1990-09-24

['I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election return of Mr. Mike Breaugh, member for the electoral district of Oshawa.', 'I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Gilles Duceppe, for the electoral district of Laurier- Sainte-Marie.']
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that, as asked by the government, pursuant to rule 55(1), the Chair has caused a notice to be published in a special Order Paper of two government motions.

The first concerns the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the second the situation at Oka and Chateauguay.
I now lay upon the table a letter dated September 21, 1990 from the Government House Leader concerning those two motions.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to S.O. 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities.
He said: Madam Speaker, in 1967 as a university student in Ottawa I watched, as a lot of other Canadians
did, Prime Minister Lester Pearson light the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill at the fountain that had been built to symbolize and celebrate Canadian Confederation.
Since that time the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill truly has become a symbol of many things. The flame itself continues to bum brightly, surrounded by the Coats of Arms of all the provinces and territories of our country and the flowing water. Into that water, as typical with many fountains around the world, people throw coins as a gesture of hope perhaps or as some symbolic gesture.
Twenty years after that first lighting of the flame, I was walking one morning to Parliament Hill and saw the coins being removed from around the flame by a couple of workers from the Department of Public Works. I inquired what happened to those coins.
One of the pledges I had made to my electors in Etobicoke-Lakeshore was that I wanted to be a voice for the voiceless. The needs and the role of people with disabilities ought to be publicized in any way that we can. It was at that moment that the idea for this bill was bom and I am very glad that it has been called now for further debate.
I appreciate the support which I have heard from many members for this bill.
First let me explain that the purpose of this bill is to establish a fellowship which will be known as the Centennial Flame Research Award. The purpose of this award is to provide an amount of money to a disabled person to enable that individual to conduct research and to prepare a report on the contribution to Canadian public life or the activities of Parliament of one or more disabled persons. Any Canadian citizen who is disabled is eligible to receive the award and may apply to the parliamentary committee on the status of disabled persons to be considered. The award provided for by this bill would be granted annually. Applications from those interested in receiving the award would be made to the committee itself and the committee will work with the Speaker of the House of Commons in this regard.

Private Members' Business
The funds for this will be the money collected through the year from the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill and will represent all of the money collected from that source the previous fiscal year. As soon as possible after the end of the year, when the award has been made and the individual has done his or her research on the contributions to Canadian public and parliamentary life by individuals with disabilities, that will culminate in a report which will be presented to the parliamentary committee and laid before Parliament. The award recipient may prepare that report in whatever medium or format considered appropriate for that individual. It is also contemplated by this bill that at that time the recipient of the award presents the report, he or she could appear as a witness before the parliamentary committee.
The Speaker's office and the Speaker himself, the Hon. John Fraser, have been supportive of this and are looking at ways of implementing and promoting this measure, including the possibility of plaques adjacent to the Centennial Flame on the lamp posts. This will draw to the public's attention the fact that this is going to be the purpose for which any money from the fountain will be used.
It is very important to consider the context in which this is taking place. In 1983, the United Nations adopted the world program of action concerning disabled persons. In that global action plan, under the heading "Information and Public Education", one of the recommendations states: "should encourage a public information program about the contributions of disabled persons that would reach all concerned, including the general public. In this connection, attitude change should be given special importance".
Following that, Prime Minister Mulroney signed the declaration proclaiming that 1983 to 1992 would be the decade of disabled persons in Canada as in other countries, during which the objectives of the world program of action concerning disabled persons, would be implemented in accordance with the principles set out in the declaration. This declaration has been seen by
Canadians with disabilities as something of a bill of rights.
The 11th of these principles states: "There shall be action and public education to remedy social attitudes evolving from ignorance, indifference, and fear, which impede the full participation of individuals with disabilities". It is in keeping with that spirit of the United Nations' global plan for action and the declaration of principles here in Canada that we find Bill C-258 playing a modest but, I believe, important role as a part of the over-all approach.

Madam Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the UN Decade for the Handicapped. Enthusiastically supported by Canada when it was officially opened, the Decade for the Handicapped will end in 1992. We can readily sum up its impact on Canadian society as a whole.
In the past ten years we witnessed a new awareness and realized that people were sincerely motivated, even though their approach did smack of paternalism on occasion. In spite of some notable results, over-all progress has been modest.
As for the handicapped, the decade was highlighted by a number of positive changes, especially a renewed will to be independent and a new self-confidence. What stands out however is the resurgence of expectations which give rise to more bitterness and frustration when they outpace lasting realities.
Are we really concerned about the situation of people who have to cope with disabilities? Or are we mainly interested in looking after number one and seeking gratification and self-satisfaction from noncommittal statements we may make? The true answer to this question is perhaps somewhat disturbing.

Within our own country, since 1981 and the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have seen a new framework and a new legal foundation for our fellow citizens who have disabilities. Who are we talking about, Madam Speaker? We are talking about 3,300,000 Canadians who have mental and physical disabilities. That is 13.2 per cent of our population.
Under Article 15 of our charter there is a new basis for their equality in law. Article 15 provides that every
September 24, 1990

Private Members' Business
individual is entitled to the equal benefit and equal protection of the law without discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability. That provision in our charter, accompanied by a lot of work by Members of Parliament over the past nine years, has been important as we have evolved a greater awareness in our society about the important role that all Canadians with varying abilities can and must play as full members of our society.
The work of the former Member of Parliament, David Smith, when he chaired the committee on the position of people with disabilities producing the report called Obstacles was a very important initial work by parliamentarians in this area. By 1985 many of those recommendations had been implemented but a great many more, including recommendations relating to disabilities of native Canadians, found that they had languished without adequate action or positive response.
In 1985, as chairman of the parliamentary committee on equality rights that I was able to table the report Equality for All/Equalite pour tous. It reinforced all of those Obstacle recommendations and added about 25 more, including the recommendation that there be a permanent committee of the House to deal with equality issues. Happily, that committee has been formed and, following the time that I was able to chair it, the hon. member for Oxford now chairs that committee. It is very important that that work continues.
The committee decided that we in Parliament should put our own house in order and the report was brought in on the subject of Parliament Hill, federal government facilities, employment accessibility, and so on.
The Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. John Fraser, found that he could not answer the committee's questionnaire about what was being done to provide accessibility, employment, outreach and effective communication. He put in place a very active program here on the hill to see that these services were developed and expanded. Whether it is employment for people with disabilities, the shuttle bus, the multi-media presentation of committee reports, and so much more, we are gradually putting our house in order because leadership by example is certainly the best way to show what can and ought to be done.
It is in that spirit that I hope that members will support this bill which I have before the House. It seeks to use the coins thrown in a symbolic gesture by Canadians, from all parts of our country and from all backgrounds, and by those who visit our country, and turn that symbolism into yet another act consistent with the spirit that must pervade all that we do in this House-regardless of party, region, or affiliation. All of us, as Members of Parliament, must see that the 3,300,000 Canadians with disabilities have full recognition.
By this means, I hope that the contributions of those people will now be recognized and publicized as contributions to the Parliament of Canada and to the public life of our country. These things depend very much on those very contributions for their success.
With those words I would like to thank members of the House for listening and supporting this bill. No matter what else may divide us, this can be a common cause for all of us. It is important in this place where many voices are heard, and loudly, that there also be a voice for the voiceless. All of us can play a role in being that voice.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, as the opposition critic for the status of the disabled, I would like to commend the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore on his initiative.
This issue is one that transcends the usual partisan boundaries that we face daily in the House and, regardless of party affiliation, I am certain that we all want to see disabled Canadians lead fuller, more productive lives.
At first glance, Bill C-258 allows parliamentarians to seek the advice of the disabled on how they function in society and how we cannot only aid but improve their way of life. There is none better qualified to speak on an issue than those who have first-hand experience. When one builds a house, one does not hire an auto mechanic. Conversely, when one has one's car repaired, one does not hire a carpenter.
As previously stated, at first glance Bill C-258 has good intentions, but upon closer scrutiny we find that many amendments are needed to meet the stated objective.

September 24, 1990
Private Members' Business
Bill C-258 states that the committee should review applications, select the recipients, and deal with matters related to the status of the disabled. Several questions now come to mind. Does the hon. member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore suggest that the existing Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons is not fulfilling its mandate under Standing Order 108.3(c)? Shall this committee replace or run parallel to the existing one? Or is it meant to be the existing committee? If it is to run parallel, what shall its exact mandate be?
Paragraph 4 states that the recipient will be awarded an amount of money. What shall this amount be? The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore questioned the Minister of Public Works via the Order Paper and learned that the average annual amount collected is only $1,000. Are we to take this as the amount? Who shall set this amount? What if the funds collected do not meet the set amount in a particular year? Will the amount then be reduced or subsidized? If it is to be subsidized, then by whom? By Public Works, which collects the funds; the committee's budget, assuming the Board of Internal Economy grants them one; the Speaker, who administers the fund; or Health and Welfare who are ultimately responsible for the physically challenged? What if the amount collected exceeds the set amount? Will it go into general revenues, be given to the recipient as a bonus, or go toward next year's award?
After all these questions are addressed there is that of timing. Paragraph 6.1 of the bill defines fiscal year as April 1 to March 31 and then states that the award will be made using the proceeds collected during the fiscal year preceding the granting of the award. We must assume then that the award would be made in early April each year.
Paragraph 7.1. states that the committee chair must lay before the House, as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year, an annual report including the recipient's report. If the moneys are collected from the fund throughout 1990 and awarded in April 1991 and the report is tabled one year later in April 1992, then the purpose of the bill is not being served. Information is one year old before the Parliament even sees it.
Further possible amendments to the bill may include a defined application period, flexibility in the application to allow joint or team projects-at present, as set out in
clause 5.1, only single individuals may apply-and a joint committee of both the Speaker of the House and the Senate since Parliament includes both chambers.
As I stated in my preamble, I am all for every valid effort that is made towards helping differently-abled Canadians lead fuller and productive lives, but this bill before us today simply does not provide any tangible net gain. Awarding one applicant out of 3.3 million disabled Canadians is not the kind of initiative we as parliamentarians should be providing. It is simply not substantial enough.
A disabled person would be given $1,000 to write a report. Is it realistic to expect a person to spend much time and effort on a report for which they are paid only a token amount of $1,000? I would like to challenge members of the House to try to hire a research assistant for this amount and see what kind of work they will receive in return.
The cost of administering a program such as the one which Bill C-258 would create far outweighs the benefits, not to mention the cost of our debate here today.
I have to question whether or not this bill should ever have been deemed votable. I refer to Standing Order 92. In the Annotated Standing Orders, under the criteria for consideration we see that:
The bill or motion should not require obvious amendment
because it is substantially redundant with the law, is fundamentally
ineffective to implement its own intent, is unclear in its meaning or
is otherwise defective in its drafting.
Presently a committee does exist and does administer these funds quite adequately. This group is made up of an official from the Department of the Secretary of State, the Director of State Ceremonial, a Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, a Sergeant-at-Arms and a senior official with the Department of Public Works. They request a list from Health and Welfare Canada of proposed recipients. Past recipients have included the CNIB, and multiple sclerosis and cystic fibrosis associations.
I suggest that this bill be re-examined and that the member try to solicit support from his caucus and ask his government for substantial measures and programs to help physically-challenged Canadians.
May I also suggest that all members of Parliament contribute to the United Way campaign which has just started in Ottawa.
September 24, 1990


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for presenting this bill and for giving us an opportunity once again to debate issues affecting Canada's disabled. It arises only very occasionally in the House.
That said, I want to point out to the House once again that when we talk about disabilities among Canadians, we are talking about 20 per cent of the population and that is a rather conservative figure.
I expressed appreciation to the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for giving us the opportunity to debate this bill because it would give other members of the House of Commons an opportunity to sit in committee and examine the intent of this bill in greater depth because we cannot talk about money coming from the Centennial Flame in isolation. It would be a nice gesture, perhaps, because the amount of money collected, while it is in excess of $3,000. By the time energy costs appear for natural gas, $1,000 will remain to be handed over to a group of disabled Canadians.
The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore understands this question as he is a former member of the the House of Commons committee on disabled issues.
What this Parliament and particularly this government have to address is the depth of poverty that exists in the disabled community in Canada.
The House of Commons committee on disabled issues has conducted an in-depth examination of the last 12 months or so. The results of those examinations were produced in a report of the standing committee to the House in June 1990, just prior to the House rising for the summer recess.
The report points out quite clearly that if we are to address poverty among Canada's disabled, it has to be a concerted effort using political will, which has been absent to this point, and an exercise of political will to do something about this very severe and extreme problem.
The first thing the government has to address is the means by which to accomplish the economic integration of disabled people into the mainstream of Canadian society.
Private Members' Business
One of the first issues in doing this has to be the question of unemployment within the disabled population. For example, for those Canadians who are blind, and a high percentage of the population that falls into that category, there is an unemployment rate in excess of 90 per cent.
There are those who have suffered spinal cord injuries and have become immobile. Many still manage to live productive lives even though they are confined by their injuries. The unemployment rate among all groups that we have looked at is totally unacceptable.
The first key that has to be addressed is the employment issue. One way to go about that is to bring in employment equity measures that have teeth and that can be enforced. At the present time our employment equity legislation is, to say the least and without exaggeration, one of the weakest pieces of legislation in this country. It relies solely on voluntary assistance from the private sector and, indeed, from government.
To show how weak this legislation is, although it is federal government legislation, the government has exempted itself from its application. The employment equity legislation does not even apply to this government although it is expected to apply, albeit on a voluntary basis, to the private sector.
In my view and, I think it is the view of the entire House of Commons Standing Committee on Disabled Issues, this is totally inadequate. Our committee travelled to Washington earlier this year to look at the Americans With Disability Act.
That act was brought in by the present United States administration to deal effectively with unemployment among the disabled population. That legislation not only has the support of the disabled community in the United States, it has wide support among large, medium and small employers.
If the United States can bring in legislation whereby all discrimination against the disabled, subtle or otherwise, will be prohibited within the next three-year period, why can Canadians not do the same? Why can Canadians not be as good as if not better, as the Prime Minister is fond of telling the country, than the Americans?


Private Members' Business
All that is required is the political will on the part of the government to allow disabled Canadians to live within the mainstream of Canadian society with some assistance. I do not think that is too much to ask.
In fact, what brought about the apparent need for that legislation in the United States was the recognition that there would be severe labour shortages over the next 20 to 25 year period. They told us that the corporations decided that they had to be able to tap into that large group of Americans who were unemployed. In doing so, they are quite prepared to look at not only employment, which you cannot do in isolation, but other regions which were denying disabled Americans the opportunity of entering the workforce. That included looking at access to education, transportation, recreational facilities, all that is synonymous with the problems facing the disabled community, not only in the United States but in Canada.
I say again that I support this bill, if only from the point of view that it will give us another avenue to discuss these issues that affect Canada's disabled outside of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Disabled Issues and Human Rights. That is the reason I support the bill. I think it should be referred to a committee. As the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said, it does not require an awful lot of debate.
There have been studies and studies and studies. In fact, we have got studies coming out of our ears. Since I came here in 1980,1 would bet there have been no less than 15 studies on issues affecting the disabled. Parliament knows what the issues and the solutions are. The disabled community has told us.
The House of Commons standing committee has repeated the solutions ad nauseam. It would not take an awful lot of money to address those solutions. In fact, at one point our committee estimated it would take about 1 per cent of the total Health and Welfare budget to address those issues in a concrete way. For that reason, I urge the House to pass this legislation, refer it to a committee and let us get on with the job.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to join with colleagues today to speak to and address the debate on Bill C-258 which was presented to the House by my colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore who, I would remind the House, was the very illustrious chairman of our Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons from 1984 to 1988. In that role he became very much aware of the needs of disabled people and was recognized across the country, particularly in his own riding, as somebody who worked hard on their behalf. What we are seeing here today is another attempt on his part to highlight the importance of people with disabilities while at the same time recognizing the fact that they do need to be integrated into our social life of Canada and in particular our economic life, as the two speakers before me have said.
I have read the bill, Madam Speaker. It is a fairly simple bill. I want to welcome the critic from the Liberal Party, the member for Hamilton Mountain, to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. I believe she will be a member of that committee now that she is the critic for disabled persons. I appreciate the fact that she took the trouble today to address the House on this bill. She pointed out a few questions in her mind about the bill. She wondered what committee would be responsible for it. I think the bill does say that it will be the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, the committee she will be sitting on, I dare say.
The amount of money to be available, as I understand it, is the amount collected the previous year at the Centennial Flame.
There may have been other points that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain raised. They are technical points and I think she may have some valid concerns. Those types of concerns could very well be addressed in the committee stage of hearings on this bill.
I think I am fair in saying that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did not object to the principle of the bill. I think she too feels that it is a symbolic bill in a sense. It is not giving out vast amounts of money, but it does suggest a concern on the part of parliamentarians. We are prepared to offer this award and at the same time be the ones to judge the applications for it, which is a little unusual for a standing committee.
September 24, 1990

I was most interested in hearing from my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine because the hon. member has been in this House, as he said, from 1980. He and I were members of the original Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped and it has been my pleasure to work with him and other colleagues over the last 10 years. I am sure he would be the first to point out that on the committee we work together in an amazingly good fashion. We are basically non-partisan. I have been very impressed by how members from all three political parties have been able to work together.
I appreciate what the member said this afternoon about the shortcomings that still exist with regard to people with disabilities and handicaps. The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine very correctly pointed out some weaknesses in the government program. I would hope, and I would like to think that I have reason to believe, that we are going to see some of those corrections made in the next couple of years. The hon. member is quite right in saying that these problems have been pointed out in many reports, but in all fairness there is a move to make some changes along the lines the committee was hoping for when it came out with the report known as Obstacles.
We have made some achievements. Over the last number of years the United Nations has become quite involved, as my colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore indicated. There was the International Year for Disabled Persons and the Decade for Disabled Persons which will be concluded in 1992. There have been a number of issues bought forth by the UN that pertain to this and which we support.
I want also to touch on the support there is in Canada for this kind of initiative. I like to think that the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore showed an initiative which we as parliamentarians can pick up on, namely, showing a desire to encourage similar initiatives among disabled people in Canada, people who have a right to do something for their fellow man and woman in Canada and to be recognized for that. I think this bill is an attempt to recognize excellence among the disabled community. I notice the hon. member for Beaches- Woodbine nodding his head in agreement. I know he feels that way and that it is important to recognize that kind of activity.
Polling indicates a vast support among Canadians for disabled persons. We are aware of this and I think we are
Private Members' Business
on the right track when we collectively as a parliament move in a way, small as it is, that recognizes the importance that the disabled community can play in this country. As the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine mentioned, businesses in the United States realize, and they are beginning to realize here in Canada, that we need those people now. We need them as skilled workers with whatever qualifications they may have to contribute to the workforce and I think we will be seeing ourselves move in that direction.
There were three principles that were enunciated in the report of the special committee entitled Obstacles. One was the importance of participation. This is one way that we can see participation not only by Members of Parliament but also members of the community who are disabled and will be making application for this award. Also, there is the concept or the principle of responsibility, namely that Canadians collectively need to have a feeling of responsibility for those in the community who are disabled. Finally, we are recognizing the fact that disabled people like to help themselves. We are going to be increasingly looking at that as the work of the standing committee proceeds.
I want to reinforce what my colleagues from across the way said, namely that the recent report of the standing committee entitled Consensus For Action: The Economic Integration of Disabled People highlights the importance that Canadians put on the need to be of assistance to disabled people in Canada.
Bill C-258 allows us as parliamentarians to recognize the importance of that concept and to move ahead now as we must do to integrate members of the disabled community both socially and economically.
My time is very quickly drawing to a close. I want to reassure the House and my colleagues that I am certainly most pleased to support this bill. I think it along the path of the thinking of the standing committee. It wants to see Parliament more involved in the issues related to disabled people. We want the community of Canadians at large to become more involved as we believe it wants to be, from what we understand from polling. I urge all colleagues in the House to accept this bill now at second reading in principle and have it referred to committee stage so that some of the little flaws in it, if there are some flaws or weaknesses, can be corrected at that stage and it can come back here for subsequent approval.

September 24, 1990
Private Members' Business
I want to commend my colleague for introducing this bill and my two colleagues across the House from the standing committee for the support I feel they have given the concept. They have also challenged us with improving the bill a bit and have challenged us on the government side to do more for the people in this country who are disabled.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into this debate today on Bill C-258 and to register my unequivocal support for this proposal.
As we begin this fall session of Parliament there are a number of issues before us. It reminded me of when the House began the winter session in January 1990, for the first item of business on the table was the private member's motion I introduced on saving the Rouge Valley system as a park. I recall that motion being given unanimous support in the House of Commons, and I was pleased that it happened.
Indeed I am pleased that the first item on our autumn timetable is a discussion concerning the disabled. I am sure the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is also pleased that it has been highlighted. It is the first issue we are dealing with of a number of issues before us.
The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has long been a driving force in the campaign for Canadian people to be aware of the difficulties facing the disabled. His work has been substantial, and I compliment him. He continues to to do that work. I am pleased to endorse whole-heartedly the components brought forth by the hon. member.
This bill gives us as individual members of Parliament a distinct privilege and opportunity to recognize the participation and the contributions of Canadians with disabilities. The contents of the bill before us today are something that we can achieve and can indeed be proud of.
I am reminded of the words of Neil Armstrong when he stepped on the moon in the summer of 1969 when he said: "It is one small step for man and one giant step for mankind." I believe this bill is one small step, but it reflects a giant step which has occurred in the last decade, a major step which recognizes the contribution
and participation of citizens with disabilities in the life of this great Canadian nation.
Ten years ago, in 1980, Canada was just beginning to plan for the International Year of the Disabled People. Canada did not have the protections that we now enjoy in the charter, especially in section 15. The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore did an outstanding job in chairing a parliamentary committee concerning section 15. It did not have the Employment Equity Act it now has, and Canadians with disabilities were not able to take part in our society to the extent that they are today.
Since the International Year of the Disabled People, our country has come to recognize things many of us have always known, that every individual Canadian has a role to play and makes a unique and special contribution to life in Canada. This bill recognizes the excellence of participation in public life of Canadians with disabilities.
This bill is not about money because as the facts so eloquently demonstrate the amounts of money collected from the Centennial Flame in the last decade are not large. No one is going to grow wealthy on a research grant made as a result of this bill, but recognition by the Parliament of Canada is something we must strive to achieve, a recognition of excellence made by a committee of this House.
For a moment let us view ourselves standing outside the Chamber on the steps beneath the Peace Tower. Before us lies the Centennial Flame burning bright regardless of weather and regardless of time for 23 years, burning bright to reflect the hope of peace and prosperity.
The Centennial Flame speaks to the sense of the Canadian people. Unlike the flames that bum over the graves of unknown soldiers, the flame of the Olympics, the eternal flames that bum in sacred sites, this flame reminds us of our human responsibility to reach out to every member of our society.
In conclusion, I want to stress how strongly I feel about this bill. It provides an opportunity for all of us to come together as Canadians, as representatives of Canadians, to work together, to recognize excellence, and to recognize contributions made to the public life of our nation by Canadians with disabilities.

I know many in the House wish to speak on this excellent initiative put forth by our colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I want to urge everyone here to give this bill full and complete consideration in order that passage is realized through both Houses of Parliament.


