.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have been involved in quite a few debates in the House.
I am not taking tremendous exception to the remarks of the last speaker but, quite frankly, I feel that this debate from its start has been one of the more sombre and serious debates, and has actually had a flow of information back and forth that sometimes is not the common denominator in debates. In particular, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a tremendous contribution. He did clarify perhaps one of the big things that we are debating.
To start with, there is no one who is supporting Saddam Hussein by standing and asking questions about a resolution that is very vague.
There is an honest interpretation as to the meaning of the resolution when it is tied in with what is going to be debated in New York tomorrow. As it stands now, Motion No. 24, which the hon. member for Etobicoke Lakeshore tried to clarify, is vague and can be open to the interpretation that opposition members and others have put on it. I tremendously resent it, as sombre as I can be tonight, because other remarks have been said outside the House which have been more inflammatory than any remarks that have been made in the House. When talking about potential conflict, we do not need inflammatory remarks to put the old gas on the fire. Fortunately, tonight, things have been sombre. I intend to try to maintain that dictum along with all members' contributions here today in large measure.
People outside the House say that if you dispute this or do not support that, then you are in some camp that we never want to be in, that is Saddam Hussein's. But they forget that there is a fellow called Sam Nunn. He is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States. There is a fellow called Les Aspin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the United States. They have questioned where America is

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
going. It is their President, he being Republican and they being Democrat, whom they had do what the commander and chief of that country is entitled and is supposed to do. That is, to move quickly when Congress is not in session and/or stabilize bad situations. That is what George Bush did. That is why the Prime Minister of our country responded to the call and it is why other countries of the group of 26 of the coalition responded to the call to do what everyone wanted to be done, that is, to stabilize the position in the Middle East that everyone who is a student of history, let alone a student of the Middle East, knows is a most unstable area at the best of times.
You have friends one year that you feed fuel to and give them armaments. They are your best friends and then you do not believe what they say. They shoot a British journalist about a week or so before and everyone complains. They are still saying that an American delegation should go and meet Saddam Hussein.
I am going to quote the most interesting article that I wish everyone on the government side and everyone in the United Nations would have read. It appeared in a Sunday edition of The New York Times in September. It is the most appalling indictment of foreign policy when the ambassador of the United States, in talking to the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, eight days before the attack, asks her about what is your position on Kuwait. I have the quotes here and I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is perhaps aware of it.
I am amazed that it has not been raised more in this country in the media. It was of so much import before the Americans adjourned for their mid-term congressional elections, that a subcommittee on middle eastern affairs was having hearings on how their Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Kelly, had given instructions to the poor American ambassador. She was just carrying out instructions from Washington. She said: "Oh, your problem with Kuwait is a dispute between Arab and Arab. You don't have to worry about the United States on that". That was eight days before Saddam Hussein made the attack across the border and took over Kuwait. He may not be going to do it anyway, but it is that type of fundamental flip-flop on something that is so important that disturbs many people.
I want to congratulate the member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, an ex-military maritime commander, who made a tremendous contribution.
I will digress to the American side. You can raise legitimate questions, but do not let anyone raise a question that people, on raising the questions, no matter where they sit, are for Saddam Hussein and against peace. This is the worst type of demagoguery that you could ever see. To bring this into proper perspective, we have a debate on a vague resolution that disturbs me.
I wish the government, before tomorrow's vote, would amend its own resolution. The Liberal Party has moved an amendment to the motion that I can certainly support because it clarifies some of the legitimate vagueness in the present resolution. I will not go over the interpretation we give to all the resolutions confronting the United Nations which will be debated tomorrow. They can be amended tomorrow, as the member for South West Nova mentioned in a question to the minister or one of the government members. Who is to say that even the draft will be debated? Yet this blanket resolution will get us involved, potentially, with whatever they pass in New York tomorrow.
Just to reduce the argument to the absurd by using an extreme analogy, there are resolutions at the United Nations about Israel. Let us just save it tonight over coffee cups in New York as they try to hammer out things. There seems to be a crack in the coalition. Someone says, and it might be Gorbachev, having just had the Foreign Minister of Iraq in Moscow, and allegedly, Gorbachev was supposed to have given him a tongue lashing and said: "Get out, you have only a little time". Well, let us say the coalition is starting to get frayed at the edges, because it is a very tenuous coalition at the best of times.
Just to reduce this argument to the extreme, when you start to absorb the blanket resolutions of the United Nations, they could start to make a deal down there that comes on the United Nations Plaza tomorrow which will affect Israel. Some of those resolutions very definitely affect the whole Middle East. Of course, that is one of the troubling things with this whole debate, we are talking about oil-and we know it is oil-but we also know, and everyone knows, and I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs alluded to it in his remarks, that until we can resolve the question of Israel and the
November 28. 1990

Palestine refugees and the Gaza Strip, we will never get stability in the Middle East.
This brings me to a lighter thing that I throw out not in jest because of the lightness of the moment, but because of the pithy philosophy behind it, and that is my old friend Doonesbury, old Doonesbury the cartoonist. He comes up with a lot of interesting thoughts. Just last week, he had the cartoon that I think we all should remember as we try to hurry this thing along, all since August 2, four months down the road. There is the cartoon. The forces are coming in, Americans are getting off the helicopters-and no one accused me of being an anti-American. I am not anti-American at all, I married one, and am very happy to have married one, and am still married to her, so I am not anti-American. They are coming off the helicopter. There are the two camel drivers. One camel says to his fellow camel: "Boy, Ella, these fellows think they're pretty smart. They're going to settle this problem in four months, and we've been trying to settle it for 4,000 years".
Mr. Speaker, in talking about the Middle East, there is an awful lot of truth to that cartoon. So why, when everyone is for economic sanctions and some people raise questions about force. Even congressional leaders in the United States are now raising questions about force. The sad thing about this whole problem to me is that Canada will never have the forces, it never should have the forces of the United States. Thank God, we do not. But we did not exercise Pearsonian diplomacy this summer.
When Bush made the call and we responded initially with others it was to stabilize the situation, because Saudi Arabia was next. That was important, and we moved. Then there was the interval between the stability and preventing further invasion into Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein, according to what I read, would have controlled 40 per cent of the oil fields that feed the west. But we changed the mandate, which everyone responded to quickly to stabilize and prevent another invasion. No problem. Work things out.
The next item becomes removing Hussein from Kuwait. I do not know what the mandate is today. Yes, I have heard President Bush. I have heard the Prime Minister. Get out of Kuwait. Yes, aggression should not
Government Orders
be rewarded. But does getting out of Kuwait mean terminating Saddam Hussein? Does it mean, as some members have said here earlier tonight in effect bombing Baghdad back to the cave, involving all the casualties that will make? Does that mean having a trusteeship go in and administer Iraq now that we have elevated President Assad of Syria? He and Saddam Hussein, I gather, are not the friendliest of souls.
It is unreal to even think about the potential of a war when we have so many feudal rivalries which have been there for a thousand years. They are flipping and flopping between one and the other, as some speakers have said the other night, just because some of the bad ones now happen to be on the good side-even though we know they are not very good.
How can President Bush justify going to Geneva and sitting down with President Assad of Syria, an acknowledged terrorist nation that puts bombs in international airplanes? Up until now we would not even talk to him, but because the end justifies the means in a Machiavellian way, we now get in bed with Assad, thinking that that is going to solve our problems in the Middle East, just having fallen out of bed with Saddam Hussein whom we were all for when he was fighting the hated Ayatollah of Iran.
We may start getting into that jigsaw puzzle, what with all the good intentions and serious things that have been said by all members about peace and the best way to try and resolve the problem in the Persian Gulf.
We just should not think of the geography of the world where time does not mean quite what it does in the more western world where we go by the clock. We have an eight-hour day and do not bow down and pray to Allah. We do not watch the old grass grow on the rock as is the oriental custom.
I have become involved emotionally with this problem because I watched the situation escalate. I was all for what President Bush did in getting people involved and Canada contributing. That was when I thought the UN would work things out. But the sadness to me! I have two sons, both fighting age and there is no way that I would want either of those sons to go to fight on the sand of a feudal kingdom where the democracy that we believe in has been put on suspension for 15 years.