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take a few minutes to speak in support of Bill C-258, an Act respecting the establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award.
I am sure everyone will agree with the purpose of this proposal to establish the Centennial Flame Research Award, which is to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities.
Furthermore, there are not many opportunities for a Member of this House to discuss a concept as unique as this bill, whose purpose is to ensure that the money thrown in the fountain surrounding the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill is used to help disabled persons in public life.
I am interested in this bill, Madam Speaker, not only because of its noble purpose but also because it concerns the Centennial Flame and its fountain. I feel this is an important symbol and that we should take the time to reflect on the principles that led to its creation.
Let us go back to the night of December 31, 1966, when then Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson lit the Centennial Flame. Thus began the year 1967 which would be remembered for its enthusiastic celebrations of the 100th anniversary of our Confederation.
At the Prime Minister's side during the ceremony were Judy Lamarsh, Secretary of State, and John Diefenbak-er, Leader of the Opposition, as well as thousands of others who had braved the elements to mark the beginning of a memorable year. It was the first of a series of special events that would make Canadians realize of what this country means to them and understand the ideas that brought about such remarkable changes over the years.
You will recall that 1967 was a time of intense activity. The Centennial Train, for instance, which provided a vivid illustration of our history and the contribution
Private Members' Business
made by countless cultural groups in our country, was visited by over 10 million people.
There was a heightened interest in local and regional history, and many historic sites were restored. The arts thrived. Governments, anxious to erect monuments to the occasion, financed construction projects, the most impressive being, as you will recall, the National Arts Centre here in Ottawa.
As 1967 unfolded, Canadians became aware, more than ever before, that Canada had indeed entered the modem world. The most spectacular event of that year, EXPO 67, was for many of us reason to renew our pride in being Canadian.
And so, the next December 31, when Centennial Year ended where it started, on Parliament Hill, the public asked that the Centennial Flame be kept alive. It was important for Canada to have a symbol of the spirit that brought Canadians together from coast to coast, and the Centennial Flame seemed to be the symbol we were seeking.
Since that time, the Centennial Flame has remained as a tangible memory of an important year in our common history that made us realize the immense diversity and uniqueness of the Canadian mosaic.
Nearly 25 years later, Madam Speaker, the Centennial Flame still bums on the Hill, living testimony to a year that helped us, Canadians, from coast to coast, celebrate what we are, with our similarities and our differences. I hope that by focussing on the Centennial Flame, this bill will give us an opportunity to rekindle the enthusiasm and energy of those years.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I realize the time is almost up, but it is a great pleasure to have an opportunity to stand and join with other members of this House in supporting the measure brought forth by the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lake-shore. It is a very significant piece of legislation and a very excellent idea, and I commend the hon. member for bringing it forward.
As Canadians we have looked at the Centennial Flame over the years. We think of a flame as something which gives light. We think of the Centennial Flame as something designed to foster unity among Canadians. We should reach out and see that flame as a light that is especially going to light the way for a group of Canadians

who from time to time may be left out of some of the decision making. In introducing the bill my hon. friend said that it was his objective in part to provide a voice for the voiceless. He used that very significant phrase.
The idea of using the funds voluntarily donated by Canadians and others through the fountain around that flame to bring particular attention to the needs of disabled Canadians is an excellent idea. I have no reservation whatsoever in supporting this measure.
We have made significant progress in Canada in recent years in recognizing the particular needs of disabled Canadians. All too often there is a tendency to forget that these people are not the disabled they are sometimes referred to as, but rather they are people, they are Canadians, and the disability that may impact their lives in one way or another is really of secondary consequence. The important point is that they are people like the rest of us. They are citizens. They are Canadians. It is important to ensure that they have the same opportunity to participate fully in all aspects of life in Canada.
We must continue to bring to the attention of Canadians and other people the needs of these people to ensure that they have an opportunity to have access, as well a full opportunity to participate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.


Mr. Speaker:: If I could have the attention of the House for a moment, I know that hon. members will want me to welcome the 42 new parliamentary pages who begin their duties with us today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I had the opportunity to assist in their swearing-in ceremony on Friday and I know hon. members will be impressed with the calibre and enthusiasm these young Canadians bring to their new duties.

Moreover, I am sure that all hon. members will want to join with me in thanking the Parliamentary guides who welcomed visitors on Parliament Hill all summer long.
From May until September, these guides have acquainted over 300,000 visitors from Canada and the four comers of the world with our Parliamentary system and highlighted for them the beauty of our building.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be back at work.
Having said that, I would like to make a statement on the fixed link to Prince Edward Island.
Although the Environmental Review Panel did not support the fixed link project as proposed, it did conclude that transportation to P.E.I. must be improved.
I would like to reaffirm my strong support and optimism for the proposal of a fixed link to Prince Edward Island as the only viable solution.
With predicted increases in oil costs, the project will become more and more viable as the ferry system becomes more expensive. The Environmental Review Panel has identified certain areas of potential problems but these can only be addressed and overcome with time.
The resulting benefits of the fixed link are numerous, considering that construction would employ more than 2,000 people, and would increase tourism and business opportunities for Atlantic Canada.
Considering the new circumstances which will increase the cost of the ferry system, and considering all of the benefits, I urge the Department of Public Works and all
September 24, 1990

those involved to overcome the objections and move on with this project.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, last night candlelight vigils were held around the world to focus on our society's most important resource and asset, our children.
Canada, with the United States, ranks poorest among developed nations in caring for its children. One in six children in this country are poor, numerically more than existed in 1984. In Canada, statistics tell us that infant mortality is twice as high among poor children as among rich.
Ninety per cent of the 5,000 homeless young females on the streets of Toronto have been sexually abused in their homes. The statistics for our native children in Canada rival those of Third World countries.
Worldwide, tens of thousands of children under the age of five die every day from easily preventable diseases. Many others are exploited as child labourers or experience forced induction into military forces.
If the political will exists, these shameful statistics can be turned back. Canada's ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child must be a beginning. Let us not be judged by future generations, today's children, for our inaction on children's issues today.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Again, as a Francophone, Mr. Speaker, I wish to denounce the situation which prevails in the area of information in Canada.
You will recall the recent events which surrounded the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, both the Oka and Persian Gulf crises which Anglophone Canadians in this country had the privilege to watch as they happened on the CBC-Newsworld information network. Anglophone Canadians have access to an information network while
Francophone Canadians are still waiting for one of then-own.
Mr. Speaker, two things. When will CBC consider seriously the possibility of providing this service to Francophone Canadians? Second, when will the CRTC put some order in the fee schedule for the English information network? This service is made available at a cost of 10 cents in Hull, Montreal or Sherbrooke, but if you happen to live in the Saguenay area you have to subscribe to pay TV and it will cost you as much as $19.08.
Mr. Speaker, Francophones in this country are entitled to and expect more fairness and consideration.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, there are 16,000 steelworkers not working in this country. They have been in a labour dispute for nearly two months and are suffering great economic hardship.
The Canadians steel producers told us not to worry; we have the binational dispute settlement mechanism as established by the free trade agreement.
Now, after two more negative rulings against Canadian steel the steel producers are hedging. Algoma Steel says they have lost faith in the free trade process of appeals. Mr. Romanko, managing director of the Canadian Steel Producers say that the government is gambling on multilateral trade negotiations rather than the free trade agreement.
Trade negotiations are not crap shoots. We gambled with the free trade agreement and we lost.
Mr. Speaker, I have read and re-read the two recent rulings that have gone against Canadian steel and I guarantee you we cannot win any ruling involving harassment from American steel producers.
Our government must abandon its passive approach, must be much more aggressive in dealings with American political interests, must lobby more diligently, must express dissatisfaction with these rulings.
If not, it should do the honourable thing: get out of the agreement before it is too late.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I have recently assisted some farmers in my constituency in taking a crop off the field that is second to none.
As all parliamentarians are aware, the drought problems of the last two years have been replaced this year by an abundance of grain. Unfortunately, due to many factors, not the least of which is an international grain subsidy war and surplus grain stocks, western Canadian agriculture's cash flow remain a very serious problem.
I have faith that in spite of our own cash problems the Government of Canada will continue to recognize the contribution that the economic health of agriculture makes toward small business and the over-all economy of Canada.
I trust that the Government of Canada will respond to this need once again.


THE SENATE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, one of the Prime Minister's appointees to the Senate, by her actions, questions his judgment and by her statements to the press, virtually declares herself unfit for the office.
Newly appointed Pat Carney, in a display of a remarkable lack of judgment, insensitivity to the demographic realities of Canada, and a sneering condescending attitude toward both parliamentary practice and to basic Canadian principles of tolerance for differences in our pluralistic, multicultural society, has proven herself unworthy and unfit for the appointment.
When she has no respect for the Prime Minister's other appointments, how can Canadians respect them or her. She has damaged both the reputation of her colleagues to be and that of the Senate. Like the John Buchanan appointment, she brings the Senate and the process into disrepute.
The Prime Minister should look for an honourable way out before her appointment is challenged in the courts. Canadians will applaud his effort to do so or condemn his persistence that is perverse acquiescence to
Ms. Carney's contempt for our fundamental Canadian principles.


THE LATE ALLAN MCKINNON
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I know members will join with me in mourning the passing of a former colleague and dear friend, the Hon. Allan McKinnon.
Allan McKinnon served as the member of Parliament for Victoria from 1972 to 1988 and was re-elected four times. In 1979 and 1980, under the Right Hon. Joe Clark, he served as both Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Allan McKinnon was bom and raised in Saskatchewan and was a proud Canadian. While serving as an officer with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in Italy in 1943, he was awarded the Military Cross for valour.
On behalf of the House, I extend our deepest heartfelt sympathy to Allan's wife Elizabeth and sons Ian and Peter.
Mr. Speaker, you and I were elected with the same class as he. I am now sitting in the seat which the Hon. Mr. McKinnon had prior to leaving Parliament in 1988.


THE PRESS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Oka situation is the cutting off of cellular phones and other means of communication essential to the jobs of journalists by the Canadian Army in conjunction with the Surete du Quebec on dubious legal and factual grounds.
Why is this serious and outrageous? Freedom of the press is a fundamental right in a democratic society. It is often the first right to go on the slippery road to tyranny.
I ask Canadians to pause for a moment. Here is a real crisis where actions and not just words count-a real test. The Charter of Rights appears to have been ignored by the Minister of Justice and her government.
September 24, 1990

It is not up to the government, the Army, the Warrior Society or anyone else as to what is printed and shown. It is the responsibility of a free press. That is a fundamental right in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We call on the government to respect this right. Also, we call on the House of Commons to send a group of members to Oka forthwith to negotiate an honourable disengagement and, as part of that, to reaffirm the fundamental Canadian principle of freedom of the press.


THE SENATE
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I find it intriguing that during the 20 years of the Pearson-Trudeau governments, whenever some well-known Liberal was appointed to the Senate, he or she was referred to as a distinguished Canadian.
Now that we have a PC government, the implication seems to exist that there is something sordid about the idea that a Tory government might appoint Senators with Tory backgrounds.
Quite to the contrary, I compliment the Prime Minister on his recent appointment of 15 distinguished Canadians to the Senate, who happen to be Tories.
None has been more appropriate than that of a man who has served his province for 23 years, 12 of them as premier, who has contributed significantly to the national unity of this country and who, to the horror of all fair-minded Nova Scotians, has been the victim this past summer of a campaign of slander by a disgruntled and vindictive former public servant. No Canadian should be discriminated against simply because of unsubstantiated allegations.
John Buchanan will make an excellent Senator, and I compliment the Prime Minister for this appointment.



Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on this first day after the resumption of the sitting of Parliament, let us remember what one great Canadian said about patronage.
On June 25, 1984, he said: "My government would reduce the partisan political appointments."


Some hon. members:: Who said that?


Don Boudria: On July 9, 1984, he said: "I commit myself to set up criteria which will impress the Canadian people."
On July 16, he said: "Previous political appointments were a fraud, a deceit and a sham."
On July 16, 1984 he said: "Conservative appointments would represent the highest quality of people.


Some hon. members:: Who said that?


Don Boudria: "Who said that?" my colleagues ask. Well, the present Prime Minister did.
As sad and as bad as the appointment of John Buchanan is to the Senate, it could have been worse. The Prime Minister could have appointed himself.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources visited Alberta and Saskatchewan to hear testimony on the role of the oil sands and the future of Canadian energy supplies.
What we heard was a clear and consistent message that oil sands production is essential to our future and that the government must act now to ensure that oil sands developments are completed in time to meet our country's urgent needs.
In my view, what is needed is a clear policy that encourages such developments as well as much needed conservation.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance must get together and develop taxation policies that promote equally the development of necessary energy resources and cost-effective conservation.


CANADA POST
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have a message for the Government of Canada from the residents of Meadowood Manor, constituents of mine. It reads as follows:

September 24, 1990
Oral Questions
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the proposed postal rate increase of one cent by Canada Post and the three cent goods and services tax which will raise the basic letter rate to 43 cents.
We all know that our seniors use the mails in a significant kind of way to communicate to their families and friends. They are angry at this massive increase in the postal rate.
I invite all Canadians to reject the Goods and Services Ihx as well as the postal rate increase. We need to support our seniors and to improve the quality of life and this is one way in which we could do it for them.


NEW MEMBERS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election return of Mr. Mike Breaugh, member for the electoral district of Oshawa.

I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Gilles Duceppe, for the electoral district of Laurier- Sainte-Marie.


NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Michael Breaugh, member for the electoral district of Oshawa, introduced by Ms. Audrey McLaughlin and Mr. Stephen Langdon.
[Stage Direction]
Gilles Duceppe, Member for the electoral district of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, introduced by the Hon. Lucien Bouchard and the Hon. Jean Lapierre.


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I had better decline comment on that except to say that it is appreciated. I think my colleagues expect me to begin, in fact, by directing my first question to the Prime Minister.
Canadians have watched with shock and dismay while the neglect and ineptitude of the Prime Minister and his government has meant that the crisis at Oka-Kanesa-take has gone on for more than 75 days without a fair and reasonable solution being arrived at.
Will the Prime Minister at last recognize that the Canadian constitution has placed the responsibility for our native peoples squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and his government? Will the Prime Minister, as a result, finally begin to show leadership to bring about a fair, reasonable, and honourable solution to the crisis? Will he begin by replacing his Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with a minister who has a better understanding of that fundamental constitutional responsibility?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend on his continuance in office.
I can tell him that the government has never doubted at all its important constitutional obligations in regard to the native peoples. Successive governments, including this one, have made important advances in regard to the protection and the enhancement of the rights and achievements of native peoples but a great deal remains to be done.
With regard to the problem at Oka that my hon. friend raises, we have taken actions which will be the subject of debate in the House tomorrow. We purchased the land and are ready to transfer that land to the natives and the leadership at Oka, as soon as the guns are put down and the acceptance of law and order, which must prevail across Canada, is accepted by those who have hijacked an otherwise entirely peaceful community.
The Government of Canada looks forward to working with the leadership at Oka and elsewhere as soon as that is accomplished so that together we can bring a much greater degree of social justice to natives there and elsewhere.


THE PRESS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, our Canadian Constitution also guarantees rights of association, movement, and communication, including rights of freedom of the press. Yet, in recent days we have seen all too many breaches of those rights at Oka-Kanesatake.
I ask the Prime Minister: does he condone those breaches of basic human rights, including freedom of the press? If not, will he take basic steps to see that those rights are protected? How can dialogue, bringing about the fair and peaceful solution he talks about, be undertaken if the Mohawks at Oka cannot even make a telephone call and the press is prevented from telling Canadians what is really going on there?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should bear in mind what the situation is in Oka, where we have the denouement of the situation. It has resulted in a situation where in the treatment centre, in addition to journalists, there are people who are suspected of being in violation of the criminal law of Canada. The law enforcement authorities are attempting to bring those people before the appropriate authorities to determine whether charges should be laid and to allow the judicial process to go forward.
A review of the law of freedom of speech in Canada and the right of freedom of the press would reveal that that law, as it has been discussed by the court, contemplates, depending on the circumstances, that some limitations might be imposed on the access by the press of information.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would simply indicate a principle which says that "reporting of criminal activity, such as hostage takings, will be done in a fashion that does not knowingly endanger lives, tamper attempts by authorities to conclude the event, offer comfort and support, or provide vital information to the perpetrators". That is a statement from the code of ethics of the Radio-Television News Directors Association of Canada.


An hon. member:: We need a new Minister of Justice too.


An hon. member:: Resign. That is disgraceful.
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will agree that that is a disgraceful answer from someone who is supposed to be the Minister of Justice of the country. The journalists at Oka are not suspected of criminal activity, except perhaps by this government, because they are trying to do their jobs.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when will the government give newsmen and others at Oka their constitutionally protected rights? In addition, will the Prime Minister launch an immediate parliamentary inquiry into the situation in Oka, and will the government set up immediately a royal commission on native issues so as to find quicker and better solutions, as suggested by my colleague the Member for Western Arctic?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the Minister of Justice never suggested that newsmen should break Canadian laws. But she did say that others had broken certain laws, and of course we know she was referring to the Warriors who made a difficult situation even worse during the summer. You had the solution concerning the Warriors, Jean Chretien's solution as reported in the Journal de Montreal of September 6: "Let the Warriors go free, simply arrest them later". I can tell you that it is not the position of the Canadian government. The Warriors are subject to Canadian laws like everybody else.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, as a First Canadian, I am ashamed of what is happening in this country and I am hurt that the government would assault my people in this manner. It cannot continue to ask us to pick and choose between ourselves because, as aboriginal people of Canada, we will not do that.
This morning the members of the Liberal caucus were briefed by the aboriginal leaders from Kanesatake and Kahnawake. Those negotiators presented us with their proposal for an honourable and peaceful disengagement

September 24, 1990
Oral Questions
of the Armed Forces and the people at the treatment centre.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, what do he and his government have against a peaceful solution? Why has he chosen tanks, razor wire, and tear gas over a negotiated political settlement with the Mohawk citizens? Where is the leadership this country so much needs, Mr. Prime Minister?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -over the course of the next few days in the House, all members will be participating in a serious and mature debate about our aboriginal Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Order, order!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. members want to engage in a dispassionate debate about serious matters affecting the aboriginal people of Canada. All Canadians share the sense of anguish arising out of the tragic events at Oka and Kahnawake during the past several weeks and all Canadians agree that we should work together to find a peaceful means of resolving this serious issue. In order to find that peaceful solution, the federal government has acted with great prudence and restraint in support-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to move on. Would the Hon. Member for Western Arctic put a short question?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed again to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Prime Minister, quit hiding from the Canadian citizens.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that is not a question. Would she put her question, please?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, why are the Prime Minister and his government abandoning their fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal peoples as set out in the Constitution of Canada? Why do you insist on playing an adversarial role? You should be an-


An hon. member:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the question must be put through the Speaker. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friend that, contrary to the assertion, I not only acknowledge but respect full well the importance of the fiduciary role that the Government of Canada accepts in respect to its native peoples. We have been seeking to fulfil precisely that.
I think my hon. friend would acknowledge that when certain individuals, a small group of certain individuals, many from another country, take up arms and seek to resist the reasonable application of the laws of Canada, that-


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: You should have used the emergency measures legislation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think my hon. friend would agree that that causes some difficulty and that the Government of Canada has tried with restraint to deal with this and to bring it to a peaceful resolution without loss of life.
In that regard, I know my hon. friend, even with her deeply felt convictions, will want to join the House in congratulating all members of the Armed Forces of Canada for their forbearance in an otherwise very difficult situation.
I look forward to working with my hon. friend and all members of the House from all political parties, not only in engaging in the debate, but also in bringing forward measures that will achieve a greater degree of justice for native Canadians.
My hon. friend prefaced her remarks with a suggestion that I should quit hiding from Canadian citizens. May I say respectfully that is advice that she should give to her own leader.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: fighting with the police and the Canadian army. We have seen images of food being withheld from Canadian citizens and now we see the censorship of the Canadian press.
Given the gravity of these crises this summer and given the fact that this Prime Minister has previously recalled Parliament in much less grave instances, I ask the Prime Minister why he did not call the Canadian Parliament back this summer to debate these issues before he took action?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, in June, by unanimous consent of the House, including the New Democratic Party, it was agreed to adjourn until September 24. While we did hear on whatever issue came up over the course of the summer calls to return the House, they were never accompanied by the follow-on for precisely what would be the purpose.
If the Leader of the New Democratic Party has specific suggestions for legislation that could be brought before this House to deal with those issues, we anxiously await hearing them and will treat them with the respect they deserve.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Yes, I have specific suggestions for the government. I suggest the federal government take its responsibility to aboriginal people and to Canadians seriously and, once and for all, take some action, have an open debate and listen to what Canadians have to say.



Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister knows, the situation at Kanesa-take and Kahnawake is far from settled. Yes, I can tell him what I would do. I repeat my call of last month that a parliamentary all-party delegation be formed to go to Kahnawake and Kanesatake to investigate the situation there. I have been to Oka three times. I call on the Prime Minister to facilitate the development of that kind of parliamentary delegation because it is time politicians
Oral Questions
took the responsibility and did not just give it to the army.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend indeed made a very useful suggestion during the course of the late summer with regard to the manner in which some of the land claims could be dealt with. I think clearly that all Canadians acknowledge we have a serious problem with regard to the manner in which land claims have traditionally been dealt with by successive Canadian governments. I look forward to hearing her further advice and comments in this regard during the course of the debate which I understand will take place tomorrow.
That having been said, I think my hon. friend will recognize that the land claim issue that arose at Oka was indeed in the process of being finalized. The Government of Canada has procured the land, but this has been transferred into something entirely different from a question of land claim. There was a group of people, many of them from the United States, who hijacked an otherwise entirely peaceful community. The Government of Canada responded to a legitimate request from the Government of Quebec pursuant to the National Defence Act to provide the Canadian army for peacekeeping purposes, and they have done that extremely well.
That concept of bearing arms in Canada in those circumstances is fundamentally hostile to our kind of citizenship, and only when those arms are put down peaceably and order has been restored will the Government of Canada engage in the kind of very productive negotiations that will bring about the kinds of justice my friend is talking about.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Prime Minister that right at this moment there are proposals to end this conflict right now and the government is refusing to negotiate, so I would question the sincerity of that.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians wonder why the conflict at Kahnawake and Kanesatake started and why it is still going on. All these questions remain unanswered: the role of the Prime Minister, the role played by the Premier of Quebec, the role of the army and the Quebec Provincial Police, the role played by the Mohawks and the issue of illegal weapons, and also the control of journalists.

Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, what we now need is a public inquiry. Does the Prime Minister intend to order a public inquiry into this situation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned a public inquiry. I agree that at the appropriate time perhaps we should consider the possibility of having some kind of inquiry into these events. However, first of all, order must be restored in this region not far from Montreal. The law applies to everyone: Natives, Whites, everyone in Canada. We must all obey the same laws and, as soon as that is settled, the government will be more than pleased to take the kind of action suggested by my hon. friend.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. It is bad enough that the government has abdicated its federal responsibility over Indian affairs to the Quebec government but worse still, it has abdicated its authority over important decisions affecting this matter to the army and to the Quebec police, decisions which should be made at the political level.
Last week in Toronto the Iroquois Confederacy and John Ciaccia concluded an agreement which would have dealt with the long stand-off at the treatment centre at Oka, but this was left to the army and the police and was not taken up at the political level.
I want to ask the minister: when is he going to take up his responsibilities and deal with this important agreement which was concluded in Toronto, an agreement which would have settled this long-standing stand-off? When is he going to show some leadership?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who is a Privy Councillor, understands the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member seeks an answer to his question and I think other members would like to hear the answer as well.
The Government of Canada has been seeking to solve the land issues at Kanesatake for three years. In fact, on May 61 made a commitment to seek to acquire the land at Kanesatake which was in dispute.
A number of proposals have come forward and been negotiated with various parties. In each case those proposals have failed because they have put constitutional questions and land claims questions ahead of the laws of Canada. They have failed in the final instance because the warriors at the Kanesatake treatment centre are asking for sovereignty and immunity from Canadian laws. I cannot imagine any member opposite accepting that kind of proposition.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question.
We had an agreement concluded by a Quebec minister with the Iroquois Confederacy', an agreement to settle this long stand-off at the treatment centre. The representative of the Confederacy could not even discuss it with the people in the treatment centre. The army would not let them do it because the minister had not given instructions for them to act properly.
This a political issue. Why will the minister not consider this agreement made in Toronto, an agreement which could settle this long-standing stand-off, instead of dealing with red herrings. Get down to business.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is very simple. In this country we do not have different laws for different people.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Canadians I have heard from these past several weeks believe we should not negotiate complex land claims issues at the point of a gun. When the guns are laid down, the federal government has committed itself to get back to settling the land issue at Kanesatake, but not until the guns are laid down and order is restored to that community.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, that is the minister who signed an agreement with a masked warrior.
On August 11, 1987, this government recalled Parliament in order to deal with the issue of 174 refugees who arrived on Canada's shores by boat. Does the minister not consider Canada's native peoples and the Oka situation at least equally important? Why did the government not recall Parliament to deal with this issue?
September 24, 1990


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I could tell the hon. member that a great deal of effort was expended during the summer months dealing with parties with a view to seeking a peaceful disengagement of this conflict. I can assure the hon. member that most aboriginal leaders with whom I have met over the course of the past many weeks do not condone violence or the use of arms to achieve their end. They have supported the course of action this government has taken to deal with the law first and then to settle the land issue.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: And completely ignored the legitimate voice of all Canada's people to hear the Parliament of Canada.