Government Orders
If we, north of the 49th parallel, could have eased off on our unqualified and blind support after things had stabilized and said, "Hey, let us not get too many troops in there because obviously if we get 200,000, that may stabilize things. If we get half a million, then we are starting to set up a situation that we cannot pull back from". This has escalated the stakes beyond reason. That is the sadness I find and that is why I say we did not exercise Pearsonian diplomacy.
We are in the interval between stability and escalation because a President was caught in the mid-term election, for goodness sake. How much that has affected his decision, I do not know. But I certainly think it affected some of the things that Margaret Thatcher said when she was in Paris just 10 days ago. She talked about the brutal things going on in Iraq, things we all sort of knew. One wondered if she was saying this because of Iraq or whether it was because of her own particular political problems?
That may be very unfair, but I will tell you that that is what I thought when I saw her on television talking about Iraq in a most inflammatory way.
There was a time when putting half a million troops into Iraq, people would have said, "Hey, let us work this out and try to come up with something". Earlier I alluded to a New York Times story because we are on the precipice of a conflict.
Anyone who watched the the three-part PBS series on the Korean war will agree it was fantastic. It was on how you could miss communications and misjudge your enemy. The Americans soldiers were on the Yalu River in 1952 or 1953, thinking the war was over. It was one of the most interesting documentaries on PBS in a long while. The North Korean captain, the Chinese colonel, and the North Korean corporal, part of the 3,000 up in the hills, saw the Americans sitting on their tanks eating the American Thanksgiving dinner at the Yellow River because General McArthur thought the war was over. Here they had infiltrated the hills and from their cameras we could see this happening in this amazing documentary, just about two days before they came out of the hills. Of course, they chased the Americans and Canadians right back into Seoul. That was a misjudg-ment in communication in assessing the enemy. This is a misjudgment, too.
According to The New York Times of Sunday, September 23, 1990, it was the American Ambassador, April Glaspie, who on July 25, eight days before the invasion urged the Iraq leader, Saddam Hussein to settle his differences with Kuwait, but added:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
This is according to an Iraqi document described as a transcript of their conversations. I am reading from The New York Times, Sunday edition. This is very authentic because this is what started a subcommittee hearing in the United States before they adjourned for their congressional elections.
I actually tried to phone Lee Hamilton, one of the better American congressman, a Democrat from Indiana, who was a chairman of that subcommittee, to find out the status of this subcommittee. Perhaps they thought it unpatriotic to explore it further, I do not know. Portions of the document, prepared in Arabic by the Iraqi government, was translated and broadcast by ABC News on September 11, and were the basis of accounts by The Washington Post and The Guardian of London. TTie article states:
The State Department declined to confirm the accuracy of the document, but officials did not dispute Ms Glaspie's essential message.
Then it states:
The administration was following what President Bush acknowledged last week was a flawed policy toward Iraq, a policy built on the premise that the best way to handle Mr. Hussein and moderate his behaviour was through improving relations with Baghdad. That assessment presumed that Iran and Iraq, both exhausted by their eight-year border war, would focus on domestic reconstruction, not foreign adventurism.
As a result, the Bush Administration failed to calibrate its policy to take into account a string of belligerent statements and actions by Mr. Hussein in recent months, including the execution of a British journalist and a threat to use chemical weapons against Israel.
Listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
"We were essentially operating without a policy," said a senior administration official. "The crisis came in a bit of a vacuum, at a time when everyone was focusing on German reunification."
This lady we have seen on PBS over the year because she speaks for the administration quite a bit:
On July the 24, when Margaret D. TUtwiler, the States Department spokeswomen, was asked whether the United States had any commitment to defend Kuwait,she said"We do not have any defence

November 28, 1990

treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait."
Asked whether the United States would help Kuwait if it were attacked, she replied, "We also remain strongly committed to supporting the individual and collective self-defense of our friends in the gulf with whom we have deep and longstanding ties," a statement that some Kuwaiti officials said privately was too weak.
Tivo days before the invasion, John H. Kelly, Assistant Secretaiy of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, essentially repeated the same message in Congressional testimony.
Lee Hamilton, at the hearing, chided Mr. Kelly for not taking a tougher stance against Iraq in his testimony before the invasion. The article goes on:
You left the impression that it was the policy of the United States not to come to the defense of Kuwait," said Mr. Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat. "I asked you if there was a U.S. commitment to come to Kuwait's defense if it was attacked. Your response over and over again was we have no defense-treaty relationship with any gulf country."
I will not go any further because others wish to speak. Time is very essential in any types of conclusion. In conclusion, we had this type of flip-flop in policy when mixed signals were sent to the president by the ambassador for the United States. Fortunately, Bush did stabilize those mixed signals, but we may get ourselves involved in a world war. If there is any doubt about fighting, everyone in this House and everyone at the United Nations should read the book The Bodyguard of Lies. In it Churchill is quoted as saying: "In war truth is so precious it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies".
I commend this to everybody to read because this is the story of the deception, the deceit, and the spies, not just during the war but before the war when the German Commander in Chief, General Beck, of the German general staff was trying to get a message to London in 1938, saying: "Hey, London, we will get rid of this madman Hitler if you make sure you don't do certain things". This story illustrates in quote after quote and person after person how even within the general staff, the head of the intelligence department of the German army was always trying to get messages through.
If these two cultures that think alike could not get the message through to prevent a war, how can we be expected to hurry the type of communication that
Government Orders
obviously is a problem between an Arabic situation and our western situation?
I conclude with what a Christian told me at a New Year's levee during the Iran hostage situation when poor old President Carter was trying to get the hostages out. I will never forget this. This was told by a member of our Armed Forces at the base that I have the honour to represent, CFB Greenwood. He is a Christian now. He had been a Muslim. He told me: "Mr. Nowlan, what really is the trouble with you westerners trying to deal with us people in the Middle East, you do not understand us because fundamentally the quickest way a Muslim can get to heaven is to kill an infidel and every Christian is an infidel. If you cannot get to heaven that way, the second quickest way to get to heaven is to be killed by an infidel".
With that type of so different thinking, to think that we are hurrying this thing along and not giving the time that most experts say is necessary for trade sanctions, I say we will regret it. This debate has been important. I only hope it gets to some people in New York before tomorrow.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting, very worth-while and entertaining presentation.
There are two interesting things that I would like to ask the member about the speech. One, he is a longstanding Conservative and respected member of the Conservative Party and the government in this House who recently crossed the floor. In his statement tonight he opposes the motion. He pointed out the difficulties in the vagueness of that resolution and the fact that the opposition could interpret it the way they have tonight. The other thing is the consistency of the government side of the House where they are rock solid for this resolution and speak in support of it.
Would the hon. member venture to guess that the reason that they are on side is the government caucus is being forced into this position and the fact that the member has crossed the floor has given him the freedom to speak out against a very poor resolution presented to this House?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Categorically no, Mr. Speaker, I would not subscribe to that at all. Some day if the hon. member's party ever gets to be the government he will

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
understand that there are some different pressures, but he can still speak out, he can still speak within and then he can make up his mind. I think the debate here tonight typified that. Things were said by members on all sides that frankly were not strictly according to the dots on the i's and the crosses on the t's of the party lines.
I would like to see, frankly, more independence sometimes in the hon. member's party because his party is more monolithic than any party that I ever belonged to.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the feast of reason and flow of soul from the hon. member. It is wonderful that, having switched sides, he is able to become unzipped as it were and spill out all these wonderful thoughts for the benefit of all members of this House and, of course, for the Canadian public. What I want to ask him and what I could not understand from listening as attentively as I did to his lengthy speech was whether or not he is going to support the Liberal amendment to this motion.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member for Niagara, even when I was sitting on the other side of the House, although he used to confound me sometimes with his semantic arguments on procedural hurdles that had no sense, but you did not hear-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I'm from Kingston.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Kingston, sorry. Well, you sometimes sound like Niagara on your procedural points of privilege. That is what I thought.
I am sorry the member did not hear me too clearly because I thought I did say at one time when I was trying to speak a little slower than I usually speak that I was going to support your amendment.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, just a quick question. The member has been in the House for a considerable period of time. Perhaps he can shed some light on the NDP amendment.
The NDP amendment says that this House opposes the use of force against Iraq until sanctions and other UN measures have had time to succeed. In effect what the NDP is saying is that they are endorsing the use of force, which seems to be contrary to NDP policy. Perhaps the member, with his experience, can advise the House whether this is an about-face on behalf of the
NDP who seem to be supporting war with this particular amendment. Does he share my conclusions?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will be even shorter on this one.
Just because I moved across the floor of the House to this perch that has a great view is no sign that I am going to start to interpret NDP amendments, subamendments, or even motions. I think they are quite capable of trying to interpret themselves.
[Translation)


Marc Ferland: I have a short question, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of my colleague's experience and I would like him to tell me, based on his many years in the House-during his career, he has taken part in debates which were just as important as this one-in view of the circumstances and of the importance of the issue and considering that motion No. 24 which we are studying this evening is meant to support action to be taken by the United Nations, whether he would agree with me that the members of this House should all stand behind Canada's support of the United Nations.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This has been part of the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate and know that the member has dutifully been here tonight and has had good questions. This is part of the debate. Obviously we all want to support the UN, but there is obviously a little different interpretation as how you most effectively support it, especially when you have a resolution that I think even my hon. friend would agree has some vagueness to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate, the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte will be the next two speakers with 10 minutes each.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate which I think we all wish was not necessaiy. Certainly it is one I would have preferred to avoid, but I feel it is a personal political responsibility to take a stand on difficult issues like this, perhaps particularly so on difficult issues like this.
It is unthinkable that we have come to this tonight. I do not think many of us ever believed we would again have to come to grips with the real prospects of war. It is a little like a nightmare, unreal, unimaginable that we must seriously consider decisions that will bear potential for death and destruction, not only of Canadian men and women, but possibly of tens of thousands of human
November 28. 1990

beings on all sides, friends and foes, not just military personnel but innocent civilians, families, and children. It certainly is a horrible prospect.
My own instincts, as I believe would be the case with virtually every member in this Elouse, would normally be to work for peace at almost any cost. Certainly I believe that we should do that. We should work for peace at almost any cost. Certainly I know that most of my constituents would have us avoid armed conflict except as a very last resort.
It is not difficult for me to identify with this issue in a very personal way. My wife and I have raised seven children and we have seven grandchildren. It is not inconceivable that war in the Persian Gulf might eventually impact directly on their lives. The world is a very small place today and distances are covered quickly by satellites, aircraft, intercontinental missiles, and, yes indeed, even by nuclear bombs.
It is very tempting, and it would be with great relief to set this subject aside, to leave it to other countries with larger stakes in the issues and with larger capabilities to deal with them. It would be far more satisfying to speak only for peace and never in contemplation of war.
That would not be responsible in the context of our membership in the United Nations. It would not be true to our commitments of interdependence with our allies, our neighbours and our friends. It would not be respectful of the faith in our mandates from our constituents, and I do not believe it would be Canada.
Rather, we have no alternative but to face up to the tragic irony that, although peace is the goal we all seek, history has taught us that sometimes if we want to ensure peace, we must even be prepared to go to war to attain it. This truly does seem to be one of those times in world history.
Not necessarily war, but a resolve for war if necessary to preserve the peace. I believe it is that resolve that will be our strength in preventing war at this time in the Persian Gulf.
I have always thanked my maker that I was born too young to fight in Europe or in Japan, but I do remember. Looking back those more than 50 years, I think we can
Government Orders
now see with the perfect vision of hindsight that appeasement of dictators does not work to ensure peace.
Perhaps if Hitler had been confronted strongly and with determination in the late 1930s, the world might have been saved from the destruction of World War II, and many millions of lives might not have been lost.
Similarly, in 1990, I think the analogy does bear consideration that if the territorial ambition of Iraq, smaller than Germany but no less aggressive, and its dictator, Saddam Hussein, less powerful than Hitler but made from the same mould, and if their blatant aggression is not stopped in its tracks now, then who can tell where it may lead?
Our quest for peace and security cannot long tolerate the risks that that unanswered question contains. Will it stop at Kuwait? Will it be contained in the Middle East? Will it involve nuclear weapons? Can we really tolerate any of those questions at risk?
As compelling as those questions are, the burden of this debate does bear heavily upon us all. It was put in context for me today by an aggressive TV reporter on my way into the House when he asked: "Mr. Bird, are you really going to vote for young Canadians to come home in body bags from the Persian Gulf? Are you really going to obey orders from the U.S.A.?"
My quick answer seemed somehow inept and inadequate, almost as though these cynical and tortuous barbs were beyond my competence to answer. Yet, as I reflected upon these issues throughout the day, I believe I had them right at the start. I said to him: "I am not voting for death in the Persian Gulf, but rather I am voting for the best prospects of life and peace for this and future generations. I am not voting for the U.S.A. or any other foreign initiative, but rather for Canada to fulfil its responsibilities as a founding member of the United Nations designed so long ago as our best hope for preserving world peace".
Perhaps I could have even said more. For example, a little more than two weeks ago, we observed Remembrance Day in Canada. We paid tribute to hundreds of thousands of Canadians who fought for this country in two World Wars and in Korea, a great many of whom gave their lives in pursuit of freedom and peace.

Government Orders
It has long been part of our commitment on Remembrance Day to make the commitment that their sacrifices shall not have been in vain. We have not only a responsibility today to present and future generations, but also an obligation to the memory of our forebears: our fathers, brothers and uncles that we shall do what it takes to preserve peace in the world and indeed, yes, in many cases to our sisters, our aunts and our mothers.
It is a tragic statement, but to keep this commitment we must contemplate today the prospect of war again. That is a position I feel sure that those past generations, and indeed future generations, will understand and respect.
Our first challenge is to demonstrate our resolve and our diplomatic skills to mount deterrent influence that will pre-empt the prospects of conflict. The economic blockade against Iraq is a powerful weapon. It must be used with ever-increasing discipline and intensity.
In the final analysis, however, we must make it terribly obvious that we are prepared to join the United Nations in whatever fight it takes to turn Iraq out of Kuwait and to stop its aggression completely. It is to be hoped, indeed it is to be prayed, that such a demonstration of economic sanctions and political will be sufficient to achieve the purposes of peace. Otherwise the cause of peace may demand the action of war and ultimately, with very heavy hearts yet resolute spirits, we may be called upon and we must be prepared to help fight it.
The entire area of the Middle East is now a flash point for world conflict. There are many volatile forces at work, none of which can be totally predictable, except that their impact will have profound consequences around the globe. Never, since its inception, has the United Nations represented such potential for world action toward peace, and never before has its mission led so closely to war.
Perhaps, to use a Churchillian phrase, this may become the United Nations' finest hour, when the consensus and strength of nations united for peace can demonstrate conclusively that they are capable of preserving it, even by force, if necessary to do so. There can be no compromise of the principles of respect for
sovereignty of other nations and defence against aggression over the weak by the strong.
Let us hope and pray that in demonstrating its commitment to those principles, in the face of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the United Nations will also be delivering an unmistakable message of resolve that will help bring resolution to other Middle East conflicts as well. Ultimately, the fires of war must be banked in all comers of the world, particularly in the Middle East. Preserving peace in the Persian Gulf may prove to be the prelude to permanent peace elsewhere throughout that troubled region, and indeed throughout the world.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from both sides tonight differing versions of what is going on in the world and what is going on in the Persian Gulf. I think we have to respect both sides. If Canadian people who are watching tonight can filter this debate to its lowest common denominator, I guess they will come up with the understanding that we are trying to say tonight is that we do want peace. Everyone in this House wants peace.
I can criticize the New Democrats for their position. I can criticize the Liberals for their position, and maybe some of our own Progressive Conservatives. However, if one were to cut through all the rhetoric and political posturing on both sides of the House, I think one would find that the common denominator is peace, to maintain peace in the Middle East.
If the Canadian people have had a chance to hear our Associate Minister of National Defence and our Minister of National Defence who is in the House at this very moment, they will come to the opinion that that is what they want. There is absolutely no question about it.
When we compare what is going on in the Persian Gulf at this very moment to what has gone on in Vietnam and in Europe during World War II under the dictates of Adolf Hitler, I do not think it is a fair comparison. I think some members draw those comparisons simply out of fear, because we do not want those types of things to happen. If we measure what has happened in this so-called civilized world of ours in the last hundred years, in fact within the last 20th century starting with World War II and going through, there is no question at all that war is the most inhumane of all activities that human beings engage in. We do not want it. Millions of lives have been lost forever. Young generations of Canadians did not have an opportunity to grow up and
November 28, 1990

experience the great country that we do have. It was the same for Allied Forces in European countries and the United States of America.
We can go through all of the wars that we have been engaged in as a peacekeeping nation. None of us will question the fact that Canada is a peacekeeping nation, yet at some particular point we have had to put our men, our women, our children, our country on the line. Other nations have done the same thing in defence of certain principles. We have paid the price, not as much as other countries but we have certainly paid the price: hundreds of thousands of Canadians, millions of Europeans, countless millions of Russians. War has devastated the world in terms of human tragedy. None of us want to see that.
That is exactly what we are attempting to do in the Middle East. We have the support of just about eveiy civilized nation in the world in what we are attempting to do as a nation: maintain the peace. We do not want to see the kind of devastation brought about by war, but we do not avoid war by backing down and allowing an aggressive nation to take advantage of a less aggressive nation or a smaller nation. I think we are being true hypocrites if we allow that to happen. We cannot allow that to happen.
I do not think we can allow the story to be distorted. I believe to a degree that is happening. We are simply attempting to maintain the peace. I do not pretend to have all the answers to what is going on in the Persian Gulf. I simply do not. There are many experts in this House who go far beyond my abilities in this area, but as a Canadian I probably have more at risk in this matter than virtually everyone in this House. Why is this? It is because my son will be engaged in that conflict. It is something I do not want to see happen. It is as simple as that. I do not.
If we could avoid it, we would do everything in our power to avoid it, but it is something that we cannot. It is reality staring me in the face, staring our nation in the face. We cannot avoid it. My wife at this veiy moment is in West Germany to visit our son before he is deployed to the Middle East, to the Persian Gulf. Why? Because, in reality, it could be the last time that my wife and my youngest son will see Greg Junior. It is as simple as that. That is the reality of the tragedy of war. We do not want
Government Orders
it to happen. Hopefully I will be allowed to go over for a couple of days to see my son.
That is the human tragedy of war. There are parents and individuals in this very House whose sons and daughters or grandchildren are over there. Not one of us wants to see it come to the final act of man taking man, human life taking human life. We do not want that to happen.
That is why as a Canadian I can stand here very proudly and look over what we have done as a nation since World War I and certainly since World War II to maintain the peace. I believe in all sincerity that peace is exactly what our Prime Minister wants to achieve, that peace is exactly what our defence minister wants to maintain.
We are not an aggressive nation. We never have been and we never will be. We are a civilized nation that wants to bring about a civilized solution to that mighty problem, but we do not solve a problem by backing away from it. We have the support of almost every civilized nation in the universe, communist nations included or what is left of those communist nations.
That is a strange paradox when we think about it. Could we stand in this House a year ago and say that? No, we could not, but I believe our Secretary of State for External Affairs, our Prime Minister, and our Minister of National Defence have worked very strongly to bring about this sort of unification of spirit in this situation. They have worked very hard. Canada's credibility is certainly on the line. A lot of human emotions are on the line, mine included.
Going back to my opening, none of us want to see the ultimate, which is war. We do not want to see the ultimate inhumanity. Our NDP friends and our Liberal friends do not want to see it. We have taken a position which I believe history will prove right. When we look back a year, two years, five years or ten years from now, I think we could all honourably say that we did the right thing and that we were there for the right reasons: to prevent death, to prevent inhumanity, and to preserve peace.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I was moved by what the member said about his own son who