An hon. member:: That is right.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just assured this House that he seeks a peaceful and just settlement of our native issues and Oka.
Would the Prime Minister be good enough to give this House the names of Canada's native leaders with whom he has met to resolve this issue?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I can speak for the government, for myself and several other ministers who have been meeting throughout the summer with native leaders across Canada. I have met with national assemblies of chiefs in Winnipeg. In Ottawa only two weeks ago I met with provincial assemblies of chiefs from across the country. The responsible leadership of the aboriginal communities of Canada do not support or condone lawlessness or the taking up of arms against society.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on every occasion that a reasonable proposal for a peaceful settlement at Oka has been proposed, including the the nine point proposal advanced by the Iroquois Confederacy or the agreement reached a few days ago with Quebec's Minister of Native Affairs, the Liberal premier of Quebec has stubbornly refused to accept any settlement short of unconditional surrender of the Mohawks at Oka.
Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development explain to this House why he did not step in to exercise Canada's exclusive jurisdiction over Indians and, in accordance with his trust responsibility for
Oral Questions
native Indians, to negotiate a peaceful and honourable settlement to this situation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, for the same reason that I and other ministers have explained ourselves not only today but throughout the summer.
If the hon. member would search his office he would find 31 separate communications from my office explaining why we do not negotiate sensitive land issues at the point of a gun-


Some hon. members:: You did.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -held by individuals who are not interested in abiding by the laws of Canada but who proclaim their independent sovereignty, who seek sovereign enclaves free and immune from the application of the laws of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Evans Skelly: My supplementary question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
This minister has narrowly interpreted the Oka and Kahnawake incidents as criminal matters in order to justify abandoning jurisdiction over natives in Quebec to the Government of Quebec because he fears that if Canada exercises its jurisdiction over natives in Quebec and exercises its full sovereignty and trust responsibility for natives in Quebec, then sovereignists in his own caucus who support Premier Bourassa are going to walk the floor and join the party opposite.
Will the minister not admit that he is being held to ransom by sovereignists in his own caucus?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the point is that responsible aboriginal leaders in Canada do not condone the taking up of arms.
I could quote, for example, from Konrad Sioui, the vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec. Mr. Sioui said: "From day one in the current dispute we spoke out against the use of weapons. We always sought peace".
We seek peace first. Then we will resolve these land issues in which we have been engaged and seeking long-term solutions for many, many years.

Oral Questions PRESENCE IN GALLERY


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Right Hon. Bernard Weatherill, Speaker of the British House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
We have just heard the minister say that he will not negotiate at the end of a gun or at the end of a rifle. However, as pointed out earlier by my colleague, we saw on national TV the same minister signing a deal in Oka.
On August 17 of this year the minister sent a letter to the office of the Kanesatake Mohawk negotiating team outlining the deal they had made with regard to the land in question. In there it says, and I quote: "In accordance with the agreement with the municipality this deal will close within 10 days of the removal of the barricades". The barricades have been down for some time. When is the minister going to honour the agreement he made with the office of the Kanesatake negotiating team?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing to the attention of this House an important point.
We closed and concluded that deal on September 14 in full compliance with our undertaking.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, the minister announced earlier that there will be an ensuing debate over the next few days on aboriginal issues. With the way the government has been acting over the summer, it does not seem to recognize aboriginal rights.
If the minister is going to be announcing any programs over the next few days, how can we be assured that he will follow through on them?


Mr. Speaker:: Procedurally this may be a slightly hypothetical question. The minister may wish to deal with it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this government has nothing to apologize for in terms of our record of progress on behalf of Canada's aboriginal people.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the evidence of that-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister could direct his answer to the question.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The evidence of our commitment to resolving land claims issues is to be found in the conclusion of historic agreements all across northern Canada between the federal government and the Dene-Metis people, the Tbngavik Federation of Nunavut, and the Council of Yukon Indians.
I personally attended with the hon. member for Nunatsiaq the signing of the agreement in principle with the Inuit people in Igloolik on April 30.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Government of Quebec has implemented a compensation plan for the communities of Oka and Chateauguay. I want to ask the following questions.
First of all, does the federal government intend to share the tax burden with the Government of Quebec? Second, does the federal government intend to provide full compensation for the people of the South Shore, Southwest Montreal, Lachine, LaSalle, Emard, Kahne-satake and Kahnawake?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this question illustrates the tragic side of this kind of development when people take up arms against the necessary order in society that we should all uphold in this House.
We have received representation from both the native and non-native residents in the vicinity of Oka, and we are examining proposals from those parties. But I might point out that many weeks ago we conveyed in writing our commitment to continue the process of resolving

the land issue at Kanesatake and to include an important economic and social component in the settlement of those matters together with the resolution of all of the land issues.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is a fudge. The Government of Quebec has already proceeded to compensation. It is crucial, if we are to begin the process of reconciliation between the diverse populations, that those people who have suffered not be made to bear the burden of this government's dithering.
The question is: Are you going to compensate the populations of the south shore-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that questions must go through the Chair.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, when we receive proposals from the Government of Quebec and have a chance to review them, we will consider all these factors.
I want to point out that my colleagues from the vicinity of Oka have made these recommendations, and we have them well in hand at the present time.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Two years ago when the Conservative government sent peacekeeping troops to the Middle East the then Minister of National Defence said: "When such a major new undertaking is given I have a moral responsibility to report to the people's representatives to ask for their support".
Why did the Prime Minister abandon this moral responsibility referred to by the Minister of National Defence by sending Canadian troops into the Persian Gulf without recalling Parliament for over six weeks? Why this contempt for Parliament?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced on August 10 the deployment of Canadian troops to join with-
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: We know that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Members of the NDP say that they know that. They probably also realize the tradition or convention that there will be after the Order in Council has been placed within 10 days a debate.
I would suggest to hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, that several changes that have taken place through the UN auspices and through diplomatic channels supported by Canada mean now the debate will take place with knowledge. I think that would make for a much better debate than what the member would have been involved in had it taken place earlier.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we wanted a debate at the time because Canadians want our country to be part of a clear UN peacekeeping effort. They do not want a Prime Minister who is simply a lap dog for George Bush.
My question is again for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister agree to send our troops no farther than the Gulf of Oman, strictly to enforce UN Resolution 665, and cancel the CF-18s? Will Canada use its position on the security council of the United Nations to urge that all troops in the gulf be placed not under United States direction but under clear United Nations command? Will he play that important peacekeeping role?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made some suggestions that he will be able to make later. I would suggest to him that historically, Canada, indeed successive governments representing the people of Canada have taken action to deter aggression. They have taken action to show the world that might is not right.
In this case the hon. member says under the UN. In some cases he is right, but I refer to two world wars and a Korean war where the Canadian men and women who served deterring aggression paid a very dear price.
The hon. member is suggesting that we not provide to our men and women on those ships in the Persian Gulf the cover of defensive aircraft, the CF-18, to provide them with the best protection that we can, doing the job that they are doing on behalf of the people of Canada.

Oral Questions FREE TRADE


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade regarding the proposed U.S.-Mexico free trade negotiations.
Will the minister confirm whether cabinet has decided to participate in the talks and, if so, on what basis? Frankly, can he tell us what requests have been made and what so far have been the responses?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the government has decided that Canada should involve itself and participate in tri-lateral discussions with the United States and Mexico that would lead to a North American free trade market if an agreement is reached.
The present stage of the matter is that the President is likely, today or very shortly, to be sending a message to Congress to ask Congress for authority to enter into bilateral negotiations with Mexico. He must get authority for bilateral negotiations and trade matters. He will be advising the Congress of our intention to discuss with both parties a trilateral agreement as has been recommended by most groups in Canada that have studied or thought about the matter.
We will be entering into-


Mr. Barrett:: What is there to protect?


John Carnell Crosbie: This is extraordinary: you are not allowed to answer a question because of the rowdies in the NDP, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister can do the best he can.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we will be starting a process of consultations with the representatives of Mexico and the United States over the next several months, looking at the scope, the elements, and the procedures that will form the basis for subsequent negotiations if all of those consultations prove to be satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: It may surprise the House that the Question Period will be extended by a couple of minutes because of the earlier interventions.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean has the floor for one question. Only one question, please.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The minister must know that Quebec agricultural producers are extremely concerned about the future as a result of the positions which the federal government will take in the current round of GATT negotiations in Geneva. They are quite aware that the government, despite the very firm commitments it made to them, has agreed to negotiate under terms of reference which, if accepted, will destroy the supply support program and the stabilization measures.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister to give Quebec producers the immediate and firm commitment that he will defend and safeguard the entire supply management system and all the financial stabilization measures it entails.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He should know that during the summer I went to Geneva to meet with all delegations, the American delegation, the European delegation, the Japanese and the Australians, to explain Canada's position.
We have always said that we would strongly defend the interests of Canadian and Quebec producers, and that is what we did. I conclude by saying simply that last week we had a meeting with the negotiation team, the UPA president, the president of the Cooperative federee du Quebec who, in a letter sent to the Prime Minister Tuesday, expressed their full satisfaction and enthusiasm about the position taken by Canada.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the minister just made an important statement about the


September 24, 1990

decision of this government to participate in trade talks involving Canada, the United States and Mexico.
Yet this is the same minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the hon. member would want to co-operate. This is the end of Question Period. Please put the question.


Roy MacLaren: When is the minister going to come forward with all the reasons why the government has made this decision and explain to the Canadian people what are the goals that Canada seeks in these trade talks?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. gentleman on his appointment as the Official Opposition critic on trade. He shows great promise compared to the last incumbent.
With respect to the question, I was following the advice of the MP for Broadview-Greenwood, the hon. member for Lasalle-Emard, and the Ontario caucus chairman, who all recommended this course.
When I saw that sanity had returned to some of the members of the Liberal caucus, I thought this was the time to go for it.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all hon. members are prepared to listen to a statement by the minister.


THE LATE ALLAN MCKINNON
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, members of the House will know of the death on Wednesday of the Hon. Allan McKinnon, a distinguished member of this House for 16 years, a Minister of National Defence, Minister of Veterans Affairs and a very good friend to many of us in all parties and among the people who serve Parliament.
Allan McKinnon's life was one of public service; in the Canadian Army from 1939 to 1965, as a teacher, as a trustee and then as chairman of the Greater Victoria School Board and as a member of this House.
Tributes
Nearly 50 years ago while fighting in Italy, he was awarded the Military Cross for valour, and other honours and offices came to him later. He was a man to whom others turned naturally for leadership.
Allan McKinnon sat in the highest councils of this country and took part directly in some of the critical discussions of world war and peace at the NATO table. He was effective and respected there. But what he enjoyed most about being a member of Parliament was the opportunity it gave him to help ordinary people whom the system had forgotten or abused. It is easy to lose perspective in public life, to forget why we are here or whom we serve; Allan McKinnon never forgot. He never failed to serve the people of Victoria who elected him.
He was bom and raised in Saskatchewan. Adlai Stevenson once said that on the prairies you can see a long way in all directions and prairie people like to believe that at our best, we are long-sighted, generous and fair. Allan McKinnon was one of our best. He served me and our country with a combination of wisdom and dry humour that was both rare and invaluable. As an officer, a teacher, a trustee, a parliamentarian and a man, his motive was a straightforward sense of duty which he exercised consistently and compassionately.
To his wife Elizabeth, to his sons Peter and Ian and their families and to the larger family of the friends and admirers of Allan McKinnon we express our condolence and our thanks for the privilege of knowing a wise and a gentle man whose compassion, strength and humour enlarged our lives.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party I want to say that it was with very deep regret that we learned of the passing of the Hon. Allan Bruce McKinnon, former member for Victoria, former Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs, a dedicated public servant.
I agree entirely with the statement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs because Allan McKinnon was an individual who could see over the horizons and look into the beyond. He loved his job as a member of Parliament and looked upon his attaining the Ministry of National Defence as an outstanding goal along his life's career.

Tributes
We extend our sincere sympathy and condolences to his wonderful wife, Elizabeth, to whom Allan was always very devoted, and to his two sons, Ian and Peter. In our personal conversations during the years that he spent in this House he often spoke of his wife and family and we must say a word about the other partner in public life. Elizabeth was, in the eyes of many of us, an ideal life partner for a person who had to face the decisions, the problems and the general workload of a person dedicated to the public life of his country. She was always uplifting in her remarks.
Having been bom in Saskatchewan and having been a teacher, he always talked about the prairies and education. After a distinguished career in Canada's Armed Forces, he served on the school board for greater Victoria and other distinguished organizations. My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Denis, always said that Allan McKinnon was one of the most dedicated members of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence during the years that he chaired that committee. Allan was active on the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for many years. As a person who took part in many NATO delegations from this Parliament to other NATO countries, he was always a Canadian first when abroad. He was a firm believer that when a Canadian delegation, made up of all parties from both Houses of Parliament went abroad, the group should speak with a common voice.
During his 16 years in this House of Commons, he made many friends and took his duties seriously. His life as an MP is one that can be looked up to with respect and it is an example for others to follow. We must ever remember when in this House that the example we, as MPs portray is one that will always stick with us. Allan McKinnon's example will wear well with time.
We want to say to his wife Elizabeth, his two sons and his host of friends that Allan McKinnon's memory will wear well with all of us here in the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the caucus of the New Democratic Party and, particularly on behalf of the people of Victoria, to join with the statements of regret and yet admiration and respect for Allan McKinnon.
Allan, apart from all the other things that have been said about him, was a person who was truly loved and respected in Victoria. He worked very hard at his job as a member of Parliament. He loved the part of the job of working for constituents and solving individual problems. That gave him a great deal of satisfaction which was returned by the people of Victoria, not only in successive majorities of astonishing proportion, but as well by the love and affection with which he was held. One ran into it everywhere and I know that he will be missed by the people of our community.
Allan McKinnon served this country beyond just the community. He was a man of great courage. I agree with the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he was a quiet and gentle man. Yet under that was a toughness and a determination which I suspect was bom not only of Scottish ancestry or growing up on the prairies, but his experience in the Second World War where he was in active duty in Italy, Belgium and Holland. He never forgot that. He never forgot the veterans, whom he served in this Parliament and in the cabinet.
Allan McKinnon loved Parliament. I had a chance to chat with him just after he retired and I took over as the member of Parliament for Victoria. He said that what he really liked about the job was that, apart from the opportunity to serve constituents, it gave him a front row seat in the decision-making. He would have enjoyed today I think and enjoyed many days in this Parliament because he really loved that aspect of the life of being a member of Parliament.
He was a strong defender of seniors even when his government strayed, he thought, occasionally from what it ought to have done. He also was very effective in securing for Victoria its share of federal support, particularly on the Conference Centre, one of his great achievements which will stand for Allan McKinnon in the centre of Victoria. I would hope that his contribution to that Conference Centre will be recognized in a formal way by the city council in Victoria.
I join with the other members of the House in condolences to his wife Elizabeth and to his family.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask that all hon. members stand with me for one minute of silence.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief point of order I want to raise in respect of the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway which I contend was out of order for two reasons. First, it anticipated an Order of the Day and, second, it contained a gratuitous personal insult to the Prime Minister.
I recognize the question has been asked. I raise it only because when practices occur which are not challenged, they become routine and part of our traditions. I would not like to see that happen in this instance.


Mr. Speaker:: I must assure the hon. House Leader, as I assure all hon. members, that complaints of this nature are considered seriously by the Speaker. I hope that we shall be able to proceed with a minimum of such complaints and, where they are serious, that those comments would be considered in the spirit in which they are meant in the interests of the House.
The hon. member for Beausejour on a personal question of privilege.


RESIGNATION OF THE HON. MEMBER FOR BEAUSEJOUR
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, it has already been six years since the people of Westmorland and Kent elected me to represent them in the House of Commons. I have always felt it a great honour and privilege to be entrusted with this responsibility, and I have always taken great pride in trying to be a worthy representative of my constituents.
A great deal has changed in six years, however, so much so that today, the circumstances are such that I must make a major decision. The decision was made in consultation with the executive of the Liberal Association of Beausejour, and I want to stress that it was unanimous. We have decided to give the Leader of the
Point of Order
Liberal Party of Canada an opportunity to go before the electorate in the riding of Beausejour and represent that riding in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced this decision is in the best interests of the people of Beausejour and that the Leader of the Liberal Party will be a strong and energetic defender of that riding in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore wish to tender my resignation as the member for Beausejour in order to yield my seat to the leader of my party.
Before I sit down, I would like to take this opportunity to thank sincerely the people of Beausejour for the trust they have placed in me during the past six years. Mr. Speaker, this is something for which I will always be grateful.

I would also like to assure the people of Beausejour that in my new duties I will always be within their reach and I will have their best interests at heart.
I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to all members of the House and particularly to my caucus colleagues who have all contributed to making these last six years the most memorable of my life.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself and all those who have sat in the Speaker's chair always made it a pleasure to take part in the proceedings of this House, and I want to thank you very much.
In concluding, I hope the Prime Minister will call a by-election as soon as possible, to ensure that the people of Beausejour are represented in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I haven't left yet, but I must admit I am already making plans to come back! I intend to return after the next general election.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may have the attention of the House for a moment. I have several questions of privilege this afternoon. The first notice is from the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
September 24, 1990

[Stage Direction]
are unable to settle this matter once and for all, I just do not see how the House could move ahead quickly with its agenda.
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, since last June my colleagues and I, now grouped under the banner of the Bloc Quebecois, have been the object of repeated attacks from members of this House about the legitimacy of our action in the House of Commons.
For quite some time, Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the outcome of the election in Laurier-Sainte-Ma-rie-67.8 per cent- would put an end to such questions. I notice they have precious little to say on the other side, all they got was 3.9 per cent.
Again this morning the member for Kamloops and NDP House leader stated that the members of the Bloc Quebecois were members-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that in the case of a question of privilege it is necessary to establish the circumstances or facts which may prevent a member from performing his normal duties. Again I find it hard to see how there could be a question of privilege in this instance. The hon. member may make a comment of course, but I would ask him to guide the Chair as to the nature of his question of privilege.


François Gérin: I can understand your reaction, Mr. Speaker. For that matter, I will refer as a precedent to the statements which you allowed made by the hon. member for York South-Weston last March when he accused Separatists or Sovereignists of treachery, prejudice and racism. On that occasion, you let the hon. member speak us in the House for a long time on.
And here he goes again accusing us of treachery. Mr. Speaker, such statements made this House do infringe an hon. member's privilege. I have received over 100 letters from all over Canada, which claim that I have no right to sit in this House. My privileges are being trampled on. And when, as Speaker of this House, you do not allow me to sit with my fellow Quebec Sovereignists, you are playing in their hands, something you have no right to do. I suggest that this question of privilege must be ruled on once and for all.
May I remind you that, last March, you had allowed the hon. member for York South-Weston to discuss at lengh this issue and other members to intervene. If we
Mr. Speaker, all I am asking you is to be allowed to raise this question of privilege based on the difficulties which I face because of these outrageous statements made today on Canada AM on a national television network and publicly again in this House by other members. If you are anxious to see this House move ahead quickly with its agenda and go on with its business-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has certainly a grievance. It is undoubtedly a grievance. However, surely the hon. member will understand that the Chair must conduct the business of the House according to Standing Orders. Of course, when necessary, I may consider a motion dealing with a question of privilege and take all circumstances into account. Yet, I must say that sometimes statements made outside the House by an hon. member cause a lot of distress and anxiety. Partly, of course, this is just politics. The hon. member may have a grievance. If the hon. member wants to see changes in the Standing Orders of this House, I would ask him and his colleagues to discuss the matter with me. There is of course a procedure for presenting a motion or request regarding the Standing Orders of this House, but a question of privilege is very rare, and in any case, the circumstances that make it impossible for the hon. member to continue to perform his duties as a member of the House of Commons of Canada must be put before the House, before the Speaker.
It is clear the hon. member may have a grievance, but this is not a question of privilege. I also think members should understand that as your Speaker, I have some discretion in dealing with the rights of every person in this House who is in a minority position. I think we have a great tradition of protecting the rights of minorities, and I can assure the hon. member that the rights of minorities will be protected by the Speaker in a way that is fair and equitable for all other members.
I would ask the hon. member for his co-operation, since I realize the Speaker must rely on the co-operation of all members, but I must interrupt the hon. member because this is not a question of privilege. The hon. member may be referring to another matter that was before the House a few months ago. I remember the
September 24, 1990

situation well, and at the time I also had to apply the Standing Orders of this House in a way that was fair and equitable. I am sorry, but although the hon. member may wish to have a conversation with the Speaker or with other members of this House, I cannot allow him to continue to argue a question of privilege when it is clear that although this may be a grievance, it certainly is not a question of privilege.
That is what I had to say about the hon. member's comments.
Does the hon. member have further comments for the Chair? Please be brief!


François Gérin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with our request to you that we be allowed to sit together. In this case, Mr. Speaker, it was left to your discretion and I understand you refused. I believe one of my privileges as member is that I be permitted to sit with the group to which I belong. You know this group, Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois who have chosen to work towards Quebec sovereignty and state to the House of Commons that the sovereignty of Quebec would be in the general interest. Mr. Speaker, I am wondering who made that decision. Was it you or was it the government whip?


Mr. Speaker:: I can help the hon. member. Again, this is not a question fo privilege. But to be fair I will try to answer the question. Usually and in keeping with longstanding traditions, seating arrangements concerning members are made as a result of an agreement among all parties recognized under Canadian legislation. Subsequently, if it is not possible to reach an agreement, the Chair will make a decision, if necessary. However, it is always a compromise.
Perhaps the Speaker may remind the hon. member that his colleagues are in the House. However, if the hon. member and his colleagues wish to have a further discussion on the subject of seats, I am prepared to ask the hon. member or the leader of his group to come and discuss the matter with me in my office.
However, a decision must be made, and in the final instance that decision is up to the Speaker, after many discussions with all other colleagues. Perhaps we could now hear the next question of privilege. I would like to
Privilege
make it clear to the hon. member that he can come and talk to the Speaker in his office.
I will now recognize the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier.


THE RIGHT TO SPEAK IN THE HOUSE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: On September 20 last, Mr. Speaker, I wrote you a letter asking that I be heard on a question of privilege about the right of all members to speak freely in this House, to fulfil their electoral mandate, to represent their constituents in the House and to debate the issues which concern the country both nationally and internationally.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Beauchesne's citations 16 and 55. Citation 16 deals with parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe that after writing letters to the government, and I am not referring only to the member for Ottawa-Vanier because a number of my Liberal caucus colleagues also urged the government to recall Parliament this summer to debate a national issue, the situation of native people, as well as the question of Iraq and Kuwait, but the government systematically refused to acknowledge the right of each member to express his opinion in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I regret to interrupt the hon. member. There may be a very serious crisis in the political world, but it is not a question of privilege.

I hope that if other members are rising on the same point they will take my point in advance.


RECALL OF PARLIAMENT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege to bring to your attention what I see as a contempt of Parliament and what I see as an attempt to circumvent the statutory and the conventional authorities of this House and its members. I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the mobilization of the Canadian army against Canadian citizens and the fact that that mobilization took place without recall of Parliament, without consulting Parliament, without any open and democratic debate. Such debate, Mr. Speaker, is not a luxury but a requirement under the conventions and the rules of Parliament.

Routine Proceedings
I wonder whether this government considers early recall something that can be undertaken only when it is politically advantageous to the government and something to be-


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I regret very much again having to interrupt the hon. member, the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I thank the hon. member for giving me notice, as did the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier of the point that was being raised. The point is in narrow terms, somewhat different. It is the same point in principle. The complaint is that the government did not call the House back during the summer for whatever reason. That complaint may be based on a number of things that hon. members wish that the government had brought the House back to debate, to meet or to pass legislation on. However, that is a political decision and it does not go to the question of either privilege of individual members nor, I must say, to the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party. It does not go to the question of contempt of the House.
It may well be, and undoubtedly is, a matter of serious debate both within this Chamber and outside the Chamber, as it has been and as it has been today. However, I have to say to hon. members it is not a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast on a question of privilege. The hon. member, who has given me an extensive several page precis, will I am sure keep in mind what I have had to say so far this afternoon.


PARLIAMENTARY READING ROOM
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, it was only two pages, I would point out, one and a half actually. This is a matter which affects all of us. I refer, of course, to the closing of the Reading Room which has been there since the mind of man and woman run not to the contrary, to my knowledge.
What has it cost members to have moved the Reading Room down to the basement in room 134N? My understanding is that 475 weekly newspapers are no longer being received by Parliament and available to members, 88 periodicals are no longer available to the members of this House, a number of newspapers from abroad and about 200 non-fiction books are no longer available to any member of this House.
Some people may say that the subscriptions are still coming in but, Sir, I would point out that to the best of my knowledge all of these weekly newspapers which are so important to all of us are going into the trash can and when the subscriptions end, they will not be renewed. That is my information.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a suggestion for the hon. member before I am forced to make a ruling one way or the other.
There is provision under the rules, as the hon. member as a very experienced member knows, to ask a question of the appropriate member of the Board of Internal Economy where this decision was made. In addition, if there are facts which the board needs for whatever reason in connection with this decision, perhaps the hon. member could assist the Chair in that.
In the meantime, until the hon. member discusses this with the appropriate member of the board, takes an opportunity of asking a question of a member of the board, I think it would perhaps be best if the hon. member adjourned this application on privilege because at the moment the Chair is not inclined to accept it on that basis.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to table PC1990-1995 dated September 15, 1990, an Order in Council, deploying Canadian troops, in response to Iraqi aggression.


FORESTRY AND FISHERIES
Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries entitled "Aquaculture in Canada".


ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 385 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1989 annual report of the Canarctic Shipping Company Ltd.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there further documents?



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation sent to observe the general election held in Bulgaria from June 6 to June 13, 1990.
Routine Proceedings



CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the pleasure to submit to the House, in both official languages, the seventeenth and the eighteenth reports from the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.



PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF CANADIAN DELEGATION SENT TO ROMANIA

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation sent to observe the elections held in Romania on May 20, 1990.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the special committee of this House on the review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act as well as the Securities Offences Act, and the report is entitled In Flux But Not in Crisis.
Pursuant to the Standing Order, we are requesting that the government give a comprehensive response within 150 days. Because it was a special statutory committee, I just wanted to refer to the members, the vast majority of whom were in their first term as members of Parliament, and to say how hard they worked over the last 15 months to do this very important review for all of us in the House. I refer to the vice-chairman, the member for Lotbiniere, the members for St. Catharines, Victoria, Scarborough-Rouge River, Wetaskiwin, Moncton and Laval-des-Rapides. It is truly

Routine Proceedings
a yeoman's work. I am immensely proud to have chaired this report and I think members will find the recommendations to be sensible.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-329, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this private member's bill, making it an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada to wilfully bum, deface, defile, mutilate, trample upon or otherwise desecrate the national flag of Canada.
I have considered this for six or eight months and have followed the events in the United States very carefully. In my thinking, the flag of Canada is a symbol of Canada and anyone who wilfully desecrates it should be answerable in court.


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

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: that Bill S-14, an act respecting the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons, be read the first time.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the section of Routine Proceedings relating to motions to ask Your Honour to seek unanimous consent of the House of Commons to put the following motion:
That an all-party committee of the House of Commons travel
forthwith to the treatment centre at Oka to negotiate an honourable
disengagement.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will want to raise the matter at another time as there does not seem to be consent.


PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by various residents of Canada from widely separated points, most of them in Ontario.
They are protesting government cutbacks to veterans services, particularly housekeeping services to veterans and the increasing costs of long-term care for veterans in institutions.
They call upon Parliament to reject the budget measures introduced in the last budget which provided for these reductions and ask that we vote those down so that the government will not be able to implement these harsh and oppressive budget provisions.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 too have the honour to table petitions on behalf of Canadians living in my riding of Parkdale-High Park and in other constituencies in metropolitan Toronto.
The hundreds of signatories on this petition are angry with the government's policy of cancelling the self-exile class for thousands of East Europeans who entered in good faith and are well established in Canada as required by the self-exile regulations.
The petitioners, many of whom are sponsors of these self-exiles, are requesting the Minister of Employment and Immigration to honour all bona fide self-exile cases which were being processed before the September 4, 1990 cut off that the minister imposed without any consultation with Canadians.

September 24, 1990


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to lay before the House some petitions signed by the residents of Broadview-Greenwood.
They ask the Government of Canada to release the money it committed in 1988 to begin the clean up of the Great Lakes, and specifically the Don River which is the most polluted river in Canada.
They humbly ask the government to release this money so the clean up can begin.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition to present from residents of the federal district of Cape Breton-East Richmond comprising such communities as Glace Bay, Waterford, Sydney, and Marion Bridge, as well as other rural parts throughout that riding.
In view of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child which sets a standard of protection and care to children far superior to anything we know and experience in Canada and countries world-wide, we call upon the Government of Canada to review its legislation and policies for consistency with this particular convention.
I urge the Prime Minister and the government take action forthwith.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petition is signed by several hundred people in Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Burlington, Newmarket, Scarborough, and other communities in southern Ontario, many of them former residents of Newfoundland who have a particular concern with respect to overfishing and its adverse impact on fishermen and plant workers along the coast of Newfoundland.
The prayer of the petitioners is that the Government of Canada will take the appropriate steps to eliminate the overfishing so that the people who live nearest the resource can have the full benefit of it.
Routine Proceedings
I support whole-heartedly the prayer of the petitioners.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 279, 292, 294, 300, 310, 315, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 331 and 334.


Mr. Gardiner: In (a) 1988 (b) 1989, in British Columbia, were there any follow-up inquiries regarding the Northern and Remote Ihx Allowance and, if so, what number?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Of the 59,521 Northern residents deductions claims made by British Columbia and Yukon residents on 1987 tax returns, 1881 claims were reviewed and ajustments were made to 355 claims. Of 54,009 claims for the 1988 year, 2,213 claims were reviewed and adjustments were made to 2,071 of them. 1989 claims statistics are not yet available.


Mr. Rompkey: In (a) 1990 (b) 1989 (c) 1988 (d) 1987, were new inshore shrimp licences issued, in the area covered by the Gulf Region of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to residents (i) of the Province of Quebec (ii) of Labrador (iii) of Newfoundland (iv) of New Brunswick (v) of Nova Scotia and, if so, what number?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: On February 10,1986, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the issuance of 19 additional shrimp licences for the Esquiman Channel. These additional licences were issued as follows:
(a)	in 1986,
(i)	6 licences to Western Newfoundland fishermen,
(ii)	3 exploratory licences to Quebec fishermen,
(b)	in 1987, 6 licences to Western Newfoundland fishermen,
(c)	in 1989,

September 24, 1990
Routine Proceedings
(i)	4 licences to Quebec fishermen,
(ii)	the 3 exploratory licences issued in 1986 to Quebec fishermen were made permanent.
No other additional licences for Gulf Shrimp were issued between 1987 and 1990.


Ms. Callbeck: Has the government made estimates of the number of kilowatt hours of energy that could be conserved economically but are not because of market imperfections and, if so (a) what number (b) what is the equivalent of this figure in new nuclear and fossil-fuel fired power plant capacity (c) what would be the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions if such conservation were implemented (d) would any money be saved thereby and, if so, what amount?


Hon. Arthur Jacob Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a)-(d) Estimates of the economics potential indicate that up to 300 petajoules, or the equivalent of 83,340 gigawatts-hours (Gwh) of end-use electricity savings could be available by the year 2000. However, preliminary estimates of the portion due to market imperfections is lower, possibly in the range of 200 to 250 petajoules.
The major difference between these estimates is that measures which are economically attractive (i.e. to society) are not necessarily attractive to individual investors. Of the 200 to 250 petajoules of electricity saving that could be due to market imperfections, a portion can also be attributed to existing electricity market prices- generally based on historical accounting costs which can be less than the economic costs required for economically efficient resource allocation. However, such pricing decisions fall under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the amount of electricity that could be targeted with even an agressive federal package of initiatives is significantly less than 200 to 250 petajoules, in the absence of co-operation from the provincial authorities and the utilities.
In terms of capacity, the economic potential for end-use savings possibly due to market imperfections depends on whether the actual savings affect the base load or peak load. If 200 petajoules of annual electricity savings could be achieved and translated into capacity addition delays, this would be equivalent to about 6,300 megawatts (MW) in the year 2000. Fossil fuel (coal, oil, and natural gas) and nuclear generating capacity additions are forecast to be about 8,300 MW by the year
2000. Therefore, forecast electricity capacity additions exceed the capacity equivalent of 200 petajoules of end-use electricity savings.
About 18 megatonnes of CO2 could be saved annually if 200 petajoules of annual electricity savings were achieved by the year 2000. (For purposes of comparison, the estimate of total Canadian CO2 emissions for 1990 is about 490 megatonnes.) The CO2 savings estimate assumes that electricity saved in the year 2000 is produced from the average regional mix of fuels forecast for the year 2000. Actual emission savings estimates will differ to the extent that a particular utility's production deviates from this average generation mix.
No estimate of the dollar savings from reduced end-use electricity consumption due to eliminating market imperfections is available at this time. The net dollar savings will depend on the extent and timing of the electricity savings potential being achieved, the portion which is peak versus base load, the extent this influences the timing of capacity additions, the costs that will be required to offset existing market imperfections, and transactions and other costs (often not measurable) which will be borne by the consumer.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Were National Citizenship Week kits produced for the government and, if so (a) what number (b) at what cost?
2.	Were (a) stickers (b) a lapel pin (c) a flag (d) a bookmark (e) a calendar (f) a poster included in the kit and, if so (i) who designed each one (ii) at what cost (iii) what was the name of the supplier of each item (iv) were the items purchased by public tender and, if not, for what reasons?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: 1.
Yes.
a)	60,000 kits
b)	$1.68 per kit 2. a) Yes
b)	No. However a National Citizenship Week button was produced for the kit.
c)	Yes.
d)	Yes.
e)	Yes.
September 24, 1990

f)	Yes. Also included in the kit was a fold-out brochure and a message from the Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship).
(i)	and (ii) The stickers, buttons, bookmarks, calendars, posters and fold-out brochures were designed by Ban-field-Seguin at a cost of $32,200.73. The Minister's message was written in-house.
(iii)	The stickers were supplied by HAS Novelties of Toronto. The buttons were supplied by Maison Basilieres of Montreal. The flags were supplied by Flags Unlimited of Thornton, Ontario. The bookmarks, calendars, posters and fold-out brochures were supplied by Ashton-Potter Ltd. of Toronto. The Minister's message was printed by Commercial Printers of Ottawa.
(iv)	All suppliers were contracted through the Supply and Services Canada tendering process. The Minister's message was requested via a purchase order on an emergency printing basis.


Mr. Heap: 1.	For all CANDU reactors ever commissioned in Canada, has there been an accumulation of spent fuel and, if so, to 1990 (a) what number of kilograms (b) what are the (i) components (ii) weight (iii) ingestion toxicity (volume of water required to dilute the waste to public drinking water standards) (iv) estimated number of years of toxicity of these wastes?
2.	Does Canada have any responsibility for spent fuel of the CANDU reactors it has sold to other countries and, if so, what responsibility?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
1. a) Used fuel from Candu nuclear reactors in Canada is presently safely contained and stored at the reactor sites. The principal storage method is in water-filled storage bays; dry storage in concrete canisters is also being used to supplement water-bay storage. Many years of experience in Canada and internationally have demonstrated the safety of these storage technologies. To the end of 1989, about 14,000 tonnes (14 000 000 kg) of used fuel had accumulated in storage at reactor sites in Canada. This amount would fit into a single olympic-size swimming pool.
1. b) (i) Candu fuel is manufactured as fuel bundles which consist of an assembly of zirconium alloy tubes each containing dense pellets of uranium dioxide (UO2).
Routine Proceedings
A fuel bundle typically is about 50 cm long, 10 cm in diameter and weighs about 22 kg. After irradiation in a CANDU reactor, the physical form and weight of the fuel bundle are essentially unchanged. Greater than 98 percent of the UO2 is unchanged after use in a reactor; only about 1.3 percent of the uranium is changed into new chemical elements, and only half of these are radioactive. All the new elements remain contained within the zirconium alloy tubes and 99 percent remain part of the solid UO2 fuel pellets.
(ii)	The weight of a Candu fuel bundle is about 22 kg and remains essentially unchanged after use in a reactor.
(iii)	Ingestion Toxicity (volume of water required to dilute the waste to drinking water standards)
The used nuclear fuel is a solid material that is very insoluble in water and it is not possible to dilute the waste to drinking water standards. Used fuel that has been stored in water at nuclear generating stations has shown no signs of dissolving in more than 30 years.
The investigation of a 1,300 million years old natural uranium ore deposit at Cigar Lake in Saskatchewan has shown that the water within a few metres of the ore body has a very low concentration of uranium. This is consistent with the very low solubility of uranium oxide in groundwater.
If the used fuel were disposed of in a geologic vault as proposed by AECL, the total contents of the vault (used fuel and rock) after 300 to 1,000 years, would be no more hazardous than naturally occurring uranium, mercury and lead ores.
(iv)	Estimated number of years of toxicity of the wastes
Unlike the case with other kinds of toxic wastes, the hazard of used nuclear fuel decreases rapidly with time because of radioactive decay.
Ten years after removal from the reactor, the fuel bundles are approximately 2,000 times less radioactive, after 25 years about 99.95 percent of the radioactivity has disappeared, and after 500 years, most of the penetrating radiation is gone.
The proposed concept for the permanent disposal of used nuclear fuel that would ensure that the most exposed individual living near a disposal vault receives a dose of no more than .05 milliSieverts a year at anytime during the first 10,000 years. This dose is a small fraction of the natural background radiation received by every-

Routine Proceedings
one. The disposal concept is now undergoing review by a Federal Environmental Assessment Panel.
2. No, Canada does not have any responsibility for spent fuel from CANDU reactors which have been sold to other countries.


Mr. Wappel: Does the government, either directly or indirectly, subsidize the government of Quebec with respect to payments or subsidies for babies bom in that province and, if so, for each year since the program was introduced (a) what is the total amount paid by the government (b) is the government aware of the percentage that this represents of the total amount paid out by the government of Quebec and, if so, what is it?


Hon. Henry Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health):: This is a universal program which does not meet the requirements for federal financing as set out in the Canada Assistance Plan or any other cost-shared plan. It is, therefore, certain that there is no direct contribution by the federal government to the grants paid out by the province under these circumstances.
As for the question of indirect contribution, it would be difficult to claim that there was none, considering the various forms of overall funding or transfer payments made to Quebec such as Established Program Financing (EPF), equalization payments and so on. None of these contributions, however, could be explicitly linked to these payments upon the birth of a child.


Mr. Waddell: Was a research program into high-level radioactive waste disposal begun in 1978 and, if so, since its inception, has AECL spent any money on research on re-processing spent fuel and, if so, what amount?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
The Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program was initiated by a joint statement of the energy ministers of Canada and Ontario in June, 1978.
Reprocessing research in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Program was carried out at AECL's Whiteshell Nuclear
Research Establishment at Pinawa, Manitoba between 1977-78 and 1985-86. During the fiscal years 1978-79 and 1979-80, approximately $3.3 million of this research was paid for by the Waste Management Program to develop an understanding of the types of nuclear fuel wastes that would arise from any future reprocessing of CANDU fuel. Within the Waste Management Program, a method was also tested to immobilize simulated high level radioactive wastes and to convert them to a solid form that would be suitable for disposal.
From 1977-78 to 1985-86, a total of $19.2 million was spent on the Advanced Fuel Cycle Program, including the $3.3 million mentioned above. Since 1985-86, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Program for CANDU has been centered at AECL's Chalk River Laboratories, and has focused on once-through fuel cycles using Slightly Enriched Uranium (SEU). Such fuel cycles are more economic in today's market conditions, and do not require reprocessing of used CANDU fuel.
The above amounts are stated in overhead dollars of the year in which the expenditures occurred.


Mr. Waddell: Does AECL now have a position on the need for advanced fuel cycles in an expanding nuclear power industry and, if so (a) what is it (b) to what extent and in what ways does it resemble or differ from the position proposed in "AECLs Proposed Recycle Fuel Programs", presentation No. 4 in the AECL seminar "Proposed Canadian Fuel Cycle Program", held on February 28, 1977?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: (a) AECL's position on the need for advanced fuel cycles is as follows:
In the near term, there is no economic justification for Canadian research and development on fuel reprocessing to improve uranium utilization because the prices of uranium and uranium enrichment are low, and because assured resources of uranium are judged to be adequate.
In the longer term, advanced fuel cycles that involve recycling fissile material from spent fuel will be required in order that the world's fissile and fertile resources can have a significant impact on satisfying the energy requirements of the world.
September 24, 1990

Because of its neutron-economic design, the CANDU reactor can, and should, play an important role in the exploitation of advanced fuel cycles for the benefit of Canada and the rest of the world.
(b)	This position on the strategic importance of advanced fuel cycles does not differ fundamentally from that indicated in "AECL's Proposed Recycle Fuel Programs", presentation No. 4 in the AECL seminar "Proposed Canadian Fuel Cycle Program" held on February 28, 1977. What has changed in the interim is AECL's opinion on when the R&D programs described therein should be pursued. The combination of low uranium cost and increase in assured supply has reduced the immediate incentive for exploiting advanced fuel cycles based on thorium or plutonium. Thus, there is currently no Canadian R&D program on reprocessing spent fuel from power reactors. Rather, efforts are concentrated on the once-through fuel cycle for CANDU reactors using Slightly Enriched Uranium (SEU), which is clearly more economical under present market conditions than the currently used once-through cycle with natural uranium. The fuel for the SEU cycle could be enriched uranium purchased on the world market, or Recovered Uranium (RU) arising from reprocessing of Light Water Reactor (LWR) fuel, an activity practiced by LWR owners in several countries.
Concurrent with this R&D effort, a program to demonstrate the safe and permanent disposal of spent fuel from once-through cycles is being completed.


Mr. Caccia: Is the government officially committed to stabilizing Canada's
total carbon dioxide emissions at 1988 levels to the year 2000?


Hon. Robert R. de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board and Acting Minister of the Environment):: On May
16, Canada endorsed the Bergen Declaration which reads, in part:
We urge all ECE countries to take action now, and we agree to commit to establish national strategies and/or targets and schedules following the report of the IPCC and no later than the start of the negotiations of a framework convention on climate change to limit or reduce CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible and to stabilize them. In the view of most ECE countries [n.b. this includes Canada],
Routine Proceedings
such stabilization at the latest by the year 2000 and at present levels must be a first step.


Ms. Callbeck: 1.	Has an interim management committee for CFB Summerside been appointed and, if so (a) what are the names of the chosen individuals (b) to whom are they accountable (c) was an allocation to the interim management committee of $900,000 made on March 27, 1990 and, if so (i) is it controlled by guidelines and if so, what are they (ii) has any of the money been spent to date (iii) who is directly accountable for the money (d) what authority does the interim management committee have?
2.	If the committee has not yet been appointed, on what date will this take place?
Hon Barbara Jean McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration): 1. Employment and Immigration Canada announced on July 5,1990, the appointment of Rambri Management to act as interim management for CFB Summerside. Rambri Management will be assisted by a new Community Advisory Committee.
(a)	The Community Advisory Committee is made up of community representatives and the Interim Management, as follows:
Chairman: Mr. David Loggie
Vice-Chairman: Mr. Donald J. McDougall
Other members:
Mr. Denton Clark Mrs. Margaret MacFarlane Mr. Derek Key Mr. Richard Noonan Mr. Rick Ozon Mr. Mike Schurman
Five ex-officio members will be appointed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration representing:
Employment and Immigration Canada (EIC) Department of National Defence (DND)
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) Public Works Canada (PWC)
P.E.I. Development Agency
(b)	The Community Advisory Committee members and Rambri Management are accountable to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
(c)	$400,000 has been allocated to Rambri Management for 1990/91 and $500,000 is expected to be allocated for 1991/92.
(i)	The following conditions apply:

Routine Proceedings
-The contractor will operate solely on a "fee for service" basis and will not have access to any equity position in the proposed Summerside Development Corporation or benefit in any way, directly or indirectly, from leases negotiated, nor take equity positions in companies attracted by the contractor.
-The contractor will report to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
-Clear and timely performance objectives will be provided including a critical path for incorporating a corporation and a schedule for securing leases, supported by appropriate holdback provisions.
-Public Works Canada will approve all lease terms negotiated by the contractor.
-A cancellation clause linked directly to meeting the contract's performance objectives will be included.
-The contractor will deliver its services to all prospective tenants, including those identified by or through other parties, and will be remunerated for those services only through the contract with EIC.
(ii)	No money has been spent yet.
(iii)	The Summerside Base Development Corporation to be managed by Rambri Management Inc. will be directly accountable for the money.
(d)	Authority of Interim Management:
The Interim Management will negotiate on behalf of the Federal Government with prospective tenants of the Summerside Base Development Corporation, manage the transition between the operations of the Department of National Defence and the private sector needs of the Development Corporation, and recruit and recommend to the Government appropriate permanent staff to manage the Corporation long-term.
The Interim Management will negotiate with prospective tenants based on direction from the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Public Works.
The Interim Management will be responsible, but not limited to, the following:
-Identify possible anchor tenants and other tenants for the Base.
-Negotiate with prospective anchor tenants and other tenants on behalf of the Federal Government.
-Recommend to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Public Works potential anchor tenants and other tenants who wish to locate at the Base, and the terms and conditions that the tenants require in order to locate at the Base.
-Incentives to prospective tenants are limited to the resources of the Summerside Base Development Corporation and those available through the P.E.I. Development Agency, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Employment and Immigration Canada and other federal/provincial programs. These incentives are at the sole discretion of these agencies/departments.
-The Interim Management will work with DND to provide for an acceptable transition of Base assets from DND to the Summerside Base Development Corporation. In the event that disputes arise between the Interim Management and DND, the Interim Management will report this to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Public Works.
-The Interim Management is responsible for developing an effective promotional package to help promote and secure tenants for the Summerside Base Development Corporation.
-The Interim Management must consult with the Advisory Committee on the progress being made in the negotiations and take into consideration the views of the Advisory Committee on the acceptability of the prospective tenants.
-The Interim Management will establish a full-time office at the Base employing at least two people fulltime.
-The Interim Management will not act as permanent management for the Development Corporation.
The Interim Management will provide monthly reports outlining work completed during the month in relationship to the terms of reference. These reports will be made in written form to the Minister of Employemnt and Immigration and the Minister of Public Works.
Once negotiations are complete with prospective anchor tenants, the Interim Management will provide a comprehensive report to the Minister of Employment

and Immigration and the Minister of Public Works on the terms and conditions needed to locate businesses at CFB Summerside.
The Interim Management will also provide comprehensive reports on the structure and status on incorporation of the Summerside Base Development Corporation and on additional tenants wishing to locate in Summer-side.
2. The Community Advisory Committee has been appointed.


Mr. Gardiner: Has the government done any studies on whether employer subsidy programs sponsored by Canada Employment and Immigration Centres have resulted in permanent employment by the funded employers?


Hon. Barbara Jean McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Employment and Immigration Canada (EIC) conducts follow-up surveys of Canadian Jobs Strategy (CJS) clients on an on-going basis to determine their post-training labour force experience. One of the questions on the survey asks if participants are still employed with the same company at the time of the survey.
EIC also has periodic evaluation reports of CJS programs such as the evaluation of the Job Development program published in August 1989 and the evaluation of the Job Entry program published in July 1989. As part of these evaluation reports, program participants are asked whether they are employed by the employer that trained them under the program.
Results of the evaluation reports and follow-up surveys of Canadian Jobs Strategy clients can be found in the department's Main Estimates entitled, Employment and Immigration Canada, 1990-1991 Estimates, Part III, Expenditure Plan.