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
will be in the Persian Gulf. I want to say a few words about paying the price.
This afternoon the Canadian parliamentary group, some 40 members of Parliament, met with representatives of Baltic peoples, Canadians of Baltic heritage. We talked about paying the price and freedom being snatched from the Baltic States some 50 years ago. It reminded me, as we were sitting in the West Block discussing something that happened 50 years ago, of how we might be able to right the situation. Here we are in the House tonight talking about freedom having been snatched from the people of Kuwait by the Iraqis, and the price that has to be paid by Canadians who are there, the hostages who are there. We were most pleased today that five of those hostages will be released.
What is happening is not just about that region itself. It is about the goals of our foreign policies that it is built upon. It is the foundation, goals which are peaceful and prosperous, goals which permit Canada to live in freedom. The Baltic people have not been able to live in freedom. Now the people of Kuwait cannot live in freedom. As the member has said, a price has been paid. We cannot let ourselves remain silent. We cannot fool ourselves into believing that we are isolated from events of this magnitude.
I would just like to say to the hon. member that his commitment is strong. His resolute is strong as his own family member is involved in this. I would also like to say that recently the constituents of Scarborough Centre promptly responded to a questionnaire supporting the government's position that Canada should play a role in the Persian Gulf, a role which has been fully consistent with the United Nations to date, including the enforcement of economic sanctions.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take part in this debate. I have sat here throughout the evening listening to many great speakers, and I want to state that I support, in principle, the Canadian government's actions in condemning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, by joining late with the United Nations and countries around the world to say that this type of activity cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and that Canada would do the right thing, as it did, and participate in the naval blockade of Iraq.
From the moment Iraqi tanks rolled into Kuwait in August, there has been world-wide agreement that they must leave. The only question was how to make this happen. Some world leaders wanted immediate military action, regardless of whether the international community supported such a move. They believed that this would punish the Iraqi aggressor and ensure that Saddam Hussein would never again threaten the region.
Fortunately, other world leaders campaigned to stop such a move, recognizing that military action would shatter the international consequences in the United Nations. Other leaders promoted a more credible alternative. Since the objective behind the United States, Canada, and the other countries could be said to be the protection of Saudi Arabia from Iraqi attack, and the allies should not attack at all, but rather, declare the measures to be a success. The economic embargo of Iraq could be maintained as punishment. In time, these people argued, Iraq could sue for peace and abandon this occupied territory.
The third most widely appealing option was to combine UN-mandated economic sanctions with the potential for military action under UN agreement. In this option, every diplomatic effort would be exhausted before resorting to force. This is exactly what is happening now.
The Canadian people, through their elected representatives in Parliament, must be given the opportunity to be kept informed and to offer their opinion on the relevant issues. As I studied this motion, I realized that once again the government is trying to get authorization to branch out on its own and act without consulting Parliament. I specifically refer to the end of the motion which reads "subsequent resolutions". This makes me uneasy, as it leaves so many avenues open. The Liberal amendment would prevent the government from once again taking action without consulting Parliament.
If the House agrees to the Liberal amendment, then, and only then, will I support the motion. Without this amendment, we would be allowing the government to take action on behalf of Canadians without consulting their elected representatives. We would be writing a blank cheque to the government.
If there is one clear message that should come out of this debate tonight and tomorrow, it is this. Canada must be an advocate of patience. It must use its influence on the United Nations Security Council. It must argue for a
November 28, 1990

diplomatic solution. There must be a clear understanding, agreed to by all of us, that sanctions must be given a chance and a peaceful solution should result, certainly not one of war.
Throughout two world wars and the Korean War, Canada was recognized as one of the greatest fighting nations on the face of this earth. After this, we have become a peacekeeping nation, a reputation earned to a great degree, by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. Lately, Canada has always filled the role as peacekeeper. That is exactly how we want to continue to be known. A peaceful solution must come of this.
I am in no way trying to minimize the fact that the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq must not be tolerated and that there is support for Canadian action to date in participating in the international effort to make sanctions work. We must all keep in mind that if war breaks out, there is no way of telling how many casualties there will be and how many of our men and women will lose their lives.
We all agree, I believe, that Saddam Hussein is a madman. He is a man who must be stopped. Maybe the only way to stop him will be by force. However, if this is true, this must be debated fully in this Parliament. This is why I stand here tonight and say that, if we are to support this motion, it must be amended so that any resolution undertaken by the Security Council tomorrow must be debated in the House of Commons before Canada participates.
Christmas is fast approaching and this House will be recessing. But, if we must debate it, whether it be on December 25, December 31, or on January 1, we must debate it before further Canadian action would be taken.
Saddam Hussein is a serious threat to international peace, and the Charter of the United Nations which forbids acts of aggression must be supported. The security of other states in the region must be secured. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we settle this crisis with peace rather than with war.
On Tuesday last, the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Prime Minister stating that:
Speaking to an American Senate committee this morning, former
American Defence Secretary James Schlesinger said that so far,
Government Orders
economic sanctions against Iraq have produced the expected results,
but might have to be maintained for a whole year if they are to have
a decisive impact. His opinion is shared by a good many
international affairs experts.
The Leader asked the Prime Minister if he shares the views of these experts and, if not, why not.
In response, the Prime Minister did not bother to provide full information on the effectiveness of the sanctions. This can only lead one to believe that perhaps the Prime Minister is reluctant to let us in on the facts about sanctions, because there is evidence that they are working.
Since the Second World War, no country has been disciplined so strongly and so completely because of its aggression. With such tight sanctions, it is difficult to imagine how Iraq could possibly be better off for having invaded Kuwait. Therefore, I feel that the sanctions should be given a longer period of time, perhaps six months, or perhaps a year. The precise length of time of the sanctions I am not here to debate tonight.
What I am prepared to say is that if sanctions do not achieve their objective, which is the complete withdrawal from Kuwait of Iraqi forces and the assurance that Saddam Hussein does not plan further aggression against neighbouring states, then war will be an option. It cannot be ruled out. If it should become the most viable option for the fulfilment of international objectives, then Canada will support military action at that time.
In any scenario, the government must not be able to take such steps as it did this summer without consulting the people of Canada through Parliament. Therefore, unless this amendment is adopted, I cannot support the government's action.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have listened carefully today to my colleagues on all sides of the House. I have to say that I think all Canadians have the idea that peace is the most important thing for any country to live by. However, I do feel that there are a few elements in this debate that have been whitewashed and perhaps have to be reviewed.
My colleague mentioned the use of sanctions and the length of time, and I agree totally with everything that has been said. I agree with the last speaker for the government as to the need to find peace.