Mr. Nystrom: 1. Were any funds expended by the government on a publication entitled "Goods and Services Thx Guide for Small Business" published earlier this year by the Department of Finance and, if so (a) what amount (b) in what way did the government allocate this expenditure with respect to (i) preparation (ii) printing (iii) advertising (iv) distribution (v) postage for this publication?
Routine Proceedings
2. Has the government destroyed any copies of this publication and (a) if so, what number (b) if not, does the government have any such plans?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: 1. a) A
total of $1,288,857 was expended by the government on a publication entitled "GST: Information for Small Business". The Department of Finance has not published a booklet entitled "Goods and Services Ihx Guide for Small Business". This booklet was recently published by Revenue Canada.
b) The above total comprises:
(i)	$42,632 for the development of the publication;
(ii)	$616,702 for the printing of 2,232,050 copies;
(iii)	No funds were expended on an advertising campaign aimed at promoting the "GST: Information for Small Business" booklet.
(iv)	$629,523 for the distribution of approximately 1.9 million copies (the cost of preparation for distribution, postage and envelopes)
(v)	$432,536 for postage costs (included in above distribution costs (iv))
2. The government has not destroyed copies of this publication and has no plans to do so.


Mr. Waddell: Was money spent by the government in anticipation of the approval of the Polar 8 Icebreaker project and, if so, including such items as blueprints and design consultation, what amount?


Hon. Douglas Grinslade Lewis (Minister of TVans-port):: No unauthorized financial commitments were entered into or resources expended with respect to the implementation (construction) phase of the Polar 8 Icebreaker project. Treasury Board Preliminary Project Approval for the contract definition phase of the Polar 8 icebreaker project was received in July 1987. Capital expenditures authorized under this approval were directly related to obtaining a ship design and proposal and offer for construction. The final project cost is projected at $15.3 million. In addition to the above capital expenditures approximately $807,000 was spent by the operational planning team responsible for operational support and government furnished equipment and supplies.

September 24, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Waddell: Did the government and its officials spend any person-days in anticipation of the approval of the Polar 8 Icebreaker project and, if so, what number?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No unauthorized human resource commitments were entered into or person-years expended with respect to the implementation (construction) phase of the Polar 8 Icebreaker project. Treasury Board Preliminary Project Approval for the contract definition phase of the Polar 8 icebreaker project was received in July 1987. Term person-years authorized under this approval were directly related to obtaining a ship design and proposal and offer for construction. The final project person-year utilization is projected at 41.7 term person-years. In addition to the above term person-years approximately 10.1 person-years were expended by the operational planning team responsible for operational support and government furnished equipment and supplies.


Mr. Kaplan: Is the government currently limiting its contribution to the victims of the Iran earthquake to $300,000 and, if so, does it plan to give more and, if so, on what date?
On June 26, 1990 the government announced the contribution of an additional $800,000 to Iranian earthquake victims, bringing the total to $1.1 million.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred Questions Nos. 316 and 333.
Due to the length of these responses, I ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.

JOB SHORTAGES IN THE GASPE PENINSULA ^


Mr. Langdon (Essex-Windsor): 1.	Is it the understanding of the government that job shortages in the Gaspe Peninsula are forcing many workers to leave the region and, if so, is it willing to provide the region with (a) special job creation programs (b) labour force adjustment programs?
2.	Does the government believe that the implementation of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration and Department and Commission Act, together with the decision not to carry the Unemployment Insurance variable eligibility standard over to the beginning of January, 1990, will have a negative impact on the financial situation of the residents of the Gaspe Peninsula and, if so, does it plan to put economic instruments in place that will allow this area to become economically viable once again and, if so, what instruments?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: 1. (a)
Because we are aware of the economic difficulties in the Gaspe Peninsula, Employment and Immigration Canada is already, through the Canadian Jobs Strategy, providing programs and services to help this region. On July 20, 1990, the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration announced an increase of $2.5 million in Canadian Job Strategy funds for the Gaspe region. These funds will be used to help workers in the Gaspe and He de la Madeleine areas improve their employment prospects within their local labour markets. In addition, the entire Gaspe region is a designated area under the Community Futures Program.
(b) With regard to labour adjustment programs, EIC has signed two Industrial Adjustment Service agreements in this region.
2. The implementation of Bill C-21 will not have a negative impact on the residents of the Gaspe Peninsula. In fact, if the provisions of Bill C-21 were in effect residents of the Gaspe, and Canadians in all regions, would now be enjoying the benefits of that legislation including increased training opportunities, extended parental leave, and enhanced unemployment insurance benefit options as well as the new variable entrance requirements contained in Bill C-21.
It is important to note that the variable entrance requirements in Bill C-21 are designed to leave high unemployment rate regions virtually untouched. The Gaspe Peninsula traditionally has an unemployment rate above 15 percent. Consequently, workers in that area will normally need only 10 weeks of work to gain access to the UI Program. If it had not been for delays imposed by the opposition in Parliament, the 10 week requirement would now be in place.
September 24, 1990

The current 14-week fixed entrance requirement has been in effect since January 6, 1990. It is too early to provide conclusive evidence on its impact. However, preliminary evidence indicates many claimants are able to find the few extra weeks of work they need to qualify for UI benefits.
It must be remembered that Bill C-21 is part of the Labour Force Development Strategy (LFDS). The basic thrust of the LFDS is a shift from passive to more active UI uses in an effort to enhance the employability of UI recipients. Measures of particular interest to the residents of the Gaspe Peninsula include: the expansion of the Community Futures component of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, and the extra training and re-employment measures.
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TAX CREDIT *


Mr. Saint-Julien: 1.	Has the government allowed tax credits to be claimed by companies or individuals under the Scientific Research Thx Credit (SRTC) and, if so, what are (a) by province, the amounts allowed (b) by project (i) the name of the project (ii) the amount allowed (iii) the names of the beneficiaries (iv) the location (v) the names of the law, accounting and brokerage firms that represented the promoters?
2.	Have companies or individuals benefitted from tax credits without doing research?


Otto John Jelinek: 1. The Government has allowed companies and individuals to purchase and claim tax credits under the Scientific Research Tax Credit (SRTC) program.
a) Information available at this time by province or region, indicates the following total dollar amount and number of SRTC designations:
Province or Region	Designations	Amounts Designated (ooo's)Atlantic Provinces	49	$ 101,295Quebec	222	648,101Ontario	829	3,207,753Manitoba	46	80,386Saskatchewan and Alberta	264	1,086,692British Colombia	489	1,996,0721899	$ 7,120,299
For individual investors, the rate of tax credit was 34 percent of the amount invested and for corporate investors, it was 50 percent. The amounts of tax credits allowed are nor presently available, but lies between 34 per cent and 50 per cent of the amounts designated.
b) The confidentiality provisions of the Income Thx Act preclude disclosure of this information.
2. The tax credits could be passed to investors through the making of a designation by the research company of an amount-typically the full consideration received-in respect of the invesment made in the research company by the investor. Designations were made pursuant to the provisions of Part VIII of the Income Thx Act. A research company making such designations incurred a tax liability equal to 50 per cent of the amount designated. This tax is refundable by Revenue Canada at the rate of $1.00 for every $2.00 of eligible scientific research expenditures.
There are circumstances where companies did not fulfill the research commitments and did not pay Part VIII tax. In these circumstances investors would have benefited from the tax credits without an offsetting scientific research expenditure.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I have a series of applications for emergency debate. It may well be that in view of the Order Paper hon. members may not wish to pursue all these applications overly vividly today, but I will certainly hear hon. members' remarks.
I caution hon. members to remember that our custom is that a brief statement is made, only a brief statement. The reason for that of course is that no other member of the Chamber can respond and a lengthy statement leads to a wish on others sometimes to get into argument. Of

course we would never want that to happen here on an application for emergency debate.
I will hear first the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on August 22 this year I sent you a letter pursuant to Standing Order 52(1), asking for an emergency debate the moment the House was fortunate enough to reconvene. At that time I also sent a letter to the House leader requesting that through his powers he allow the House to come back early in order to entertain this motion which would allow for an emergency debate on the particular issue in question.
That particular question is one of government policy as it relates to land claims.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, what you mentioned when you talked about the government's business and the motion of today. I ask you to consider this application very carefully before you rule on whether it is appropriate to have an emergency debate starting today versus allowing the government's business to take precedent.
The government's business is a motion and the motion is simply not adequate to address the issue of specific aboriginal land claims policy in this country. It is a very detailed and straightforward, and I commend the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs on that.
The problem is larger than that. It deals very specifically with Oka and the Mohawk people. My request for an emergency debate goes a lot further than that. It looks at specific land claims policy in this country of ours and the importance of it to all Canadians. When you look at what happened this summer, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Kenora- Rainy River is correct. His application is more general than the motion that has been put down by the government. However, the matter is a very serious one to all members of this House and to the country, but there are probably other ways that the hon. member can bring this matter to the attention of the House.
In the meantime I should say to the hon. member and for the information of the public that if the hon. member is recognized in debate on the government
motion, considerable latitude would certainly allow the hon. member to raise more general issues. I am sure the hon. member, with the skill for which he is known, will be able to do that.
Certainly as of today and given the circumstances I am not disposed to call for an emergency debate, although I appreciate the distinction the hon. member has made. I may well of course be hearing that distinction again at another time.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the proceedings. If the Prime Minister had stuck around and listened to me for a minute, I would have listened to him for 35 or 40.
Certainly I appreciate the gravity of the situation in Oka and the Middle East. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I request leave under Standing Order 52 to make a motion to adjourn the House pursuant to my letter to you of September 5 and my notice to you at eleven o'clock this morning. I today urge you to convene an emergency debate on the present crisis of the Canadian steel industry.
One cornerstone of our country is our steel industry, and this industry is at peril as I speak.
The factors involved in the emergency nature of this situation are as follows: 16,000 steel workers in this country have presently been in a strike lock out situation for nearly two months. High interest rates and the consequently inflated Canadian dollar make export of steel most difficult.
Recent rulings by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal which remove dumping duties against a total of 20 countries pose an immediate threat to the domestic market being flooded with cheap steel.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member who has a serious matter to present. The hon. member is perhaps going beyond the brief statement and getting into debate, although I must say to the hon. member that his comments, which he is following very carefully and which were given to me, are a considerable help to me.
Given the business of the House at this moment, I think it probably would be best not to try to proceed with an emergency debate at this time. Of course the hon.

member may want to bring the matter to the attention of the Chair at a more appropriate time.
I thank the hon. member for being so explicit in his application. As I say, it is a serious matter and I think recognized to be so.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to call for an emergency debate concerning the deteriorating relationship between Canada's aboriginal people and non-aboriginal citizens.
As you pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, I know that the government has tabled a motion which will permit the House to debate and examine some of the events of this summer at Kahnawake and Kanesatake. My caucus and I will participate in that debate.
However, it is my belief that the scope of motion No. 17 is not sufficient to examine the whole issue and that it is insufficient because it will not allow us to go beyond the immediate events of Kahnawake and Kanesatake and look at their roots, the long-standing grievances of Canada's aboriginal peoples.

Mr. Speaker, we must restore confidence in the legitimate political process so as to respond to the grievances of the aboriginal peoples. Otherwise we can expect the worst consequences.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider an emergency debate on this issue. I believe a debate is urgently required to demonstrate that faith in the political process is not misplaced. For that reason I respectively request an adjournment of the House for an emergency debate on this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon has pointed out, as did the immediately preceding member, that there are some differences between the application for debate in general terms of the situation with our fellow Canadians of native origin, native tradition, and perhaps the order that is before us on behalf of the government.
However, I think it would be appropriate, given the government order, that any application for an emergency debate on this matter at least wait until we see the outcome of the debate which is to follow.
I want to assure the hon. member that I recognize the distinction. It may be that she will want to raise the matter again.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I made application for an emergency debate on the subject of children's rights. The Prime Minister will be attending the world summit this weekend, on Saturday and Sunday. Probably it will be the most important international meeting in the last 30 or 40 years in which this country has been involved.
We saw last evening thousands of Canadians across Canada participate in a candlelight vigil to express their commitment to this issue. In my own riding I have had high school students writing essays and drafting their own charters. There has been a very strong upward welling of concern about how we define childrens' rights, particularly as a country, and the leadership we will show in dealing with the tragedy abroad but also the tragedies in our own country.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important for the Prime Minister to represent the views of Canadians when he appears at the United Nations this weekend. That should happen as a consequence of this Parliament coming together for a joinder of those views and to give us the opportunity to represent the kind of feelings we have seen in our constituencies in the past several weeks on this crucial issue. I do not see anything on the Order Paper that presently allows it but I do think it would be crucial that we have a debate on this issue. Unless or until the government is prepared to offer it, I think my request for an emergency debate should be agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises another very important matter. I think it is important for the Chair to look at all of the circumstances today and perhaps the next day or so. Given those circumstances, I do not think it would be appropriate to adjourn the other business of the day on the application of the hon. member. That of

September 24, 1990
Government Orders
course, does not preclude the hon. member from applying at another time or using other methods of pursuing the issue, which I think all hon. members accept is a very serious issue.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Joseph Clark: That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and, encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the United Nations Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2 and for the despatch of members of the Canadian Forces to take part in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula; and
That, upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, last August 2 without provocation or warning, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Having overrun his smaller neighbour, Saddam Hussein claimed that Kuwaiti territory henceforth belonged to Iraq. Although he said that he had no further territorial ambitions, such assurances have been heard before. Fifty-two years ago this month, in Munich, the world learned a hard lesson about aggression and appeasement.
The world may have been surprised by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait but no one was taken in by the justifications given for it. The invasion of Kuwait was seen for exactly what it was; a brutal aggression, a flagrant violation of international law and a challenge to the principles of the international order on which world peace depends. Iraq's aggression demonstrated how important that order is.
Tyranny is far from absent from international relations. Iraq's aggression also demonstrated how much the world has changed in recent times. Within hours of the invasion, condemnations of the Iraqi action were heard from Moscow and from Washington, from Cairo and Tel
Aviv, from Ottawa and Ankara and all outraged countries around the world.
In those early days of August we all rediscovered the value of an idea long buried under the snows of the Cold War. That idea, created out of the rubble of World War II, was one of peace through collective strength. That idea was that a civilized world community living by a common code of behaviour would have the will to stand up to tyranny and the means to respond to it. That idea was the United Nations.
The United Nations has emerged from this crisis in the gulf with new life bom at the end of the Cold War under the renewed determination on the part of many countries including, most importantly, former adversaries to make the idea of collective security work. In the seven weeks that have followed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we have seen the United Nations operate I think precisely as its founders would have envisaged and would have hoped. The Security Council has condemned the invasion. It has passed seven resolutions, the most recent following the armed entry by Iraqi soldiers into Canadian and other diplomatic residences in Kuwait and the detention by force of our representatives.

It has taken, partly at Canada's urging, a careful, determined and step-by-step approach under Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations and has mandated a strict embargo of Iraq. There have been no vetoes cast, no superpower confrontations, no endless debates to mask impotence or disagreement. The Security Council has made it clear to Iraq that its annexation of Kuwait is unacceptable in the eyes of the entire world and that it will have to end. Last August, this was the position taken by all civilized nations, including Canada, and it is our position today.

The members of the United Nations have met Iraq's blatant disrespect for international law with firm and unflinching resolve. Saddam Hussein does not face a pile of toothless resolutions and pious hopes, as might have been the result in the not so distant past. Instead he faces the broadest global consensus of the modem era, perhaps of all time, expressed in the support for the embargo by over 150 countries. He sees before him Arabs and the Soviet Union joining with the United States and countries like Canada and Australia, all committed to the same fundamental and viable principle
September 24, 1990

that aggression must be resisted because when civilized nations fail to resist aggression, liberty will die.
Canada welcomes the crucial and skilled role played by President Bush of the United States in contributing immensely to building this important international consensus. The world is fortunate that the United States of America has both the political will and the military capacity to back up this leadership and to back it up quickly.
Some have suggested that the enforcement by armed force of international law and of the United Nations' resolutions is somehow contrary to the spirit of multilateralism and Canada's traditions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The willingness of the United Nations to authorize military means to enforce the resolutions it has passed may well presage an important new era for multilateralism, a goal for which generations of Canadians have worked.
Although the Iraqi leader has desperately tried to portray the conflict as one of the United States of America versus Iraq and the Arab world, he and his people must now know the fundamental truth that it is Saddam Hussein against the rest of the civilized world and, in that kind of conflict, Mr. Hussein will lose 10 times out of 10.
Saddam Hussein is facing the military forces of more than 25 nations. The determination of Egypt and Syria to play a significant role in the collective defence of Saudi Arabia was not only unusual and remarkable, but I think a most encouraging development not only for the present situation which we confront but future developments in the Middle East.
Throughout this crisis Canada has been active in a number of ways and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has played a vigorous and a most effective role in representing Canada throughout. We have focused our activities on three fronts, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs will elaborate on in much greater detail. First of all, diplomatic, in helping to orchestrate the United Nations embargo and in helping Canadians in the region. Second, economic, through respect of the embargo ourselves, not without cost. This has been a very costly. In fact I believe that the first effect of the biting of the embargo took place in Vancouver where 60,000 tonnes of Canadian wheat destined for Iraq were stopped in Vancouver harbour. This was a great hardship
Government Orders
for Canadian farmers but all Canadians have respected that embargo, and that too is most important.
And so economically, through respect of the embargo ourselves and through assistance to individuals and countries most severely harmed by Iraqi aggression; and militarily, through our despatch of men and women and ships and aircraft to the Gulf, we are doing our part.

As a member of the Security Council, we have been active in all its debates on this crisis. We have initiated some of the resolutions the Security Council has passed and we have participated in the drafting of others. We have argued for both firmness and balance.
And on behalf of all members of this House, I wish to offer our sincere congratulations to Ambassador Yves Fortier and his team for their outstanding work at the United Nations.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: When Saddam Hussein claimed that the embargo was starving Iraqi children, Canada took the lead in proposing that food be distributed under the supervision of an international body such as the International Red Cross, the approach that the United Nations adopted.
Our embassies have worked very hard with the Iraqi authorities to help stranded Canadians leave. And, we have kept open our embassy in Kuwait in the face of danger and of substantial hardship for our officials who have shown great courage. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to digress, if I may, and offer, on behalf of all Members of this House, our sincere congratulations to our External Affairs staff in Baghdad and Kuwait which has represented the interests of Canadian citizens with such courage and dignity.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the economic front, we have worked for a strong embargo and supported the use of effective measures to ensure that it is not frustrated. We have scrupulously honoured that embargo ourselves. And this, Mr. Speaker, is an example of a measure that has proved costly to Canada. Canada has, also, supported the international efforts to respond to the human tragedies that the crisis has spawned.

Government Orders
In the way he has treated foreigners who had been living peacefully and productively in both Kuwait and Iraq. Saddam Hussein has shown the world the moral bankruptcy of his regime. With no concern for then-safety or survival, the Iraqi Government forced thousands of guest workers to flee through the deserts or Iraq to Jordan in the lethal heat of August. Canada was one of the first countries to commit funds to help international organizations deal with the complex problems of managing this vast outflow of displaced people, primarily into Jordan.
We subsequently announced a substantial expansion of that assistance, and approved as well a range of additional measures, altogether amounting to some $75 million. One of these measures will be the airlifting of displaced people to their home countries and providing special assistance to some of those countries least able to cope with the impact of thousands of returning citizens. Another such measure will be assistance to the countries of the region suffering serious side-effects from the crisis and from the sanctions against Iraq, especially Jordan, Turkey and Egypt.

And on the military front, we had little choice but to react quickly.
In August, when the Iraqis were massed on the border of Saudi Arabia, the situation demanded a prompt decision to stand up and be counted. Canada made that decision and we stood up and we have been counted.
Canada's response to the Gulf crisis was quick, clear, and unequivocal. When we dispatched three ships carrying almost 1,000 personnel, we decided at that time not to give their crews their specific mission tasking because we wanted to take into account the important evolution of developments internationally before doing so, given the normal time it would take for the Canadian ships to reach the Gulf. Subsequent UN resolutions, particularly resolution 665, confirmed, I believe, the appropriateness of this initial position and helped Canada define the
ships current mission, I believe, to the satisfaction of the military advisers of the Government of Canada.
On September 15, when our troops entered the operations zone, the Governor General signed the Order in Council placing them on active service for this mission. The Order in Council was tabled earlier this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence, consistent with parliamentary traditions. Members of this House have the opportunity to debate this matter fully before the ships arrive at station on October 2.
When it became clear 10 days ago that an additional contribution in the form of air support would be extremely helpful, not only for our own ships and the protection of our own personnel but for those of friendly nations as well, the Government of Canada decided to despatch a squadron of CF-18 fighter aircraft from Lahr, West Germany to the Gulf to protect Canadian lives and the Canadian operation. They will arrive in the area shortly and will be sustained by another 450 military personnel. We are also making Canadian civilian aircraft available to assist other countries in moving their forces to Saudi Arabia.
Some people have argued that Canada should not have sent planes and ships, and that taking on such a military role is incompatible with our role as a peacekeeper. Such arguments are based on a serious misreading of Canada's history. When called upon to play its part in collective efforts in the past to roll back aggression and to defend freedom, Canada has never shirked its responsibilities.
The sacrifices made by young Canadian men and women in two world wars are a proud and important part of our history as a nation. Those Canadians understood then, as we understand now, that the defence of Canada and of our ideals and values is not simply a case of protecting our own coasts, but also a case of preserving international order. It was precisely to defend those ideals and values that we contributed troops to NATO at great cost to Canadians and assigned them in Europe since 1951. It was to defend those precise ideals and values that over 25,000 Canadian troops fought in the United Nations engagement in Korea. And now our young men and women are called on to defend those ideals and values once again-this time in the Persian Gulf.



Our military response to Iraqi aggression is fully compatible with our traditions as international peacekeepers. Canada has been among the most active of all countries in multilateral peacekeeping efforts over the last forty-five years. Canadians have served in more than twenty peacekeeping operations, from the Congo to the Sinai, from Indochina to South Africa. And we are all proud of that tradition.

Our peacekeeping role-one in which we take great and I believe justifiable pride, which has distinguished Canada and where we have contributed enormously over decades to world peace-this peacekeeping role neither excludes us nor excuses us from the call to resist aggression. The roles are complementary as both serve the larger political purpose of preserving international order and both are very much in Canada's national interest.
There is no honour in claiming neutrality in the face of flagrant violations of international law. Canadians do not like the use of force and we have never in all our history chosen force as the preferred means of settling a dispute. But neither have we, at any time in our history, shrunk from using force when other means were exhausted, nor have we left the tough work to others in causes that we have supported. Canadians have never looked for a free ride and we are not going to start today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Our contribution to the defence of freedom and our resistance of aggression constitutes chapters of sacrifice and glory in the history of this nation.
Throughout this crisis the protection of Canadians put in jeopardy by Saddam Hussein has been a major concern for the Government of Canada. We have evacuated as many Canadian citizens as possible and we have stayed in touch with those still there to offer whatever material, logistic, and moral support we can. I know that many Canadians are worried about members of their families still caught there and I know that all members of the House join me today in praying that those Canadians detained in Iraq and Kuwait against their will will not be harmed. Our hearts go out to these
Government Orders
families and I give them the assurance of all members of the House that we will continue to do all that we humanly can to make sure that we get their loved ones out and back to Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We, and all other civilized nations in the world, are going to hold Saddam Hussein responsible for the well-being of our own citizens.
As I look back over the tumultuous events of the last 50 days or so, I see much of which Canadians can and will be proud: our sailors, and pilots, and soldiers who have gone courageously to the Gulf; our dock workers and specialists in Halifax who did months of work in a matter of weeks to get their ships ready; the members of the foreign services, to whom I referred a few moments ago, who have risked their own security and their lives and who have worked tirelessly to help stranded and detained Canadians; and the courage of Canadian families whose loved ones have been drawn into the vortex of this whirlwind inside Kuwait and Iraq.
I know that all Canadians do not want to see a war in the Gulf.

We all hope that the forces arrayed in the cause of peace will be sufficient to deter further aggression and to provide the leverage necessary to achieve a peaceful Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. I give Canadians my assurance that we are doing everything we can, and will continue to do everything we can, to encourage a peaceful conclusion to this crisis.
But I give them my guarantee, as well, that we will not buy peace at the cost of dishonour to our history nor abdicate our share of the responsibility for preserving international order.

The many thousands of Canadians who have with great courage and great honour kept the peace in Africa and Asia and the Middle East and elsewhere around the world, understand why this must be so. The many thousands of Canadians-too many of whom lost then-lives at Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, on the beaches of Normandy, and the hills of Korea-would have wanted it no other way.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!

September 24, 1990
Government Orders


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think I can say without any reservation on behalf of most Canadians that finally, at last, we have an opportunity in Parliament to begin to come to grips with one of the most serious and important issues facing the country in the last decade.
Many Canadians have been waiting for seven weeks for the opportunity in Parliament to express their concerns, to raise their questions, and, in fact, to find a way in which this country can play an effective role, a proper role, and an expanded role in this situation.
Let me first point out that our party, without any reservation, at all joins every other party, every other Canadian, and every civilized person in the world in condemning the aggression and invasion of Iraq into the state of Kuwait. We were all horrified at the brutality with which that aggression is taking place and the continuing impunity with which Mr. Hussein and the government of Iraq approaches its responsibilities under the United Nations and its obligations.

The Liberal Party of Canada unconditionally supports the broad international consensus condemning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. All member States of the United Nations must observe the provisions of the United Nations Charter and international law.
Taking a sovereign territory by force is an obvious failure to meet the obligations.

Also, I would like to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Canadian diplomats for their efforts to represent the interest of Canadians in the occupied state and the way in which the diplomats in the United Nations have carried out their functions with skill and the professionalism for which the foreign service has been known.
Also on behalf of my party, I would like to comment upon the uniqueness of this opportunity for an international response. We are so fortunate that events have come together to allow the United Nations once again to restore and play a role that had been denied it for so many years because of the cold war conflict and we can now hope that once again that the original charter seven responsibilities of collective security will be introduced.

We are encouraged by the role played by the United Nations in developing an effective international response to the Iraqi invasion. The UN Security Council has been particularly active, and the unanimity of its 15 members is both remarkable and welcome.

In saying those three things and in putting them on the record, I want to point to something the Prime Minister said in his remarks. I think his words were that this was a truly significant moment in world events and in the history of the country. If that is the case, if it was so significant, so crucial, and so vital, then why was Parliament kept in silence for seven weeks? Why were the people of Canada denied the opportunity to come together to address the issue? If the Prime Minister recognized how important and vital this matter was, why were the lights turned out in this building? That is a crucial question.
When it comes down to vital issues of international obligation, of war and peace, of sending Canadian troops overseas, to deny the opportunity for this Parliament to be heard or to represent the Canadian people, to have the question posed, is a dereliction of duty by the government, not by the troops, not by the forces but by the Government of Canada. That is really one of the serious problems this country faces. In fact, it was contributing to the malaise, the sense of great scepticism, almost cynicism, that the political system cannot even be employed at a time so crucial, to use the words of the Prime Minister, in our history.
I recall it was not that long ago when I was sitting at my cottage on Lake Winnipeg when all of a sudden I received a phone call from the Whip saying: "You have been called back to Parliament for a national emergency." "What was the national emergency?" I asked. "Has war been declared? Are the missiles coming?" He said: "No, 56 Tamils have arrived on the shores of Nova Scotia, and the government thinks that is so vital to the sanctity of this country that we must call Parliament back into session."
My goodness, 56 Thmils. Poor refugees. The homeless and the abandoned struggling ashore, and the full resources of the Government of Canada and Parliament are brought to bear for months of debate. By the way, the bill took almost a year to pass. What we see now, of
September 24, 1990

course, is that we have a backlog of 300,000 refugees and $285 million in expenditures. That is how much of an emergency it was.
I ask the Prime Minister: Does he not see the enormous irony that he could feel so compelled by the arrival of 56 refugees on the shores of Canada to say it is a national emergency and, at the same time, authorize 1,500 Canadian forces to a war zone, to an area of great critical risk, recognizing that Canada was undertaking historic obligations internationally but did not see fit to ask Canadians through their elected representatives what they thought?
The British Parliament managed that. Madam Thatcher has been criticized in many circles as not so close to being democratic. She managed to get Parliament back. What was interesting about that? What was interesting was that through the meeting of that Parliament, they were able to develop a consensus in a country. It was a bipartisan approach. It was an attempt to find an all-party agreement.
Mr. Kennock, on behalf of the Official Opposition there, spoke strongly in favour of the reaction. He raised some serious questions about the nature of the role in the United Nations and, I believe, helped in a very constructive way to formulate the proper approach for that country. I am not saying it is perfect, but it answered the debate. That is what this place is about.
This is not some kind of sausage machine where you simply turn out legislation and bills. Debate is essential to the spirit of democracy. When it is denied, democracy withers and dies. That is what we saw happening this summer.
Madam Speaker, I say through you to the Prime Minister that we are not here simply to rehash history. But, he has to realize that that was a mistake and that while in the resolution he is asking for unequivocal support, Canadians ask: "How can you be unequivocal when you have seen your own democratic system put on the shelf with the lights turned out? How can you be unequivocal in approving an action which is so demonstrably dangerous to the maintenance of our own democratic spirit in this country?"
Government Orders

Madam Speaker, public consultation should also be a key part of government policy when the government considers deploying military personnel. There must be a debate in this House to discuss all aspects of the matter and examine all problems, if the spirit of democracy is to mean anything at all in this country. This is essential.

But, we missed that opportunity.
Also, I want to raise an important question to the Prime Minister who is here, because he did not address it in his remarks. It is one I raise on behalf of many Canadians. I think it is important that he or his ministers address it as the debate ensues.
The resolutions passed by the United Nations deal with an economic embargo of Iraq. That is the chosen instrument by which the Security Council has made its decision of how to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The endorsement of the use of military forces is to back up that embargo. There is no United Nations mandate covering the use of force in other circumstances. Those were unilateral decisions taken.
The key question that many Canadians are asking is are we going to adhere religiously to the UN resolutions dealing with the use of force or are we already beginning to extend out and push beyond the mandate of those resolutions? Clearly the sending of the maritime force was within the mandate of that resolution 6.65. No question. The sending of the CF-18s raises a somewhat different question because the military personnel themselves have said that in addition to providing air cover for the three ships going to the gulf, they are also going to be integrated into the other air defence wing and that there could be other uses in the deterrence of further attack.
Well, that is a very important distinction that has been made. It is not covered by UN resolution. I go back to the importance of the Prime Minister's words that this is an opportunity to build the United Nations, to give it a different kind of role, to enhance, enlarge and magnify its primary responsibility on decisions of conflict resolutions of collective security.
Therefore, we have to be absolutely careful that we do not contribute to any action that would subvert that role, change that role or question that role. If all of a sudden we are beginning to deploy troops and give them rules of

September 24, 1990
Government Orders
engagement or a mandate that extends beyond the clear definition provided by the UN, then we may also be in danger of undermining the opportunity of the UN to show it must be the place where decisions are made.
I noticed with interest the comments made by the Secretary of State in his visit to Washington-I believe it was on Friday-where he said we could envision the use of further troops, ground troops I presume or further aircraft troops. Would that be within the mandate of the UN? Perhaps this is the question that follows the one I just asked: Would it not be more important for Canada, occupying as it does a seat on the Security Council, beginning to ensure that those resolutions do cover the mandate, that there is not a question of unilateral decisions on war and peace, on deterrence or invasion or whatever other kind of military employment may be made?
That is why members of this party and others in the country who are knowledgeable and learned in this matter are saying that we as a country should be using our role, occupying that seat, to ensure that it is a United Nations mandate. This is not superpower bashing or anything else, but it is clear that there is a principle at stake. Do individual nations, whether they be large or small, have the right to decide when to use force for invasionary purposes? Whether it is in Grenada, El Salvador, Afghanistan or Iraq or if it is in response to something else, it should not be a unilateral decision. Surely the interest of countries like Canada, a middle power as it is often described or within that regime, which have represented so effectively since Suez the voice of countries that are not grand powers, says that we must establish a rule of law and a process to go along with it.
I agree with the Prime Minister that we honoured it to a point, but we are now talking about what happens from here on in. There is a mass of military build-up in Saudi Arabia-250,000 troops massing on the borders, massive tanks and everything else. There is a huge arsenal being built up. What is the purpose of that? Is it to deter further invasions of Saudi Arabia or others? Fine enough. But is it also, as has been mooted about, potentially to be used for a military solution to the problem? If the embargo does not work or people get impatient or it does not bite soon enough, will all of a sudden somebody else make a decision to use force to
compel Hussein to back off or to try to topple him as a tyrant? Who will make that decision? Will we be drawn in axiomatically as part of that decision because we have become part of the integrated command or that we are part of the Bahrain meetings or whatever other arrangements were being made.
I say to the Prime Minister very directly that it is a very important, crucial question. While Canadians have condemned the use of force by the Iraqis, they are not prepared to give a blank cheque for the use of force simply to get rid of them. They want it done with proper discussion and debate in this Parliament and in the United Nations. If it is to be used, then let it be used in that multilateral way, in that internationalist way which is very different from pure multilateralism. An internationalist way would build up the body of law, procedure and precedent to ensure that we have in place a clear commitment that unilateralism in the use of force should not be recognized. I in particular just raise raise the concern. The Prime Minister is certainly free to clear it up.
I do not have the actual copy of his statement, but he said that Canadians would not be afraid to use force if necessary, or words to that effect. Under what context? By whose decision? Our own or someone else's? By the United Nations? That is a very crucial issue.
I would hope that in the next day as this debate continues or however long we have that the government will answer that question. Is it prepared to make a commitment that there will not be further deployment of troops or the use of force without a clear, new mandate for the United Nations to do so. This means that we will clearly need to have a debate with the Security Council as to whether the sanctions have worked or not worked and then decide if in the interests of international peace and order that other options will have to be exercised. I certainly do not want that, Mr. Prime Minister. None of us in this House would contemplate it because we know what an enormous, incredible tragedy that would be.
As a result, we also want to pose some corollary questions to the Secretary of State arising out of the use of force. What initiatives, what actions are we taking as a member of the Security Council to seek a peaceful resolution? What kind of support? What is our state-
September 24, 1990

ment? For example, what is our position on the Soviet proposal for an international conference on the Middle East? What is the position of the government dealing with the proposed regional collective security proposal that the Americans have made, among others. These are crucial issues. What role?
I say this. It is important, and no one knows this better than the Secretary of State from his experience, that Canada play a positive role in making suggestions and making contributions rather than simply reacting to events, rather than simply responding to what takes place. Surely it is within our tradition.
I go back to the Pearson initiative of 1956, which was to find a way of resolving the conflict after an invasion.
I hope we can build upon that. I do not know if the Secretary of State is in the running for a Nobel Peace Prize. It certainly helped a past minister to become a Prime Minister. Who knows, lightening can strike twice.
The fact of the matter is that it is within the Canadian expectation. It has become part of our identity as Canadians. I know that there are a lot of cynics and sceptics around who say we make too much of our peacekeeping role. For many Canadians that is part of what we are. That is part of the basic traditions we have established as a country. We should not be simply engaged in the sabre rattling rhetoric, we should also be equally involved in the much more difficult, complex world of seeking some resolution.
God knows we have read the statements of Saddam Hussein and others. But there are initiatives being undertaken. Certain Arab nations are doing it. The Soviets are engaged in it. There are things under way.
Certainly it should be our role as Canadians to make a strong case at the United Nations to support those initiatives, just as we should also be raising serious questions about what happens after. The Middle East can never be the same. All the old rules are gone. Surely we are going to have to start asking ourselves some tough questions as a country about the kind of initiatives we wish to take.
As I understand it, one of the real reasons Saddam Hussein is able to build the kind of support he enjoys in certain parts of the Middle East is severe economic deprivation. The fact is that there has not been effective
Government Orders
economic planning or development in that part of the region for so long.
I think of the initiatives being taken now to raise funds.
I applaud the contribution of $75 million, but I see the kind of economic impact that will take place in countries like Jordan, Turkey and even in Third World countries because of the increase in oil prices. It is catastrophic and it is going to require a substantial reordering economically of the international order. I was waiting for the Group of Seven meeting in Washington this weekend to come up with some initial proposals. It said nothing about it as far as I could see. It ignored the problem in part. That is not good enough. As a member of the G-7 we should be making that case.
I would also like to raise a serious question with the Secretary of State or the government as to the stand we are going to take as a country on the arms embargo. One of the great tragedies of this whole event is the number of western countries, including many of our close allies, rapidly engaged in selling arms, chemical weapons and components of nuclear facilities to Iraq weeks before the invasion took place.
The Secretary of State will know that many times in the past I have been asking in the House for tougher rules both in our own country and internationally on the issue of the sale of arms and on the merchants of death, as they are commonly known in journalistic parlance. If there was ever a time for that case to be nailed tight and shut, it is now.
One of the real roles and opportunities for Canada in this crisis is to speak again with an unequivocal voice and indicate that there should be no more chemical weapons, components of nuclear weapons or arms sold to the likes of Saddam Hussein and other military dictatorships. That should be one of the ways in which we can say to the world: let's take this issue beyond just the simple call to arms and also begin asking what happens after. We should begin to say to people in the Middle East and elsewhere that we will no longer tolerate business as usual once this is over and that we need a different regime and a different set of rules for these kinds of countries.


Mr. Prud'homme:: All of them.


Lloyd Axworthy: For all of
these countries, exactly. I agree. I say to my colleague who has had a long abiding interest in Middle East dramatics that that is true. Every country will have to examine its policies in this area to find peaceful resolu-

September 24, 1990
Government Orders
tions. I believe it would help now for Canada to be raising its voice, to begin suggesting how that could be done, and to be putting forward those kinds of proposals.
The Prime Minister's statement did not answer any of those questions for us. We do not have answers on what is the actual mandate of our troops. We do not have an answer on the question of whether we are prepared to go to war even though it is not mandated or sanctioned by the United Nations. Are we prepared to support offensive actions by our troops in the Middle East?
Under what conditions? Under whose decision? How will it be made? Under what kind of rules? Will Parliament be consulted? We would like to have answered now all those very serious questions which should have in fact been answered weeks ago.
We look forward very much to the opportunity to listen to members of the front-bench and other members of the government side trying to come to grips with the questions we have raised, because we believe those are the questions being raised by Canadians, not in any simplistic or naive way or not trying to get the Americans. It is simply that they are deeply concerned. They know that no greater decision of any government of any country can be made than that of dealing with war and peace. It is the ultimate question for all states to decide.
They want to be assured that those decisions will be made by all Canadians and that this forum, this Parliament of ours, will be honoured and consulted and used as a forum in which that decision, if it ever has to be made, will be made. More important even than that is the fact that we will do our best and our utmost to ensure that it is the United Nations as the repository for international order that becomes the place where decisions like that are taken, not in the capitals of individual states. That is crucial for us to make.
I say to members on the government side that when it comes to the resolution we certainly agree with the condemnation and certainly agree with and support the actions of the United Nations. However, we think the spirit of the resolution presented to us is not designed to
bring about a bipartisan approach which we can all support.
I wish it had been otherwise. I wish they had talked to us or asked us how we could have come together with a joint resolution of all three parties in this House. We could have had something that we could all support. We could have said that this was from where all Canadians speak, but it did not happen. In fact they included some words which they knew the opposition would have to take some quarrel with simply because of our concerns about both the past and present actions that have or have not been taken and the questions we have.
In that spirit I would like to present an amendment to the resolution, trying to work it into a more bipartisan approach. I expect my colleagues in the NDP will try the same because we are not approaching this matter in the way of scoring points or playing a parliamentary game. We realize just how deep and essential this is to the well-being of this country and the well-being of the world.
I would like if I might, Madam Speaker, to amend the motion this way:
That the motion be amended after the words "Canadian Forces" and read:
enforce these United Nations resolutions;
That this House censure the government for not recalling Parliament at the earliest opportunity to fulfil its legitimate function of consultation and debate as to what role Canada should play in the resolution of the present crisis; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
We believe this resolution or the amendment to it will go a long way in providing the kind of resolution that all Canadians can support of whatever party or whatever position so that we can stand united as a country on this very crucial matter.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I too rise to speak on motion No. 16 as presented by the government and to say that the New Democratic Party
September 24, 1990

unreservedly condemns the invasion of Kuwait. The New Democratic Party unconditionally asks for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, as this motion states.
As the previous speaker has said, I think we have to look at this matter in context of the base we are setting for the future and to discuss a number of issues relevant to it.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see the House finally has a chance to discuss the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq which took place a little over seven weeks ago.
Let me make myself clear: the government has shown a flagrant disregard for parliamentary democracy and Canadian parliamentary tradition by failing to call back Parliament.
Madam Speaker, neither I nor my party can accept the use of Parliament for purely formal purposes. Canadians elect their representatives to think, to reflect, to criticize and even to advise, and that is what we intend to do.
Madam Speaker, first of all I want to say that my party and I have condemned the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
We think the international community must demonstrate its aversion to the ousting of the Kuwait government and its citizens.
We condemn the violations of the Vienna Convention on the rights of diplomats.
We demand the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
We firmly support the five resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted on August 2, 1990, including Resolution 665.
We must do everything in our power to make the economic blockade a success.

We support a multinational force in the gulf to enforce United Nations resolution No. 665. We support every effort to ensure that the economic embargo is successful and that we arrive at a peaceful solution of this crisis.
I believe the United Nations is clearly our best mechanism for resolving this crisis. I want to give three
Government Orders
main reasons for this. First of all, the cold war is over and the United States and the U.S.S.R. have both condemned the invasion of Iraq. Second, most of the Arab world has condemned the invasion of Iraq. The United Nations Security Council has been unanimous in its position against the Iraqi invasion.
However, I would suggest that the Canadian government has made a fundamental error in the precipitous actions that it took that were not simply related to the embargo as approved by the United Nations.
I also believe the government has made a fundamental error in deciding to follow the lead of the United States instead of helping to lead in the United Nations.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: This is the first post cold war crisis where the international community has been put to the test about how it might undertake multilateral actions in a consistent way, consistent with the United Nations charter and the precepts of common security.
As we have so often said in this party, our security cannot be kept through supporting the insecurity of others. That is why we see the United Nations having a role to ensure that there is common security, common actions, multilateral actions under the direction of the United Nations.
United Nations resolution 665 was passed on August 25, some 15 days after the government sent our Armed Forces to the gulf and 19 days after the Prime Minister had met with the President of the United States.
This government is losing an opportunity to live up to the intention of the San Francisco Conference of 1945 to function effectively when major powers are in agreement. I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that in this case major powers are in agreement. It is unfortunate in our view that the President of the United States decided to take things beyond the international consensus and has cast aside the United Nations. It is also unfortunate that the Prime Minister reacted too quickly to this President's demands.
In our view not only did the Prime Minister of Canada react inappropriately, but by following the U.S. plan this government has given Saddam Hussein an easy villain for his propaganda.

Government Orders
It is for this reason-and I agree with the speaker from the Liberal Party-that we would have wanted to see a resolution that brought together the views, the horror that all Canadians share about the actions of Saddam Hussein in invading another country, but would also allow us to have a debate in which we could look at the way in which it was done.
In his opening remarks the Prime Minister said something to the effect that Canada would stand up and be counted, that we would do our duty, that this was historic, this was significant. I agree that this is an historic and significant act that the Prime Minister has taken unilaterally without consulting this House, but there are ways to stand up and be counted. Why should we accept that the only way is the way that the Prime Minister has taken and that is to send three ships and now further to that CF-18s?
Surely there is another way. Could we not sit down and use our seat on the UN Security Council, for which we fought very hard, in a way which will provide the basis and the foundation for the United Nations assuming a role in this conflict, as in others, that will provide an agenda for peace and for a peaceful resolution.
I would have to say that this government has tended to use the United Nations as it has this Parliament, for approval after the fact. This is a bad strategy for Canada and, in my view, it is a bad strategy for world diplomacy. This resolution uses the United Nations as a rubber stamp. It diminishes its potential and it diminishes the role that Canada could be playing now that we are on the Security Council.
It is clear that independent, thought-provoking policy is not a priority of this government. This is a government that first of all joins the Organization of American States and its first action is to support the U.S. invasion of Panama. Finally, we win a seat on the Security Council and the first action in a major way that we take is to support the United States actions which circumvented unilaterally a United Nations decision.
Let us review the actions of the Canadian government before the crisis began. Three Canadian vessels were dispatched to the Gulf on August 10. There was no parliamentary approval and no parliamentary debate. In fact, the armed forces were not put on active duty
because to do so would have meant recalling Parliament. Ironically, our ships even had to slow down in order to avoid active duty status. Our CF-18s are on order to be dispatched but their mission is totally unclear. No other alternatives for a Canadian contribution to a multilateral effort appear to have been considered.
Now there is some confusion. There were no clear orders, no clearly defined role for our armed forces and many questions still remain that must be answered by this government. First of all, on what basis was it decided to send three naval ships? Second, what exactly did the U.S. President request of our Prime Minister? What did the Prime Minister promise to the United States President in terms of our action in the Middle East? This is not clear in the Prime Minister's statement today. Has the Prime Minister ultimately committed us to the use of ground troops? That was not clear in the Prime Minister's statement today. What is the military objective of our naval ships? What is the military objective of the CF-18s? I suppose the biggest question of all is: who is giving the orders? What is Canada prepared to do? We have seen what is happening, we have seen increasing support for Saddam Hussein in the Middle East, we see the possibility of a conflict between the United States and Arabs, not just Saddam Hussein. What will Canada's role be? Are we proposing an offensive role, a defensive role, or standing on the sidelines? It has never been made clear; it was not clear, even in the briefing given by the head of the armed forces and by the Prime Minister last week.
I believe that my party and I would have acted differently if we had had the opportunity. First of all, we would have held a full parliamentary debate-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: -because we believe that an issue as important as this, an issue that could basically come to the question,"Will Canada go to war?", we need to hear everyone's views, everyone's solution, not in a partisan way but in a way to ensure that Canada, as a middle power, acts as a force for peace and uses its resources in a way to ensures that.
The Prime Minister referred to our role in peacekeeping and said that that was not undermined by the actions that he and his government took. It seems to me that if we had not been so precipitous in doing what we did, we
September 24, 1990

might have found a role that is much more in keeping with the traditions of Canada, that is peacekeeping, its role as a voice of reason and diplomacy. As we know, this was not done and Canada's troops are now in the Middle East. The question is, what do we do now? How do we maintain Canada's international reputation as a peacekeeper and how do we demonstrate that we are prepared to work with the United Nations, not simply follow one other nation's decision-making?
Madam Speaker, I propose that Canada adopt the following policies: given our limited military resources in the Persian Gulf, Canada should be poised to take future peacekeeping roles. In the meantime I recommend, as my colleague did earlier today during the Question Period, that our troops stay in the Gulf of Amman as was their original order and that Canada begin to position itself as a voice of reason and calm in the midst of high tension. I would add that if our troops were to remain in the Gulf of Amman, we could then assist in implementing Motion 665 of the United Nations regarding the blockade.
Second, I would propose that we must increase our efforts to help refugees from this area and use our seat on the United Nations Security Council to put increasing pressure on Saddam Hussein. Canadians must be wondering what we have done since we got that seat on the Security Council. All that most of us can see that Canada has done is simply to follow the United States before it has even made any kind of plan, proposed anything that the UN could become involved in, in a substantive way.
We would also work for a political solution; this is not just something that requires a military solution. We recommend that we should be attempting to revive the military staff committee of the United Nations which provides for the co-ordination of international military efforts, in order to maintain international peace and security. Surely this crisis in Iraq and Kuwait demonstrates the importance of having the United Nations mobilized so that it can deal with these issues, not after they have occurred but have a policy developed to deal with them before they occur. I would suggest that the Canadian government has a role to play and we should use our seat on the United Nations Security Council to make sure that the United Nations is in a position to use its authority in a useful and a positive way.
Government Orders
We cannot see this situation simply in the context of the invasion of Kuwait, although it is obviously the most serious issue at this point, we also must look and work for a long-term approach to the situation in the Middle East in general. My colleague, the hon. member from the Liberal Party, also mentioned arms shipments to Iraq. We simply are now reaping what many have predicted, including many in this party and myself, that to continue to sell arms to the Middle East wdl simply lead to very serious consequences and we see the consequences now. We must have an arms embargo in the Middle East.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I would add, Madam Speaker, that this country cannot see itself exempt from that. We know that we have participated in that and we have to take our own responsibility and not just point the finger at other countries. We also have to work to end the use of nuclear and chemical weapons.
Third, we must promote an international conference to resolve the longstanding Palestinian question. Let us not forget that Canada's longstanding and traditional role in international relations has been to provide diplomatic means as well as a force for peace in times of conflict. By participating in the present non-United Nations force, Canada may eliminate the possibility of playing a peacekeeping role in the future. There is a better way, and I say today that we must begin that task.
I would like to make a couple of other points and take a bit of time to send my prayers and those of my party to the Canadians still trapped inside Iraq and Kuwait. I also want to commend the embassy staff in those two countries for the hard work which they did under very, very stressful conditions. I myself had an opportunity to speak on a couple of occasions to those staff in Iraq specifically and I understand how very, very difficult and in a very fine way they did their job.
I also would like to extend my admiration and prayers to the Canadian men and women who have been sent to the Gulf. They are courageous Canadians who have already made many sacrifices so that we may live in a peaceful world. Let us all hope that none of them will have to make the ultimate sacrifice. Let us all today take