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
I think Canadians should realize that the importance of this debate tonight has been to show Canadians that once again we have a government that is proceeding faster than we should be proceeding.
One of the saddest things I have heard was one of our three members who are in Iraq on the radio tonight saying that our government, our country had not done enough to free the hostages over there. I think this is what we have forgotten in this process today.
We have not asked ourselves if we have done enough, before asking for a resolution based on something that may pass in the future, or tomorrow, at the United Nations?
I will deal with that because I asked the Minister of Defence a question specifically about it. I do not think we have tried hard enough as a country who has had a role for peacekeeping that has been well accepted throughout the world to help the remaining hostages in Iraq and Kuwait. We have not tried either in the sense of using the United Nations properly. We have resolutions of the United Nations and we have all the economic sanctions, including the sea and air transport in and out of Iraq. We have not given them time to be effective, in my view.
Furthermore, we have no reporting mechanism to anyone about the effect of the economic sanctions. We just have to accept the information coming from one source or another. There is no UN statement coming out as to the effect. I know that the chairmanship of the United Nations today is in the hands of the United States and that that chairmanship changes to another country at the end of this month. I also know that a chairman of any committee controls the work program of that committee.
I do not want to get into the reasons why we are perhaps on the verge of exercising more force in the Persian Gulf. There will be another day to argue whether they are valid reasons for Canadians, or whether it is business interests like some have implied here tonight.
It may be big business interests in the Middle East that are forcing us into this. We did not go to war or even take this type of precaution in the crisis with Lebanon or in Central America. The draft resolution that is before the UN this week would change the mandate of our forces when they went over initially, which was to enforce
economic sanctions. It was not to try and restore peace, as it says in the draft resolution.
We are asked here tonight by this government to pass a motion that supposes something in the future. Our amendment says that we do not mind passing a motion supporting all that the UN has done until today, but not a motion in the House that may or may not have a future resolution. Economic sanctions may start to work tomorrow. Why are we prejudging what the Security Council may or may not do tomorrow by passing a resolution in this House, by pre-empting a process that I think all of us have had a lot of respect for, and that is the United Nations. I do not think there has been any effort on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs or our officials at the UN to try and find what the reporting mechanism is going to be for the member states who are taking part in forcing the economic sanctions in the gulf. There is no mechanism. Furthermore, there is no mechanism within the draft resolution tomorrow that would have a reporting of the necessary force or the necessary means to keep peace in the Persian Gulf.


An hon. member:: It is committee 661, that Canada co-chaired.


Coline M. Campbell: Resolution 661, you mean.


An hon. member:: The committee that created that resolution.


Coline M. Campbell: You are talking about the military committee and I have not heard them report anywhere. I have not seen them report once. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will produce the reports of the committee.
However, I can say that we are rushing into an element that has all the hardships of losing a very secure role that we have played up until now, and the role that we have played up until tonight in the gulf. We are being asked to change that and are being asked by this government to pass a motion that will sanction its future moves, probably without having to come back to Parliament. If we sanction the motion tonight or tomorrow, and it will not be because the opposition is voting with it, we are sanctioning future resolutions. It gives the appearance that Parliament has debated and passed something that we have not had an opportunity to debate.
November 28, 1990

The vagueness of the government's motion, in its efforts to assure compliance with the Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions-and the offensive part is "subsequent resolutions", because it is vague as to what is subsequent resolutions-would be clearly defined if today's date was put in. In the future, we could come back to this House and debate any future resolutions that may be passed by the United Nations. But no, this government wants to pre-empt the Security Council and give the government cane blanche to change the role in the Persian Gulf without coming back to Parliament if the United Nations goes ahead.
In the summer, we saw troops leave Halifax without a resolution as to why they were going to the Persian Gulf. It was not until they were in Gibraltar, I think, that they got the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in this debate this evening. I particularly congratulate the government for bringing this debate forward in response, I might say, to requests put forward by various members of the opposition in the last few days and, indeed, because it is the proper thing to do.
It is appropriate that the Parliament of Canada should come together and discuss events as serious as those which have taken place in the Persian Gulf and the implication of the possibility that, for the first time in 37 years, Canadians have been drawn into hostile action.
But the debate we are engaged in today is not about war, it is about peace. The actions of the United Nations are about peace and about how best to bring forward peace. If we want to talk about war, quite frankly, war began on August 2 for the people of Kuwait and, by implication, war began on August 2 for the people of the world, the people who believe that the arbitrary actions of a medieval dictator like Saddam Hussein should not be tolerated in the world.
The events we have seen in the last year or so have been extraordinary and we thought the world was coming together for the first time. Now we are faced with this situation that brings us back down to earth and reminds us that, no matter how civilized the peoples of the world become, there will always be those who cannot play by
Government Orders
the rules of civilized people. That is what the debate is about today.
What we have seen take place in the last three months is an extraordinary coming together of the peoples of the world, united through the vehicle of the United Nations, an institution whose credibility, quite frankly in recent years has been brought into question. What we have seen in the last three months is the renewal of the credibility of the United Nations.
I welcome the debate that is taking place this evening. There is something I regret, other than what has gone on with Mr. Saddam Hussein and his supporters who have made necessary the actions of the nations that have come together at the United Nations and, indeed, have made necessary this debate in Parliament today.
There is a second thing that I regret. I must say that honestly I regret the message might go out across the world, to Canadian forces in the gulf, that Canadians do not stand united on this issue, that Canadians do not speak with one voice on this issue, and that is something regrettable.
I do not know and I certainly do not wish to attribute motivation to my hon. friends opposite with respect to what is going on here in this discussion and, indeed, this debate tonight.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Just agree to the amendment.


Peter L. McCreath: I read the amendments of the hon. members opposite, both from the Liberal Party and the NDP. Those amendments are saying that Canada tomorrow is not prepared to stand with the United Nations. That is what they are saying. They are saying: "Let's wait. Let's debate. Let's not take a strong stand. Let's not tell this man that the world is not prepared to tolerate his actions". That is what they are saying on the other side. They are proposing that we show exactly what the leader of Iraq is looking to see from the western world. He is looking to see the cracks. He is looking to see those who would break ranks. He is looking to see the weakness and that is precisely what we must not show him.
I cannot help but wonder what would have been said in this country. Canadians are not used to war. It has been 37 years since our troops faced hostile action. What would have been said in 1950? What would Prime Minister St. Laurent have said about the opposition in Parliament that day when the United Nations said: "We have to stand together". If the Parliament of Canada had

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
had to debate, if the people on the other side had said at that time: "We will not stand with the government because whatever this government does we are against". What would the Right Hon. Mackenzie King have said in 1939 if the opposition of the day had stood against the government of that time? I cannot help but think to myself that Neville Chamberlain would have been very much at home in the Liberal Party of Canada today. And what message is being sent out by that action?
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, there are two messages that the Parliament of this country must send out. One message should be sent to Mr. Saddam Hussein and that is that Canada stands with the world, that Canada is not prepared to tolerate countries invading its neighbours.
I listened earlier to my hon. friends from the NDP saying: "We must give sanctions time to work". Sanctions have not worked for 30 years in South Africa, but we must wait and let sanctions work. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I do not care what the NDP thinks, sanctions are not good enough for the people of Kuwait.
I heard talk about children being killed in the war. Nobody wants to see children killed, nobody wants to see men or women killed. But tell it to the people of Kuwait. That is who the NDP should be talking to.
The message that we must send first and foremost is that Canada stands with the world.
Second, we must send a message to our troops, to our men and women who are in the gulf. Seventy per cent of those people live in Nova Scotia, my province. I know some of the people who are over there, former friends and colleagues in the navy. We must send a message to them that Canada stands united behind them, that Canada appreciates the courage that they are showing by being there.
We heard earlier a very eloquent speech from an hon. colleague from Carleton-Charlotte. He talked about his personal involvement with his son being over there. Well, there are a lot of people in Nova Scotia who have husbands or wives, or sons or daughters over thefe. We think about those people and what message are my friends opposite sending to them? I am saying we have to send them a message that Canada appreciates the courage that they are showing. We appreciate these men

and women being there. They joined the armed forces. Hj They knew the implications. Canadians arc not used to H war. Wc can play on that if we wish, as	I think some	Hmembers of this House have chosen to	do by saying	*somebody might get killed in a war. Yes.	Mr. Speaker,	Hjsomebody might get killed in a war, but	with a strong	Hunited front, there will be no war and that, surely, is our H objective.	H1 listened earlier to my hon. friend from Bonavista- H Trinity -Conception, a very distinguished member of * this House and a retired admiral. I could not help but H wonder what reaction his friends, his former colleagues	Hjin the navy, would have to hearing him and his party	*stand there equivocating over where we are, saying we	Hcannot take a chance. The implication of their position is	*very simple: "If the shootin' starts, don't shoot back.	Hwe've got to have a debate in Parliament over it". * Nonsense! Wc must give our government a mandate to H govern. That is what parliamentary' government is all H about. So, Mr. Speaker, I do feel strongly about this. I H served ten years in the navy myself. 1 know what it is like	Hto go to sea. 1 know what it is like to be in danger. I was	Hjnever in a situation where people were going to be H shooting at me. But the bottom line is that is where our	Hpeople arc. We should not laugh about it as my friends	Hopposite arc because it is a serious situation.	H
We have to send a message to the world. We have to send a message to Canadian men and women abroad and that message is that Canada stands with the world, and with our Canadian men and women in the Armed Forces. The Government of Canada, with or without the opposition, will do what is right by the Canadian Armed Forces and, indeed, will do the people of Canada proud in taking the actions that will make it not necessary to have a war and that we will have peace in our time.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a very difficult act to follow. I do appreciate the member's words and I do concur with him 100 per cent.
I would like to express my support tonight for the resolution we are discussing and point out some of Canada's responsibilities in this particular crisis. We have a long history as peacekeepers and we do have the
November 28, 1990