Government Orders
the responsibility which ensures that we, as politicians, will act in a responsible way to ensure that they do not.
Madam Speaker, there are three other short points I would like to make because I would like to propose an amendment to the government's motion. As we know, Iraq was our largest customer for Canadian wheat, and I would ask that the government adequately compensate Canadian farmers who are harmed by the Iraqi wheat embargo because it is very important to have a united front on this very serious issue.
I have said that we support unreservedly the first part of Motion No. 16 put forward by the government. We too condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. We too demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of legitimate government in Kuwait. But I would have to say that what has been added to this, that we simply rubber stamp the actions of this government is not acceptable. I take great offence that the government has put forward a motion which they know will not get unanimous consent because they simply have put in that section to rubber stamp their actions rather than to condemn the government. It is for these reasons that we cannot support the resolution as it stands before the House.
This government is using the United Nations, as it does its own Parliament, for approval after the fact.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway:
That the motion be amended by adding the following after the
word "resolutions"
'And further, that Canada work at the Security Council to seek assurances that no country will undertake offensive military operations against Iraq unless they are under UN command and explicitly authorized by the Security Council."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In view of the amendment moved by the previous Speaker, the House will surely allow me to check to see if it is in order before moving this amendment to the amendment.
Pursuing to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Burnaby-Canada Assistance Plan; the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq-Aboriginal
Rights; the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Post-Secondary Education.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford rises on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I ask now that the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean be heard.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I suggest the Hon. Member should have waited for the Chair to recognize another member or whatever. Now, the motion has been heard, as moved by the Hon. Member for-


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis rises on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I suggest that what we are doing now is quite irregular. If my memory concerning a major debate on the Canadian flag serves me right, it would be necessary for two members to rise at the same time. The Chair would have had to recognize one of them. Any member who is dissatisfied would have to stand up and say: Therefore, I recommend that Mr. or Mrs X be recognized instead of Mr. or Mrs Y.
For the time being, I do not see anybody standing. Under the circumstances, do not tempt me, for I might be the one to have the floor.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think it is important to note that when we are dealing with this issue, notwithstanding the excellent points raised by my colleague with which I fully concur, there is the additional requirement as far as I am concerned that we actually be at a speaking stage of the bill. Right now, and for the next 10 minutes, we are in the process whereby we will recognize questions and comments. When that process is terminated, the next speaker must have risen and been duly recognized. Once recognized, a second speaker must be rising at the same time. Why should the Chair be called upon to decide between two speakers when only one of them rose in order to speak, namely the minister?



September 24, 1990


SPEAKER'S RULING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shef-ford rose on a point of order to ask that another member be recognized. Unfortunately I must advise the hon. member that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean did not rise at the same time he raised his point of order. Therefore I must recognize the first member who rose, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think this settles the question. The hon. member for Shefford?


Jean-C. Lapierre: At the time you saw the member for Lac-Saint-Jean standing and seeking the floor. Consequently, as suggested by our colleague from Saint-Denis, I move:
That the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean be now heard. [English]


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am rising to support the Chair in the ruling. I just want to read this for the benefit of other members who might not have clearly understood what the Chair has ruled upon, and with which I agree. Rule 62 states very clearly:
When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place; but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
Quite clearly, Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned-and other members share this view-your ruling was sound and the question can be put only in cases where two or more members rise at the same time and under similar circumstances when the Chair has recognized one and the other is not satisfied. Since there was no such circumstance I fully agree with the Chair as to the way the matter was settled.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Since we have nothing to lose by waiting, Madam Speaker, I abide by your ruling.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, when the decision was taken to send Canadian forces to join other nations in the gulf, there was an undertaking to initiate a discussion in
Government Orders
Parliament at the first appropriate occasion. The House resumed sitting today and this resolution has been introduced immediately.
If I may, I will deal for a moment with some of the matters raised by my colleagues on the other side. No opportunity has been denied parliamentarians to be heard on this issue. That opportunity is being exercised now. That is perfectly in accordance with the traditions and the practices of this Parliament in all situations that bear any resemblance to what we are dealing with now.
What departs from the tradition, if I may say so, is the attempt by my friend, the hon member for Winnipeg South Centre, to make this, not a debate about a question of great importance, but simply a partisan exchange, which he has done with his amendment. Naturally, I wanted to indicate on behalf of the government that we do not intend to support that amendment which would have that trivializing affect upon a debate which is very, very important.
The value of a debate is to know the views of other parties and other members in the House. The other parties who have spoken today will be judged on the basis of the matters they have brought forward.
My colleague from Winnipeg did raise some questions of importance and substance and I hope to deal with them later on. I always thought he wanted to be the external affairs critic and, for a while today, I thought he wanted to be the House Leader of the Liberal Party because most of his arguments were procedural, but some were not and I will deal with those later.
With regard to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, if I understood her correctly, one proposal she put forward was that the decision that was taken as to the deployment of our ships in the gulf, a decision taken by the Chief of the Defence Staff, should be changed by her critic on external affairs. I am not sure that the rest of the country is ready to have the judgment of the Chief of the Defence Staff substituted by the Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Kingsway. Certainly, we are not.
I was interested in her suggestion as to the amendment that she introduced. Since she took exception to the following language in the resolution now before the House-the affirmation of "support for Canada's actions in the United Nations Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2-am I to understand that

Government Orders
the New Democratic Party opposes Canada's actions in the United Nations Security Council? Am I to understand that the New Democratic Party opposes support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2? That would be a bizarre position.

On August 2, Madam Speaker, Iraq launched a general attack and invaded the sovereign state of Kuwait. This was an obvious breach of the most elementary principles of international law. It was an invasion made without provocation and in violation of the commitment made by Iraq as member of the United Nations to seek a peaceful settlement to disputes.
Even though the concentration of troops which preceded the violation of Kuwait's sovereignty did not go unnoticed, the rest of the world was shaken by the fact that Iraq should have so readily resorted to force.
Only a few days before the invasion Saddam Hussein had promised President Mubarak that Kuwait would not be invaded. The small country was quickly occupied and its government was replaced by a puppet regime whose nature was obvious. Realizing that the international community would not recognize this puppet administration, on August 8 the Iraqi quite simply decided to swallow Kuwait and announced that henceforth this country would be their southern provinces. All these measures violated international law and made people fear that the agression might well extend to Saudi Arabia.
Since then Iraq has increased its military presence and imposed strict occupation rules on the resisting population. It is now plundering public and private Kuwaitian assets.
Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers fled Kuwait and neighbouring countries, particularly Jordania, have to face the consequences: hordes of fleeing and penniless workers, economic upheaval and increased tensions.
Canada reacted by asking immedialtely that collective measures be taken to condemn and stop the aggression. On September 4 Canada officially suspended all commercial trade with Iraq and occupied Kuwait, froze the
assets of both governments and cancelled special provisions concerning trade promotion with the Iraqi and other commercial agreements.

When Iraq acted against Kuwait its aggression had to be stopped in its tracks to give time for the machinery of the international community to get to work. Iraq's clear ambitions against Saudi sovereignty and the threat of further direct action against it required an unequivocal demonstration of support for Saudi Arabia and for the gulf states. That immediate reaction allowed the United Nations to mount a response of unprecedented unanimity and effectiveness.
There have been questions raised about the United Nations' mandate, serious questions raised by my colleague from Winnipeg, and I assure him and the House that the Government of Canada has worked very hard within the United Nations to ensure that there will be full respect for the mandate of the United Nations.
We have encouraged our close allies, we have encouraged others, and we have used our influence and our position on the Security Council to ensure that the action that proceeds is action that is within the mandate of the United Nations and, indeed, that the mandate given by the United Nations expands to take account of the circumstances as they develop in the region. We are working very hard to have United Nations' auspices respected.
The member posed a question as to comments I made in answer to reporters in Washington on Friday. I was asked whether we had ruled out other actions that we might take. We have not ruled them out. We intend to take them in the context of the United Nations. We intend to take them in the spirit in which we have acted to this point, if we have to take them.
Remember what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a situation in which world pressure has to be mounted and has to be maintained if there is any hope for diplomacy to work. That means that countries like ours, which have a range of measures which we might apply, have to be in a position to apply them as circumstances warrant. In our view, in the Canadian tradition, in the tradition of our actions in this crisis, we will be
September 24, 1990

acting within the context of the United Nations and encouraging others to respect the mandate of that organization.
But let me make this point. One cannot always wait for deliberative bodies to deliberate and to decide. Saddam Hussein did not wait. I was quite surprised by the suggestion of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, if I understood her correctly, that somehow Canada moved too quickly. Does she believe that Egypt moved too quickly, because it was at the same pace as Canada? Does she believe that Europe moved too quickly, because it was at the same pace as Canada? Does she believe that the Soviet Union moved too quickly, because it was the same pace as Canada? Does she believe that there should not-


Charles Joseph Clark: No Soviet troops. There are Soviet ships and there has been Soviet action very actively on the Security Council. The point is that we cannot always expect events in the world to await the decisions of deliberative bodies. We can do what we can to ensure that those bodies move very quickly. I ask some questions. Perhaps there is a new position being put forward by the member for York Centre different from that put forward by his colleague from Winnipeg.
Let me take the proposal as I understand it by the member for Yukon, which was that Canada should have waited before signalling our willingness to send troops, before acting to freeze Kuwaiti assets in Canada so they could not be taken advantage of by Iraq.


An hon. member:: She never mentioned it.


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not want to misinterpret her. Let me just stick to the issue of troops. If she was saying-and her critic is nodding his head affirmatively- that the position of Canada should have been that we should have waited until there had been UN action before we signalled our intention to join other countries in the Gulf, then I think that that raises some other questions.
One question it raises is: how long would she have had Canada wait? A second question it raises is: what does she think would have happened while Canada was waiting? What would have happened while Egypt was waiting? What would have happened while Europe was waiting? Does she believe that Saddam Hussein would have waited? Those are not rhetorical questions offered
Government Orders
in debate. Those are questions that have to be faced by serious parliamentarians recognizing that Canada's position here is not simply a position of passing resolutions but is a position of exercising our influence by the deployment of all of our resources, humanitarian resources, military resources and diplomatic resources.
There is no doubt at all that our ability, Canada's and that of other countries, to provide some room for the United Nations to work, our ability to stop Saddam Hussein in Kuwait and dissuade him from going on into Saudi Arabia depended upon the fact that there was a clear response on the part of a range of countries that further aggression by Saddam Hussein would not be accepted by the world.
The United Nations Security Council could not meet that quickly to deliver that message, but the message had to be delivered. I have no apologies for Canada being part of sending a signal that stopped Saddam Hussein and created an opportunity for diplomacy and the United Nations Security Council to work.
To come back to the central point, I assure the House that we have acted consistently to strengthen the role of the United Nations in this crisis, and we intend to do that. Canada's immediate and timely response, including the commitment to send our forces, contributed to stopping Iraq from more aggression. At the same time that we sent that signal we were playing a very active role in developing Security Council positions. The spectacular and historic success of the United Nations system in the succeeding weeks vindicated our faith in the ability of the world body to follow through with concerted measures against the Iraqi Government's actions and with policies consistent with Canadian values and precedents in foreign policy.
Resolution 661 passed on August 6 by the Security Council was key to that definition because it set out the sanctions which were to be imposed on Iraq. The intention of that measure was to end trade with Iraq. All ordinary commercial operations were to stop immediately. Critical for Canadians and indeed for all countries with nationals who now fall under the control of the Iraqis was resolution 664, which was passed a brief 12 days later on August 18. Saddam Hussein detained all males over the age of 18 from a group of countries, mainly western countries, which included Canada. Working women from black-listed countries were as well refused the right to leave freely.

Government Orders
The forces in the Gulf were given United Nations authority to use necessary force to halt maritime shipping and inspect cargoes to ensure that sanctions were being respected. Resolution 665 was passed on August 25 with two abstentions and was crucial to giving United Nations framework for the activities of naval forces in the area, including our own. In response to the manipulation of the food issue by Saddam Hussein, the Security Council had to define the precise conditions under which food could be sent to civilians in distress in Iraq and occupied Kuwait.
Resolution 666 of September 13 addressed the question firmly and unambiguously; if United Nations and some appropriate agency had to accompany any delivery to ensure distribution to the civilian population. Further measures are in preparation. The sanctions must be continually defined and tightened. They must be policed. My colleague from Windsor, who has worked with me on South African matters, knows how important it is to police embargoes and police sanctions that are in place. That has to happen here. A further resolution concerning an air embargo will be presented at the Security Council meeting tomorrow, an extraordinary meeting, at the level of foreign ministers, dedicated, among other things, to demonstrate the very high priority that all of the world attaches to this response.
If Iraq's attack was an extraordinary violation of international law, so was the world's response an extraordinary example of common purpose. The whole of the international community joined in condemnation of Iraq. The ships in the gulf are from Britain, France, the United States, the Soviet Union, Canada, Australia and Argentina. The troops on the ground are from some of these countries, plus Egypt, Syria, Morocco and Bangladesh. With remarkable courage, the majority of the Arab world has demanded that Iraq leave Kuwait. This is not east against west nor rich against poor nor Arab against non-Arab. This is the world coming together to stop aggression. Naturally, Canada has played its full role. We are advocates of international order. We seek to defend it when it is broken and we seek to extend international order when we can. Ironically, this aggression by Iraq may have created conditions where common action by the world may become more the rule and less the
exception. Certainly, it is Canada's intention to seek to extend this new consensus in the United Nations.
Questions were raised about arm's embargoes. There is no question that is a very important matter now, thrown into relief by the sources of weapons involved in this conflict. Canada's record, as a matter of fact, is a good record with regard to our own policies but other countries in the world are not so good. There is no point our being effective unless others are. There is an opportunity now for us, not by showing the way. You do not accomplish things necessarily by showing the way. You accomplish things by sitting down with others and moving them forward with you.
We have had some experience in moral leadership. Moral leadership is fine, Madam Speaker. Moral leadership is quite important. Moral leadership is particularly important for celebrating empty victories. But if you are interested in making some significant changes in international events, you have to combine moral leadership with a very sharp sense of what can be accomplished and that is what we have been doing here. I believe, and it will be Canada's intention in the Security Council and elsewhere, that it is now going to be possible for us to have a more secure and comprehensive regime with regard to arms exports than has been the case in the past and it may indeed provide momentum for the discussions on chemical weapons.
Again, we have some experience here. Canada's reputation, Canada's diligence on these issues, has been successful in extending the arms control embargo as it has applied in the past to South Africa. I think in these new circumstances it will be possible for us to use that same commitment and leadership and skill to advance the possibility of arms embargoes to help prevent future crises of this kind.
I was asked if we are examining options, I believe it was the question, that would lead Iraq to withdraw and certainly we are. May I make three points about that. As we undertake that, we want to be careful not to complicate the resolution of this issue by drawing in other questions which have on their own proved extraordinarily difficult to resolve. I know the position that is being put forward by Saddam Hussein with regard to the inter-relation of all of the issues in that region. I think that we are justified in seeking to resolve this particular aggression now. I take the hon. member's point that the
September 24, 1990

region has changed irreversibly and very substantially. The question for us to face is how do we respond to those changes and do we put at risk the possibility of moving Saddam Hussein back by bringing in other issues which, while they have to be resolved, might not best be resolved in this circumstance.
Second, we are naturally going to be consulting closely with the Government of Kuwait with respect to any matters that might affect the nation, the state or the sovereignty of Kuwait.
Third, our authorities are under instruction as those of others in the world are to seek urgently imaginative options that might make a difference in this particular crisis.
The hon. member raised a question generally. I have tried to reply to him to indicate that we are looking very actively with as much imagination as we can to ways in which Canada might either find options that would work or advance them.
A point has to be underlined. I note that I am at the end of my time. This conflict is very dangerous to the world. Its ramifications will dominate global policy making for years to come. The challenge will be to maintain unwavering and consistent pressure to give diplomatic avenues a chance to succeed, but there must be a recognition on the part of the House and on the part of the country at large that there is no certainty that this issue will be resolved quickly.
We are in a very dangerous time in the world. We have an obligation as a country which has earned its credentials as a peacekeeper, diplomatically and militarily. We are under an obligation to deploy all our resources in ways that are consistent with our traditions and interests. That is what we have been seeking to do.
Yes, we have been innovative. Mr. Pearson was innovative when he stood against people who criticized the idea of using military forces in any peacekeeping role at all. We are prepared to be innovative in these circumstances, but we believe there is a requirement upon Canada to deploy all our resources-military, diplomatic and humanitarian-so that we can contribute in the best Canadian tradition to a resolution of a crisis that is as serious as anything we have known in decades.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments on the amendment to the amendment as moved by the previous speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak and I will leave it to other members, but there was one question that I will just put to the government side. The Secretary of State was good enough to answer several questions, but he missed this one and it is crucial.
As we now stand in the present situation, we are looking at very long, protracted sanctions in the gulf which could take months. We are looking at a very major military build-up that is taking place in Saudi Arabia with the various multinational forces, and we are looking at a potential military option.
We would like to get some assurance specifically from the government that we will not engage in any offensive action in this region unless there is a consent of Parliament and a mandate from the United Nations. Can the minister give us that assurance?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we are anticipating no offensive action. We cannot anticipate what Saddam Hussein might do. We cannot anticipate threats that might arise to Canadians, and I think the hon. member would want us to respond to those threats as appropriate.
I do not contemplate circumstances under which our anticipation would change. I give you my assurance that if the House is sitting, if it is not a weekend, if it is a week day, we would come to Parliament in the very unlikely event that what we anticipate changes. If not, that I or others would seek to consult with the spokesmen of other parties.
We are also urging, I should add, other countries to work within and to stay within the United Nations mandate. Part of our success in that will depend upon the United Nations mandate continuing to be large enough and contemporary enough to changing situations in the gulf that the temptation for other countries to operate outside it would be reduced.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with the latter point made by the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Of course the current mandate given by the Security Council is very specific with respect to the use of force in that area, and that is the mandate under resolution 665. It is strictly for purposes of enforcing

September 24, 1990
Government Orders
resolution 661. There is no other security council mandate at this point, as the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs is well aware.
I want to point out to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs that in fact-and I am sure it was unintentional on his part-he did unfortunately misrepresent the position taken by the leader of my party during her very eloquent contribution to this debate. The leader of my party made it very clear that the portion of the main motion to which we take exception are the words after "August 2"; in other words, the words dealing with "the despatch of members of the Canadian Forces to take part in the multinational military effort".
We have condemned the invasion. We have urged Iraq to recognize its responsibility to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait. We have indeed supported Canada's role in the Security Council today. That should be made very clear, and any suggestion to the contrary is completely without foundation.
I might just say as well that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked why Canada should not have moved more quickly, the reality is that the Security Council did meet before August 25 and it would have been prudent and indeed desirable for Canada to have waited until the Security Council had moved, as it did ultimately move under 665, before proceeding to send troops into that area.
I might say as well that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the response of many countries in this region. On July 31, two days before the invasion, the American government turned down efforts by a number of people in Congress to enforce trade sanctions against Iraq.
The Conservative government in November of last year was peddling all sorts of Canadian business at the Baghdad trade fair in November 1989 after the Iraqi government was responsible for the gassing, the chemical warfare against 4,000 Kurds in March 1988.
Following those comments, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he in fact agrees that Canada should be playing a role at the Security Council to ensure that no country, including the United States, will in fact take unilateral offensive military action against Iraq outside the framework of the United
Nations and, more specifically, outside the framework of the Security Council.
It is essential that we have that assurance as a Parliament, because failing that assurance the lives of the many troops that have been sent into that area from Canada are put directly at risk. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to give that assurance, and is he prepared to give the assurance that Canada will seek to establish a situation in which troops in the Middle East are there under United Nations command?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there were several questions there and some observations, including a confusion which I think I should elucidate, a confusion between a policy which would prevent the export of arms, which is what we are doing with regard to Iraq and to many other countries, and a policy which would say if there is behaviour that is objectionable to us we should stop all business with a country like Iraq.
I think it was that latter proposal that was put forward by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party. I think it important that that distinction be made because it would be unfortunate if we took attention away from the stand alone importance of the question of an effective arms embargo where we have to gather international support if we are going to make any progress. If we were suggesting a much broader approach which would say nobody does business with countries that behave in ways of which we disapprove, I can tell the hon. member he would know that our chances of success would not exist.
If I misinterpreted the amendment, which I only heard orally from his leader, then I apologize. I think that what she is saying, however, is that there should not have been a signal by Canada, that Canada should not have joined Egypt, should not have joined most of Europe, should not have joined Australia in sending a signal that would stop Saddam Hussein from carrying on his aggression. We do not think that it would be appropriate for Canada, as the Prime Minister said, to absent ourselves from our responsibility.
With respect to the member's particular question, we are working to ensure as much as we can, and ensure is a difficult word. We are using all of our influence to encourage all members of the world community to act within the framework of the United Nations. I have said that frequently in the House in this debate. That is
September 24, 1990

clearly what we are doing and that is the policy that we intend to follow. I reiterate to him that in order for us to be effective in pursuing that policy, it has to be clear to the rest of the world community that we are prepared not simply to talk about things, but that we are prepared also to deploy all our resources as they are appropriate: military, diplomatic, humanitarian.


Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I want to join in underlining the seriousness which the minister has echoed in his speech and make the following observation. The Secretary General in his comment indicated that we are possibly in the most serious situation of war since the Second World War. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that imaginative options are being pursued. I would like to encourage him and others in that direction and suggest that we are dealing with face saving on two sides in this case. Canada is uniquely positioned with President Bush as well as with Hussein.
Second, the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke about humanitarian assistance and Canada's contribution. Former President Julius Nyreve today suggested in speaking to the south report that the by-product of this Iraqi situation will mean to the nations of the south some $18 billion to $26 billion on already fragile economies. In meeting with our Security Council members, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs bring this to their attention and see what the world community can do to offset the suffering implied in that?
Third, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has spoken about seizing this moment. For many years in the time of the East-West confrontation we have looked at a standing UN peace force. There have been designs and models and because of the East-West confrontation we have not been able to move. Will Canada now, and will the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech to the United Nations indicate that Canada will move to try to establish the machinery for a UN standing peace force with battalions held in reserve by national governments so that in an emergency like this or in another regional area we will not be beholden to one superpower or another to act and thereby the accusations that somehow the world community is not fully behind us?
Government Orders


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, very briefly, there is unquestionably a crisis that is particularly acute for developing countries. In some cases it is not simply a crisis brought on by increased oil prices but also by the return of nationals who had been earning income in the gulf and are no longer able to do that and who indeed come back to contribute to an already difficult problem of under-employment of resources in their own countries.
These matters have been discussed in a preliminary way. The member from Winnipeg asked if they had been discussed at the G-7 meeting. They have been. I chaired a meeting on Saturday in Washington of the Inter-American Development Bank. They were discussed there. A point that does not take away from the importance of the question is that some of the developing countries are of course oil producers and there is consequently in some cases an impact that is not wholly negative on some of those countries, but in general the situation in developing countries is made more severe.
With regard to UN peacekeeping and a permanent force, I cannot comment on that specifically here today. I think the new interest which has been shown in the United Nations makes a number of sensible proposals that were not getting a lot of support in the past worth looking at again. I would not want that to be interpreted specifically with regard to the UN peacekeeping permanent force. The UN is facing an extraordinary demand upon its auspices hopefully in the gulf and certainly in Cambodia, and we have to seize this moment to try to ensure that the enthusiasm shown in response to this crisis becomes more general.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that this issue is so important and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, although I disagree with what he says, is so forthcoming as a parliamentarian in the debate, I seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the question and answer period for another 10 minutes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not have unanimous consent is not unanimous. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Labrador has the floor.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shef-ford on a point of order.