responsibility today to help restore the peace in the Persian Gulf.
As a member of the United Nations Security Council, we have the responsibility to uphold the charter of the United Nations and all of its resolutions. Ultimately, as the Government of Canada, we have the responsibility to explain to Canadians the role we intend to play in this particular crisis.
The background of this whole situation is well known to all of us. We are aware of the details of how on August 2 Iraq invaded Kuwait. This unprovoked, brutal and most monstrous act of aggression shocked the whole world and triggered one of the most serious international crises of recent times. It was a flagrant violation of international law and has been condemned by the whole international community. Despite the United Nations resolutions creating an international trade embargo and sanctions, Mr. Hussein has seen not fit to back down. Many foreigners, including 45 Canadians, are still being held hostage in Iraq. The threat of future violence toward Saudi Arabia and any other of the gulf states is still a real possibility.
While the sanctions have perhaps produced some changes in the position of Iraq, the Americans and others tell us that it will be perhaps a year before they take effect. I think we need to recognize what the delay while waiting for the sanctions to take a full effect would have. I believe that as we consider the build-up and development of nuclear arms by Iraq and stockpiling of chemical weapons, we realize the threat to all of the peaceful countries in the Middle East.
Mr. Hussein has been described as crazy, but I do not believe he is. I believe he is very shrewd and calculating, and as we have already seen, a very unpredictable person. His recent attempts to lead the whole Arab world against Israel are a very dangerous ploy and will lead to further destabilization in the Middle East.
The motion before us this evening is to support the United Nations resolution which demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions. This resolution provides Iraq with one final opportunity to remove all of its troops from Kuwait and release the foreign hostages. If this is not done, the resolution authorizes member states to use all necessary
Government Orders
means to bring an end to this crises. While this does not necessarily mean the immediate use of troops, it does allow those in charge of the UN forces to use force it necessary.
In supporting this motion, we would be supporting the use of force which many feel would be inconsistent with our responsibilities to our traditional peacekeeping role.
We have to ask ourselves this evening what it really means to be peacekeepers. I believe that peacekeeping is an integral part of not only preserving the peace, but sometimes restoring it when it has been disturbed, such as has happened in the Middle East.
As Canadians, we can be justifiably proud of our role as peacekeepers. In March of this year we had the privilege to visit Cyprus where we visited the Canadian troops, who have an excellent role and an excellent reputation as peacekeepers.
We are familiar with the role that Canadians played in the Suez crisis in the 1950s. It was our country under the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, Lester Pearson, who pioneered the United Nations Emergehcy Force, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Canada is the only member of the United Nations to have participated in all of the major peacekeeping operations. Our record spans four decades and include operations both within and without the UN auspices. Considering this history, we cannot abandon our role and responsibility as peacekeepers.
A very significant statement was made by our Prime Minister when he said: "Our traditional peacekeeping role neither excludes nor excuses us from the call to resist aggression".
The United Nations Charter does not provide a definition of peacekeeping either. However, peacekeeping reflects one of the first purposes of the UN announced in its preamble to the Charter when it says: "The establishment of conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained".
Peacekeeping goes hand in hand with peacemaking. To quote the Secretary General: "As regards international peace and security, the United Nations Charter sets out a process which in its first stage is based on the

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
renunciation of force in international relations and on the peaceful settlement of disputes".
If these principles are rejected, the Charter provides for a collective enforcement by the world community through the Security Council. Such actions range from various forms of embargoes to the use of military forces by the Security Council.
While I believe that we must use every diplomatic tool that we have, one of the best diplomacy tools that we have is to back up our diplomacy with a legitimate threat of force. If approved, the United Nations resolution will strengthen our diplomatic message and convey to Mr. Hussein that disregard for international law cannot, nor will not, be tolerated. Iraq must understand the conviction and the determination of the international community.
A second responsibility we must uphold is our responsibility as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. As a member of the Security Council, we are responsible for maintaining international peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN.
In the event of a threat to peace or an act of aggression, we are to make recommendations as to what action should be taken. We are doing that in this case.
This can include, under the provisions of the Charter, chapter 7, the enforcement action by UN member states, including the use of armed forces or other collective measures for dealing with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression.
Canada has played an integral role in the creation of the United Nations and has been actively involved since the beginning. When we were elected to the Security Council two years ago, we won on the first ballot with 80 per cent of the member states voting for us.
We should be very proud as a country to be held in such high esteem throughout the world. How can we let those countries down that voted us to the Security Council when we are faced with such a difficult situation?
When Canada was first elected, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the seriousness of our commitment, said that our role would be to react to issues as they arise, depending on the issue, its timing, its connection to other issues and the crucial question of what is finally possible. He said the question of what is finally possible
does not, unfortunately, always conform to what is desirable.
To quote from the speech of our Secretary of State for External Affairs to the United Nations Association, he said: "We will face the choice of working and voting for imperfect compromises that have some chance of success as opposed to speaking and voting for resolutions that sound great, but cannot be applied. This government has no illusions that some of our positions in the Security Council will from time to time displease segments of the Canadian public". This is one of those times. We agree that not everybody is going to agree with what we are doing. However, this is no excuse to shrink from our responsibility to the world community.
Some have accused the government of saying: "How high?" to the United States command of "Jump". This is an insult, as was mentioned earlier tonight, not only to Canada, but to France, the United Kingdom and many other countries that are involved in the Middle East. As the nation with the greatest resources, I believe it is natural that the United States should be the leader in this particular engagement.
This brings me to the last and final responsibility, and that is our responsibility as a government to keep Canadians informed of our position and the role we intend to play. I am glad that we have had this debate tonight to present Canada's position on the proposed UN resolution. I encourage the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister to continue to allow Parliament to play an important part in these decisions.
I support the motion and I hope that our decisions are made in Canada for Canadians.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the hour grows late, and I mean much more than the hour on the clock across from me. Just a year ago the world rejoiced as the walls came tumbling down and peace and democracy seemed to be sweeping huge parts of the world, where for decades the suppression of human potential and human freedom had been the norm. The cold war was ending and for the first time in 50 years we were seeing the possibility of turning the world's resources from instruments of death and destruction to feeding the hungry of the world, nurturing her children and reversing the devastating damage we do
November 28, 1990

every day to the bounty of the earth and to the very ability of our planet to sustain life.
Now we find ourselves on the brink of war. We find Canada turning its back on the role for which we have become one of the most respected nations of the world, the role of peacemaker and peacekeeper. That role, despite what we have heard from the government side tonight, has not been a role of wimpish submission to aggression or to the violation of human rights. It has been one of going courageously into dangerous situations, acting with restraint but with the clear objective that our forces were there to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, of violence, of killing and that our diplomatic efforts in other places were sustaining and supporting their efforts to prevent war.
Now instead we have adopted a warmongering, sabre-rattling stance. We hear our Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of National Defence saying: "We will do what needs to be done with or without the United Nations".
It is important to understand what is before us tonight. The only purpose of the motion before us is to supersede a motion that was adopted by this House just a month ago, a motion that says we abhor the aggression against Kuwait, we support the United Nations resolutions calling for sanctions and we commit the Government of Canada reporting back to the Canadian people through their elected Parliament if further action is to be taken in the Middle East.
The government now wants to supersede that. It wants a wide open door to take whatever action it deems appropriate, without the responsibility to report to Parliament and to account to Canadians for its actions.
It is also important to understand what the motion is that will be dealt with by the Security Council tomorrow and that the government wants to support on behalf of the people of Canada. For a week now we have been subjected to suggestions and statements about what this motion is. I question whether many members on the other side have read the motion.
We have heard that this is a necessary step so that the United Nations can act with force. That is not what the motion says. The motion authorizes member states, not
Government Orders
the United Nations, but any one of those member states, to take all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions, that is to have Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Any one of those member states, with whatever weapons are at their disposal, with or without the rest of the United Nations members, is authorized by this motion to act.
Furthermore, those same member states are authorized to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area. That goes far beyond Kuwait and Iraq. That can touch any one of a number of volatile situations in the Middle East. I ask the members opposite to think of all the countries in the United Nations, many of which are countries in the Middle East, and ask whether we really want, as a country, to give UN sanction to any one of those states in taking the action they think is necessary to "restore international peace and security in this area".
We are all aware of the numerous difficult and volatile situations that exist in that part of the world. Why does the Prime Minister want this carte blanche, not for the United Nations, but for the member states of the United Nations? What justification has he provided this House? Just as the government refused to come before Parliament and justify why we were putting Canadian men and women into a potential war zone in the first place, he has now refused to tell us what sanctions have accomplished, what they could accomplish by Christmas Day, what they could accomplish by January 15, and how long we would need sanctions to work. Frankly, how he can ask us on the basis of no justification as to what is happening with the sanctions to get this kind of open door to any further action without the specific information coming before this Parliament, I do not understand.
The Prime Minister says "trust me" but what reason have we to trust. He wraps himself in the United Nations flag, but it was not on the basis of the UN resolution that we committed troops to the Persian Gulf. We did that two weeks before the United Nations passed any resolution. It was not on the basis of any United Nations resolution that we moved our troops from outside the gulf to inside the gulf. It was not on the basis of any United Nations resolution, it was on the basis of a statement by the U.S. air force chief of staff that the

November 28, 1990
Government Orders
U.S. was prepared to unleash a massive bombing attack against Baghdad that we committed our CF-18s.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said this motion is not a threat. Of course it is a threat. I question whether those who are making those threats, rattling those sabres, even understand the enemy well enough to know what effect this threat will have. We have assumed an air of superiority that discounts the values that guide the Arab nations and guide Iraq. We are not prepared to deal with them because we do not give them any credibility.
Horrible crimes have been committed against our own humanity when we fail to give value to each and every life on this planet. Hitler was able to perpetrate the Holocaust based on the belief that Jews were not quite human. Atrocities happened in Vietnam based on the views that people with yellow skin and slanted eyes were not quite human. Violence against women and children continues because we are able to convince ourselves that they are not quite human.
The UN was formed with the determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Surely we have progressed in our evolution as human beings beyond where we believe that only brute force is the way to resolve disputes. We should make no mistake in this volatile situation that a war puts at risk nothing less than the survival of the world.
I do not believe for one moment in appeasement or acquiescence or acceding to the aggression of a Saddam Hussein. Killing is not the only way to be tough. Sometimes it takes more toughness, more courage and more strength to last out a peaceful resolution of aggression.
I would like to see Canada taking much more of a leadership role in this issue than we have done. We look to the United Nations and welcome its concerted action, yet every day we continue to biologically and chemically destroy our world. The Minister of the Environment tells us that he won't take any action on that destruction of our world until two years from now when we might have an international agreement.
The appalling contradiction in our words and actions is diminishing Canada's reputation internationally and I call upon the government to either accept the amendment to this motion or to withdraw it and to let stand the motion of October 19 that we support the UN in sanctions; we will continue those sanctions until the aggression is undone and we will do nothing further until we come back to this Parliament and speak to the people of Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we cannot and will not vote for this motion because it leaves far too many questions unanswered. The motion asks our Parliament to endorse not just one, but many Security Council resolutions, as spelled out in the motion before us, including resolutions whose wording we do not know because they have not been finalized nor passed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State to External Affairs, in his intervention, revealed the weakness of this aspect of the resolution some five hours ago.
Second, we will not support it because the effect of sanctions which we all subscribe to and support is still unknown and has just begun to be felt.
Third, we will not support it because the environmental consequences both in human and ecological terms are frightening.
I would like to put on record in that respect a few paragraphs from a speech given by the King of Jordan, His Majesty King Hussein I, some three weeks ago in Geneva on the occasion of the Second World Conference on Climate Warming. He said:
A war in the Gulf would not only result in devastating human death and injury, tremendous economic loss, and prolonged political confrontation between Orient and Occident. It could also lead to an environmental catastrophe the likes of which the world has not experienced since the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant-A war in the Gulf could result in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and widespread destruction to oil fields and oil storage depots.
The preliminary calculations of our scientists indicate that if half Kuwait's oil reserves (or about 50 billion barrels) were to go up in flames during a war, the environmental impact would be swift, severe and devastating. Emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide would surpass internationally accepted safety standards by factors of hundreds, and, without factoring in wind effects, would blacken the skies over a radius of at least 750 kilometres from Kuwait-that is, all of Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates and the waters of the Gulf, and most of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran.
Other than poisonous emissions of carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide, the emission of carbon dioxide will increase by at least a factor of 100 over the current total global emission of 5.5 billion tons a year. Lingering in the atmosphere for around 100 years, this massive C02 emission would promote the greenhouse effect, and contribute to
November 28, 1990

global warming, climatic changes, lower global food production, and human and animal health deterioration.
The environmental and human toll of such a scenario would be beyond our wildest fears. If oil production facilities suffered longterm damage, which is likely in the event of war, the catastrophe we warn of would be compounded by the devastating impact of the loss of oil imports for economies and peoples around the world.
Because of time limitations I will not go beyond these major quotations from that speech.
It seems to me that the premise that we ought to adopt as a civilized society with the record that Canada has would be that it is in the Persian Gulf an illusion to believe that peace can be attained through an act of war.
I am referring, in particular, to an editorial in The Globe and Mail today which is pursuing this perverse logic, trying to convince its readership that we can pursue peace through an act of war in the Persian Gulf.
Second, the United Nations is an instrument of peace. It should not be involved in offensive actions.
Third, Canada should pursue a policy of voting against any possible offensive action in the gulf, not subscribe to potential ones and ask the Parliament of Canada to subscribe to commit itself to subsequent resolutions, the wording of which we do not know. The draft which is in our possession and to which colleagues of mine have made reference earlier was produced on Monday of this week and has already been put on record on several occasions. It would give a green light and a blank cheque to the use of all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs would not, in all honesty, expect Parliament to submit itself to resolutions that have not yet been drafted, agreed upon, and passed by virtue of this draft that is in our possession as of Monday of this week from the Canadian mission in New York.


Patrick Boyer: Certainly not.


Charles L. Caccia: I am glad to hear that the parliamentary secretary concurs with that.
Government Orders
It seems to us that major features of Canadian policies have to be formulated as they have been by the distinguished Leader of the Senate group in the other place, who said on November 20 that Canada's policy should consist of major features:
First, Canada should work principally through the United Nations and not bilaterally-
Second, while safeguarding humanitarian action, medical supplies and food supplies, Canada should favour putting the maximum amount of pressure on Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, short of offensive aciion.
Third, an early report should be obtained -
We have complained about all afternoon and evening:
- from the Security Council sanctions committee to be made public and discussed in the Canadian Parliament.
Fourth, Canada should make it clear that it will not consider offensive military action in the Gulf-
Fifth, Canadian land forces should not be sent to the Gulf area -
Sixth, Canada should initiate rounds of consultation with the countries concerned to find ways of de-escalating the conflict.
Finally, the Canadian government should not initiate or participate in offensive action without bringing the issue before both Houses of Parliament.
What we are witnessing, instead, is an erratic course of action of this government, not a well thought out policy that is implemented according to some very clearly set premises and principles.
There is agreement in this House it seems to me at the end of this debate on two points. First, we all agree that the action on the part of Iraq invading in Kuwait ought to be rejected, has been rejected, and must continue to be rejected and condemned. Second, there is no one in the House who would disagree that we fully support the use of sanctions. But beyond that we part ways.
We as Liberals are convinced that the solution to the Persian Gulf crisis must be found through dialogue and negotiations, not through armed conflict. The UN's role in this issue will not be ultimately successful and the world body prestige enhanced if it is not actively involved in the peace process.
Why is Canada not discussing ideas for a peacekeeping force, for instance? It has not been pursued in the Security Council by Canada, consistent with the tradition and experience that we have in this respect. How about

Government Orders
the UN led strategy for curbing the global arms threat to avoid a repetition of the situation?
We believe that Canadians are looking for answers to creative questions and not to initiatives that we are being asked to pursue by way of commitments which would inevitably lead to Canada being involved in aggressive initiatives in the gulf area.
In his intervention this afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs failed to prove his case. It was his responsibility to convince this House that there was urgency and an absolute necessity for Parliament to endorse this resolution. Instead he engaged in an elaboration of an historical nature as to what has happened so far and urged Parliament to follow the lead without, however, giving us the reasons for doing so.
Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling. I appreciate the opportunity for this intervention at this late hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next two speakers who will have 10 minutes each will be the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River and the hon member for North Island-Powell River. That will take us to around one o'clock, and I know that there are still two or three speakers.
I can, by unanimous consent, not see the clock or I am at your disposal as to whatever you would like me to do. There arc three extra speakers, the member for Park-dale-High Park, the member for Beaver River, and the member for Fraser Valley West.


An hon. member:: And the member for Winnipeg North.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is a little more than that. Do I have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there might be unanimous consent, if there was a clear indication that there would be an absolute limit and no questions and answers, to a brief 10 minutes for each of the remaining four speakers?


Patrick Boyer: There is more than four.


Raymond John Skelly: It would be a shame to limit a debate of this importance at this hour. Haste and brief remarks would facilitate in moving it along.


Mr. Flis:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little disappointed to hear from the parliamentary secretary that he did not give unanimous consent. Usually he is a very reasonable colleague and does agree to such a request. It would be a shame on such an important topic to see the clock. We could go half an hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Making a decision at this time of night when we have explained to all colleagues who have an interest in this matter that the debate would conclude at 1 p.m. and now making exceptions to what has been established does not seem fair to the colleagues who would have wished to speak and because of notification of 10-minute speeches and the closure at one o'clock are not here to take part in the extension. I find that unfair to the colleagues who are not here at this time.


Mr. Wenman:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can understand that the government wants the debate concluded and would not want to think that it was opening the debate through the night or this kind of thing. However if we agree, by unanimous consent, to limit it just to those on your list, the debate does come to an early conclusion and in fact rewards the patience of those of us who have sat here and waited so long to speak, because it was one of the most important issues we can face, an issue of life and death.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Again I have to ask for unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. You will have to split that eight minutes apiece between yourself and your colleague.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here to participate in this debate, even though the hour is late. As the previous interchange has indicated that my time will be quite
November 28, 1990

limited, I would like to deal with some of the highlights of what I had planned to say.
We have heard many words of high principle and abstract thoughts about the nature of the United Nations, the international community, international law, and so on.
We are also talking about a very stark reality, a reality that is very clear, for example, to the 18-year-old in the Co-op service station that I went into on the weekend. He asked whether, in fact, he would be subject to a draft as a foreseeable consequence of the actions of the government and the United Nations in the Middle East, something that he felt personally to be a fear for him.
The fears that this young man expressed are indicative of the thoughts going through the minds of many young people in the country. We too often ignore that it is those people facing the direct reality, and not those of us who sit in the House.
At the other end, there are people probably not many blocks from here, and people in the Pentagon who are perhaps at this very moment, if they work this late, planning meticulously what would happen under various scenarios. How many people would die, how they would die, and when they would die. These things are well planned in advance and, if the people of Canada had that kind of information laid before them by the government, rather than lofty rhetoric and appeals to emotion, it might well cast a much different light on the question we are debating. That is the reality of what we are talking about tonight.
I certainly stand with my party and, in fact, the whole opposition in opposing the resolution put forward by the government. I do so for several reasons and many of those have been expressed veiy well by other speakers tonight. Basically, we cannot issue a blank cheque for what will happen after January 15. With all due respect, I do not think we can issue our own government a blank cheque for what will happen after January 15. I do not think, given the wording of the UN resolution which allows any member of the international community to take action, we cannot allow a blank cheque there either. It has been clear as these things evolved through the
Government Orders
summer-the Oka dispute and our first excursion into the gulf-that, in fact, the government is prepared to move well ahead of the authority it has from Parliament and to move well ahead of the rationale which it might be offering.
This whole scenario and the resolution before us indicate that what we might have been doing up to now might well have been a fraud, in that it implies that we never were serious about sanctions, that the UN body was never serious about sanctions, that the U.S. was never serious about sanctions, and that the objective was always to invade and engage in a military conflict. Surely, all our experience with sanctions-and there has been considerable experience with sanctions internationally- has indicated that sanctions would not work this fast. It is silly to say that the possibilities of sanctions have been exhausted or would be exhausted by January 15. That clearly is not within the realm of imagination, especially when we are being asked again to accept a blank cheque when there has been no evidence before us that the sanctions are not working.
This was underlined when we heard the member from Surrey say: "What if it takes a year for sanctions to work?" Well, what if it takes a year for sanctions to work? Surely, a year of sanctions is a much preferable scenario than a blood-bath involving our own young men and women in the Middle East. Spending a year to make sure that sanctions work and engaging in other forms of international pressure are surely preferable to engaging in a blood-bath in the Middle East.
I was disturbed in this debate by the questioning of the motives of people who perhaps do not support this resolution and the implication that perhaps those who oppose the government's resolution, somehow or other, are condoning the actions of Saddam Hussein, are in favour of the expansionism, and of the flouting international law. I would like to ask the government, does it feel that the motives of people like the Christian Peacemaker Teams, a group from the Church of the Brethren, the Brethren in Christ, the Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church, the delegation that departed last weekend, should be questioned. I might add that I might well have been a member of that delegation if Federal Express had not sent my passport to Winnipeg instead of Washington.

Government Orders
This delegation has been in Iraq for some days. Their objective was to meet with Iraqi families, to visit non-religious institutions such as hospitals, schools and other projects to communicate concerns for a just peace with the political leaders in Baghdad and so on.
I received a fax today from that delegation. Some of the things they say are interesting. It says: "Shortages are beginning. Sugar, milk, medical supplies, petrol additives, water purification chemicals are all in short supply". It says: "Everyone is growing in apprehension and conviction about the crisis". It says further: "In other meetings senior Iraqis underlined their desire to negotiate and said that they await a 'hint' of interest from the U.S.". All of these are indications to me that the sanctions are working, that the effects are being felt. Surely it is very much premature at this point to say that sanctions are not working.
We also have heard an appeal to principle, the principles of international law. It strikes me as ironic. My first experience at the United Nations came when I was making an intervention on behalf of East Timor at the same time as the initial debates were occurring in the Security Council regarding the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait at the beginning of August. It was an interesting juxtaposition, where on the one hand the world community was solidly condemning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, while at the same time totally ignoring the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia 15 years ago. The international community has been silent on that question ever since.
It struck me that it must be a matter of who ends up with the oil. In the case of Iraq obviously the bad guys ended up with the oil and in the case of East Timor the good guys ended up with the oil. That seems to be very much what these high flown principles come down to when they are examined closely.
In conclusion, I would like to urge the government to not let us go down the slippery slope that we are on, to not let ourselves get sucked into a situation that we cannot get out of, to not engage in a kind of demoniza-tion that allows us no options. Canada has been a leader in the search for peace internationally. We are not showing leadership now. Let us show leadership again. As a former cultural hero of a particular generation said:
"Let's give the sanctions a chance, let's give peace a chance".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West on a point of order.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government to reconsider the request for unanimous consent in order that they avoid the appearance of unfortunate coincidence in that I am the only government member not being allowed to speak, especially since I have informed the government that I cannot support their motion at this time. I would ask for their concurrence to be heard.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the problem with this is that as the evening dwindled on, members have relied on the unanimous consent of the House earlier to go to 1 a.m. and then left. There were a number of MPs who wanted to speak. I said they would not be able to and they went home. Recently we had the same thing and after that, 10 to 15 minutes ago other MPs left. I am trying to be fair on this and certainly not prevent anybody speaking no matter what point-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for North Island-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think that is certainly regrettable. It is regrettable that the government has seen fit to do this. We have heard the arguments on why and they can be judged by the public. Mr. Speaker, I think in a few moments we will have finished this. What I would like to do is basically communicate to this House the feeling of my constituents. After all, we all represent a large number of people in this House of Commons, where the issues are aired and they are decided.
The people I represent do support the United Nations and they support it vigorously. They believe that the United Nations and its collective security approach is the only way to go. The allegations that that is not true, that I do not support it, my colleagues do not, and the people I represent do not is false.
November 28, 1990

They do not support Saddam Hussein. They do not support the invasion of Kuwait. They are not weak on this. They are absolutely firm. So am I as are my colleagues.
They do not believe, however, that the Canadian Armed Forces should be used to attack Iraq. The reason they do not believe that is that at the present time there is no one shooting inside Kuwait, or Iraq is not shooting at its neighbours at this point. The situation has stopped.
We believe that this government and the United States in the United Nations will convince their United Nations colleagues to use force to attack when nobody is actually shooting at this point for whatever reason, and we believe that is absolutely wrong. A million people will die, most of them women and children, but certainly members of the Canadian Armed Forces will die, and they could die in large numbers if the conflict takes on the complexion of the Iran-Iraq war. Americans will die in large numbers, as will members of the armed forces of every' other nation. We will kill probably a million Iraqis as well, women and children, the elderly. It will be an absolute blood-bath.
That is what we have before us tonight. My constituents do not believe that that should happen, in spite of the polls that appear, in spite of what the government might believe.
The other thing they do not believe is the Prime Minister of Canada. Part of the dilemma of this country on the unity issue and on so many other issues is that the Prime Minister of Canada has lost the confidence of the nation. He is not viewed as a strong leader in whom the confidence of the citizenry exists.
What they fear the most and what I fear the most is that this open-ended resolution has been constructed by intelligent people to leave room for the government to
Government Orders
act unilaterally. We have heard backbenchers stand in this House, even cabinet ministers, and say: "Oh, no, we would never do anything like that".
They have in fact done that before. I would point to the GATT agreement on the west coast in which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, now the Minister of Indian Affairs, stood up and said: "We will never let this thing come to pass. It would be catastrophic for the people on the west coast". The Prime Minister said: "Sorry. We are going to let it happen because our friends, the Americans, want that to happen".
We believe that will happen with this situation. When the Americans go, they are going to say to the Prime Minister of this country that he is going with them and that is the reason why we have an open-ended resolution. That is why the United Nations has an open-ended resolution.
The people I represent recognize in this Prime Minister an individual who will leave himself an out to use the Armed Forces, to not call back Parliament and to basically support the Americans who are the primary initiators of this action to leap into a blood-bath in the Middle East. This will be absolutely catastrophic.
I intend to go from this House because I do not believe that the other side of the House is acting in a responsible and honest fashion and I am going to urge citizens in every community to get out to demonstrate and to actively fight this government in its decision to lead us close and into a war in the Persian Gulf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier, this sitting of the debate is now deemed adjourned and the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. this day, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 29,1990