September 24, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I now move:
That the member for Lac-Saint-Jean be heard.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is admissible as moved. Is it the pleasure of the House-
Is there a seconder for that motion?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that since the motion has been put once in this sitting it cannot be put again. Is that correct?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No, that would not be the
case because obviously it would be a different member having been recognized.
I will have to go back to the yeas and nays because I have lost count.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is lost.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, for the purposes of this debate there were two main issues that faced Canadians this past summer. The first issue of course was the world crisis, possibly the most serious crisis that we faced certainly since the Korean War and possibly since the Second World War.
The first crisis was the world crisis and the threat. Canada responded to that in a way which we have learned in this debate not everybody appreciated.
The second issue that faced Canadians this past summer was a clear message from the people of Canada that they wanted to be consulted on what was happening in this country, in the governing of this country, and that they were going to hold all politicians, no matter what Parliament they served in, accountable for what was happening.
I contend that there were two crises: a growing threat of war and a growing threat of democracy. In dealing with the first issue, the growing threat of war, the government ignored the second issue, the growing threat of democracy. The government committed the Canadian Forces to the gulf with no consultation at all with Parliament or the people of Canada. There was consultation with the US. In fact the government reacted as a result of the request from the United States.
It was on August 6, the same day as the second resolution in the Security Council, that the Prime Minister went to Washington to consult with President Bush and there agreed to support the naval blockade in the gulf. Clearly Canada acted at the request and at the instigation of the United States, but at no time did Canada act in consultation with the Parliament or the people of Canada. This was unlike any other country with which we are associated now or with which we have been associated in the past. It was unlike, as my colleague from Winnipeg indicated earlier, Great Britain, which consulted its Parliament. It was unlike France. It was even unlike the United States because President George Bush, even when he was on the golf course, was consistently consulting and letting the people of the United States know what was happening and, indeed, consulting congressional leaders. He lives in a presidential system whereas we live in a parliamentary democracy. Unlike other parliamentary democracies with whom we are associated now and with whom we have been associated in the past, the government has not consulted Parliament and, through it, the Canadian people.
The government has said-that is the implied statement of the government-that this is not a serious enough issue on which to consult Parliament. It is not as serious as, for example, the parole bill for which Parliament was recalled some years ago. It was not as serious as the arrival of Tamils on the shores of Nova Scotia for
September 24, 1990

which Parliament was recalled in 1987. At that time the then Minister of Immigration said it was one of the most serious crises that Canada had faced and Parliament was recalled. But on this issue, which is the most serious issue which we have faced since the Korean War and, arguably, since the Second World War, there was no recall of Parliament.
That stands in stark contrast to the pattern of the past, of the entry into the Korean War for example. Parliament was sitting at the time in which Canada's participation was initiated, but Parliament prorogued for the summer and was recalled for an emergency session later to debate the entry into the Korean War.
So the practice this past summer is in stark contrast with what has happened before. We maintain that the government may have acted within the letter of the law as contained in the National Defence Act, but it has not acted within the spirit of the National Defence Act because that act clearly says that Parliament is to be recalled if Canadian forces are put on active service and if they are committed to a theatre of war. In doing so, we maintain that the government has compromised certainly the dignity and possibly the integrity of the Canadian Armed Forces because they had to change their plans to conform to the incompetent management of the Government of Canada.
It might be useful for us to recall some press clippings of the day that describe how the Canadian forces had to change their plan of action because of what they government was doing or, more importantly, not doing. Here is The Globe and Mail dated September 11:
Sources within the Canadian Forces say the government's commitment to the gulf has been consistently tempered by a reluctance to recall Parliament, and Defence Department spokesmen acknowledge that the ships' progress is tied to the date of Parliament's return.
Instead of sailing directly towards the Suez Canal and reaching the Red Sea early this week, the ship sought what department spokesmen called "other training opportunities-". The ships are currently in the Sicilian port of Augusta.
Asked whether there has been time for the ships to reach the Red Sea by now, navy spokesman Jeffrey Agnew said yesterday, "They could be there now. Yes."
Government Orders
However, the navy "scheduled a whole bunch of things" designed to ensure the ships did not arrive before Sept. 14. "Everything was back-dated from Sept. 24," he said.
A second department official, who did not wish to be named, said yesterday that the Canadian flotilla "is definitely not moving as quickly as possible."
Asked why the government did not order the ships to reach the Red Sea sooner and recall Parliament to authorize their status, Cmdr. Agnew said, "That is a political question, and not for me to discuss."
It is clear that there was a necessary change of plans by the Canadian Armed Forces to accommodate what the government was doing, or more importantly, not doing. Here is the report of that same time from Southam News.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's decision not to recall Parliament to debate the Persian Gulf crisis has temporarily stranded a convoy of three Canadian warships in Sicily.
Under the original timetable the three ships would not have been there until well after September 14.
But those plans fell apart on the weekend. On Saturday, Col. P.G. Boutet the defence department's chief judge and advocate, turned over a legal opinion concluding that the area of operation also included the Red Sea.
After being told that cabinet would not sign the order until Sept. 15, senior military officials decided to delay the ships which originally would have entered the Red Sea on Sept. 13 or earlier.
So it is very clear that the handling of this by the Government of Canada necessitated a change in plans by the Canadian Armed Forces. What signal does that send about the seriousness of our intent? What signal does it send to our allies? What signal does it send to the Canadian people? What signal does it send to the people in Halifax? What signal does it send to the spouses of Canadian forces personnel who went down to the jetties and who tied yellow ribbons in remembrance of those people who were going overseas. There are people in this House today who stood with them on the jetties and who understood the seriousness of what they were doing, who understood that this was a matter of duty for anybody in the Canadian forces. They did this willingly with a seriousness of purpose, with great sympathy, great compassion and with great sadness, only to discover that those ships spent two days off course, going through unnecessary manoeuvres because of the handling of this situation by the Government of Canada.

September 24, 1990
Government Orders
Those are the kinds of things that Canadians cannot tolerate and cannot appreciate. The Government of Canada may have acted within the letter of the law because the letter of the law says, if you put Canadian forces on active duty you have to recall Parliament within 10 days. But the spirit of the law clearly is that Parliament is to be consulted.
I maintain that if we have learned anything over this past summer it is that the people of Canada not only want that consultation but demand it. If there is one message coming through clearly after this past summer it is that the people of Canada want to know what the government is doing. More than that, they want to participate in what the government is doing and what is happening in this country. That is what the government failed to recognize. They followed the letter of the law of the National Defence Act, but they did not follow the spirit of the National Defence Act.
What will the government do? This question was raised by my colleague from Winnipeg just a few moments ago. I am not sure we have received an entirely clear answer as to what the government will do. We know what the government has done thus far and we know how the government has operated thus far. They have operated without consulting Parliament and without consulting the Canadian people.
Our sea forces are in the Gulf. They are under the aegis of the UN because of the resolutions that have been passed. But there are other forces on land in the Gulf which are not under the aegis of the United Nations. What happens if there is a declaration of war? What happens if the United States declares war? What will be the position of the Government of Canada then, and how will the Government of Canada act? I think Canadians want to have a clear answer to that question. I am not sure that we got a clear answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon.
While the people of Canada support the containment of aggression and the establishment of peace, they do not support Canada simply being an appendage of the United States. The people of Canada want an independent posture for this country. We are still an independent country and the people of Canada will want an independent posture and not simply a yes-man role for
the government. The government has to give a very clear answer to that question. I think the government has to give a very clear answer to that question.
Another matter the government has to give a clear answer to, and I have not heard it this afternoon yet, is what initiatives were taken in the Security Council to promote a peaceful resolution. In the past Canada has given a good account of itself in that forum but I ask the question, where is the equivalent of Lester Pearson today.
During the Suez crisis a Canadian was prominent in not only bringing about an important solution to a world problem but being seen to bring about an important solution to a world problem. Where is that same Canadian today? Where is that same leadership today? If in fact Canada is taking that kind of leadership in the Security Council, we do not know about it. There is no evidence. The Canadian people do not know about it, Parliament does not know about it. Exactly what has Canada done and exactly what is Canada doing within the Security Council to bring about a peaceful resolution of this? Now is the time to strengthen the UN. There is a window of opportunity.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said a moment ago, out of this crisis may come a strengthened UN. That is the hope of us all, but unless we work we cannot expect that to happen willy-nilly. We cannot expect that to happen inadvertently. We have to work at strengthening the UN. We have to ask again: what is the role of the Canadian government in this?
In conclusion I would like to say that Canadians are encouraged by the role that the UN has played in this crisis and we must seize this opportunity to assert the primacy of the UN. Second, Canadians abhor and deplore the actions of Iraq. We must underscore and emphasize that this party and the people of Canada, and indeed this House deplore what has happened in the Persian Gulf, deplore the aggression of Iraq. Canadians want an independent policy. They want to see that we are not simply an appendage of the United States but that we have a clear, national policy of our own.
Last, and above all, Canadians want to know what are the government's plans. They want to be consulted about

those plans and participate in the formulation of them. That has not happened up to now. It must happen now and in the future.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity to listen to my hon. friend.

For now, however, I have a question to ask on another subject. It relates to the comment to the effect that all Liberals would not necessarily have agreed to an early recall of the House.

During the past several weeks I met several of my hon. friend's colleagues. They all told me they were reluctant to return. One in fact said, "Don't believe that nonsense you hear from the leadership of our party. We have no intention of coming back early." What I want to ask my hon. friend to do is this: can he tell me what steps were taken to accurately poll the members of Parliament of his party-


The Acting Speaker (Ms. Greene):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: I think the minister knows that he cannot anonymously quote people of whom we are unaware. He is saying, "Anonymous friends called me", which is a private conversation. I do not think the minister should use that.


The Acting Speaker (Ms. Greene):: This is not a point of order. The hon. Minister of Transport.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I will come to the defence of my hon. colleagues opposite and say none of them are in the House today, which may speak to where they are.
I would like to know what were the results of that poll which the hon. member's party took? Will he be willing to make the results of that poll of his party's members of Parliament public? Will my hon. friend not admit that his colleagues from Ontario were involved in an election campaign, rather an early campaign which ended disastrously-


Bill Rompkey: That side of the House didn't do so well either.


Ms. Clancy:: Call an election.
Government Orders


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -and failing the production of that documentation, will my hon. friend not admit that the Liberals were not serious about coming back.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the answer is simply this. On this side of the House, unlike that side of the House, we still have some leadership. It is the leadership that decides what we do and that leadership decided we were going to come back. When our leader speaks, we listen, unlike the other side of the House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I have a comment. I have listened intently and I perhaps have a bit of a personal interest that some other people in the House do not have in this issue.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Wait a minute. I have that interest.


Ronald MacDonald: Of the three naval vessels that were ordered overseas by the Prime Minister, at least half, and perhaps a few more, of those men and women who are serving come from my riding. So, as everybody gets into the sterile debate as to whether or not this or that was done at the right time, I would like the government to understand quite clearly that it is not dealing with just pawns on a chessboard here. It is dealing with men and women who have been trained to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. But, more importantly, it is dealing with the families of those men and women who have been trained to serve in the Canadian Armed Force and who, for love of country, have decided to make this a career.
I have to tell the Speaker that I was not just annoyed, but I was highly insulted by the manner in which this government treated those families. What this government did was unconscionable. What it did was unprecedented. It ordered Canadian naval vessels to the Persian Gulf area. That perhaps in itself may be open to debate. I happen to think that Canada had a role to play.
I listened intently to the Prime Minister when he spoke earlier. He said that it acted against what was a flagrant abuse of international law. He was talking about Iraq, obviously. He said that was why the Canadian Forces were ordered in. I do not have a debate with that particular point, but let us take it a little further.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and others have talked at great length about why we did what we did, but there is a double-edged sword here. The people of Canada want to talk

Government Orders
about what they did not do, and what they did not do was keep the Canadian public informed through the proper forum and that was the floor of the House of Commons. They did not keep the men and women who were serving, the men and women who might be ordered over to serve, or their families, their loved ones, and their neighbours informed. What had to happen was that those individuals in my riding had to turn on the CNN evening news every night and watch George Bush on a golf course chatting between yells of "fore" or "Brian"-whichever one it was-to find out exactly what was going on. That is something the people in my riding and the people of the Canadian Armed Forces are not going to forget easily.
I know that you are telling me that my time is just about up, Madam Speaker, but this is an important point. I am speaking for a lot of individuals whose loved ones may be the first casualties if something happens in the Middle East and they want to see a debate in the House of Commons. They want the government called to account for why it did not inform the Canadian public through Parliament. But, more importantly, the day that those navy vessels went out, I and my colleague from Halifax sat down on the Halifax waterfront and watched those three naval vessels going out. We watched the Sea King helicopters flying past. We watched those men and women waving goodbye, many of them wondering if they were ever going to return.
There was something wrong there that day because, although we have an unprecedented engagement of Canadian naval vessels, the Prime Minister of Canada was not even there to see the men and women that he sent off to a potential theatre of war. That is something, if we do get to debate this a little later tonight, that I want to go into more detail. I want to go back very briefly to what my colleague from Labrador has said.
He talked about the need for this place to have been informed much sooner than what we have had to wait and I think that that is the debate that we should be having here tonight. We all understand the severity of the situation in the Middle East. We all understand our role within the United Nations, or at least we should. We all understand the potential for major disaster in the activities that are now taking place or have taken place
in the Middle East. But we should also understand that this government was absolutely negligent in its responsibility to the Canadian public.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Labrador who has just spoken a question with respect to the resolution of this very difficult conflict. Obviously, we join in calling for the unconditional withdrawal by Iraq from Kuwait. Under United Nations command, hopefully, through sanctions and the effective enforcement of those sanctions, we will be able to persuade Iraq to withdraw.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Labrador about the longer term and what the position of his party is with respect to one of the very serious issues that must be addressed in the longer term in this region. Indeed, even Secretary of State James Baker said before Congress last month that he recognized that this is an issue that must be addressed. I speak, of course, of the question of the tragic plight of the Palestinians and, of course, the hypocrisy of the Americans. On the one hand they are saying that we must enforce united resolutions when they agree with them, but on the other hand, they are refusing to call upon Israel to accept Resolution 242.
Therefore, does the hon. member for Labrador agree that an essential part of the longer-term resolution of this tragic conflict must be the convening of an international conference at which all of those parties who are directly affected-including the Palestinians and their representatives, the Palestine Liberation Organization-will participate and recognize the right of self-determination of the Palestinians, their right to a state and, of course, the right of Israel to exist within secure borders? Does his party support that very important position?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A short comment from the hon. member for Labrador.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I must say that, while the question is relevant and related to the debate, I am not sure it is an issue that we can get into in any depth. If we do, it seems to me we will be superseding this debate and proceeding with quite a different debate.
I would simply say this and this party is quite prepared to debate it at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place. The issue can better be solved with a stronger and more vibrant UN. If, out of this whole crisis, comes a strengthening of the United Nations, then obviously it
September 24, 1990

would be able to deal more adequately with that question as it will with other questions that may arise.
I do not believe that this is the forum in which we should get involved in a lengthy and detailed debate on that particular question.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I must say that I have been in the House and observed from outside the debate that has taken place to this point on the motion that has been put forward. I must again say that I am pleased to be able to address that motion concerning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
I want to focus briefly on Canada's response and, in particular, the decision to commit elements of Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf area. It is fair to say that we all recognize that this is a serious commitment of the government on behalf of Canada. Canada has taken a stand, along with other civilized nations in the world, against this brutal act of aggression against Kuwait.
I would like to take a moment, if I could, to explain the purpose of the Order in Council which I tabled earlier this day. The government believes that it is important to respect the longstanding tradition of the parliamentary system and that the deployment abroad of armed forces be debated in the House of Commons. This tradition is rooted in the history of the place. It stretches back almost 90 years to when Canada first sent troops to the Boer War. Over the years we have debated in the House and approved the deployment of Canadian forces abroad. The last time a deployment of this significance took place was in 1950 when the Government of Canada committed Canadian troops to take part in the United Nations peace-restoring or peace-making effort in Korea.
Once again, the world is faced with a flagrant act of aggression, a violation of international law and civilized values and, once again, Canada must stand up and be counted among those civilized countries opposing this act of aggression. Taking an easy position is not Canada's way. It has not been our history to seek the easy or the peaceful area to expound our beliefs. Traditionally, Canadians, men and women who serve this country, have been involved in the difficult decisions in the hard places
Government Orders
to show our belief in values and our belief that aggression cannot be tolerated.
As the Prime Minister said on August 10, the lessons of history are clear. Timing a blind eye to aggression only encourages further aggression. No civilized nation is excused from its broader responsibilities to the world community for international peace and order. If a clear warning is not sent to Iraq now, it will serve only to embolden it to find a new victim.
At the outset, the deployment of the elements of the Canadian forces represents a serious commitment by the government. Parliament has an important role to play. Parliament can be veiy helpful, the men and women assembled here and representing constituencies around Canada. Parliament, by being united, can send a strong message to the Iraqi government that we do not tolerate aggression. If we are united in the House, I suggest, as has the member from Halifax who was concerned about his constituents, we can best send a strong message of support to those men and women who are serving their country abroad.
I would suggest to all members of the House that there be support for the actions that have been taken. We ask for the approval of a strong Canadian commitment, not just words, not seeking a peaceful area, but taking a stand as we have historically and as we, as Canadians, have recognized in the past as being important.
There are basic international principles that we believe we uphold. I ask my colleagues in the House to consider the gravity of Iraq's action. I ask them to consider what would happen if the suggestion was that we should do nothing and the message that would send, that Canada would refuse to join a multinational military effort to enforce the sanctions of the United Nations. It would be fine to have those sentiments but not act. It would be fine to talk tough and not act. But it certainly would not be in the tradition of Canada and it certainly would not be in the tradition of the men and women who serve now and have served in the past.
I would suggest that there is a place for diplomatic actions and it has been actively pursued. We have heard in the House from colleagues who have identified those actions which have been taken by Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations to bring forward these resolutions

September 24, 1990
Government Orders
from 661 to 665. Those resolutions imposed the embargo and allowed nations with maritime force in the area to enforce the embargo.
Over the past number of weeks, there have been changes that have taken place. As a matter of fact, before Kuwait was attacked by Iraq, the Government of Iraq assured its Arab neighbours, and in particular President Mubarak from Egypt, that it would not attack its smaller neighbour, that it was only interested in a peaceful resolution. Quickly it broke off talks and annexed the small country of Kuwait.
This was done by a country that has, I would suggest, more military might than is needed for the defence of its own borders. It was done by a country that has waged an eight-year war against its neighbour. It was done by a country that placed under the pretext of negotiations some 150,000 troops on the border between Iraq and Kuwait, some 1,200 tanks, some 1,000 armoured personnel carriers while it was carrying on a facade of negotiating with a smaller and less militarily strong nation.
What we have at this time is a presence of Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf area to take place on position approximately October 1 or October 2. Ultimately we have to recognize the actions that were taken by the government, by the men and women who serve to ready themselves for this activity.
What we have and what we have committed are military forces in the Persian Gulf region to support an international effort to deter the aggression of Iraq and to enforce the sanctions that were applied under the United Nations.
Canada has believed and will continue to believe that there must be, if possible, a peaceful resolution of dispute. I suggest to my colleagues in the House that the actions that were taken initially after Iraq invaded Kuwait stopped that aggression where it only gobbled up one small country and did not continue in gobbling up its neighbours in the Persian Gulf area.
There has to be respect for the sanctity of existing states, borders and their citizens, and that is part of the mission of the Canadian forces along with the forces from some 25 other nations in this world.
There has been a suggestion that Canada made a decision because we were following the lead of other countries. Canada made a decision because what took place offended the sensibilities of Canadians. What took place offended the reality of today, and it is not just Canada. It is the United States. It is the U.S.S.R. It is Egypt. It is Australia. It is Afghanistan that my colleagues should understand. It is Bangladesh. It is Pakistan that has made commitments to stop aggression and to enforce the sanctions of the United Nations.
This is not something that is usual in the course of the United Nations. In the past, we have wished to see the United Nations act in a more determined manner, and it has been unable to do so. At this point with the action, co-operation and leadership in several cases of Canada, the United Nations has strengthened itself and has put in place sanctions that we believe are important, that we believe if Iraq understands the world condemnation will have it returned to the borders prior to its attack, to have it allow the citizens who it is detaining returned to their countries and to stop any further aggression by Iraq. There are a couple of things that have been accomplished by Saddam Hussein. I am not too sure that they are accomplishments that we would applaud, but at this time he has concentrated his forces on the borders of Saudi Arabia, threatening not only Saudi Arabia but the gulf states, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. He has, as I mentioned earlier, constrained citizens of other countries from leaving. He has threatened to use citizens of other countries as a shield, a sign of a true bully and a true bully who is a coward.
The effect of the embargo and the determination of Canada and other countries which are presently there is hope for the world. There has been a suggestion that Canada and the men and women who are serving do not have a definite mission. I think it is important to redefine again the mission.
The mission is that Canada has joined with other countries of the world, some 25, to deter further aggression and to enforce the sanctions of the United Nations. To this goal we despatched the three ships, Alhabaskan, Terra Nova and Protecteur, and almost 1,000 Canadian men and women. The preparation for that departure was concluded in a very brief period of time. I compliment the men and women, both in and out of uniform, who accomplished a goal that was at some point recognized

as being heroic. Their work and their dedication are an important aspect of this and should not be forgotten. But we had some work to do and we had it accomplished.
We have put new systems on the vessels, the Javelin anti-air missile, the Phalanx close-in system as well as 50 and 40 calibre millimetre anti-aircraft guns. We were able to deploy on August 24 and they entered the Red Sea on September 16 and within a 24-hour period will pass through the Straits of Hormuz.
We also made another decision to send a squadron of CF-18 fighter jets from the Canadian Forces base in Baden. We are currently discussing with the countries in the area as to the location of our air force but that will be concluded in a very short period of time. That again involves the deployment of some 450 plus Canadian personnel to support this operation. But the role of our vessels which has been recognized as that of enforcing sanctions against Iraq will be through surveillance, through monitoring and, if necessary, interception of ships to verify their cargoes and their destinations.
Under Security Council resolution 665 our maritime forces are authorized to use such measures as may be necessary to halt all inward and outward shipping to ensure that the sanctions are not being violated. The CF-18s will provide long-range defence air cover in the operating area of the Canadian task group and will be part of an integrated multinational air defence network in the gulf area. Together with those defensive resources of other countries, our CF-18s will investigate unidentified or hostile aircraft and ships that could be capable of attacking the Canadian task group or other allied ships. They will also investigate any unknown radar contacts and take appropriate action to protect the men and women on Canadian ships.
On September 9 and 10 Canada took part in the naval conference in Bahrain to discuss co-operation among the various nations involved.
The purpose of that meeting was to allocate operational sectors within which each nation could operate within the Red Sea, the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf.
For a number of reasons, military reasons-I refer this to my friend from the NDP-these were decisions made
Government Orders
by military leadership for the safety and security of Canadian men and women. The place they could do their best work was in the Persian Gulf area. They could do that work in co-operation with other countries and they would end up having the benefit, not only of Canadian support, but the support of other allied countries in an over-all umbrella and an over-all activity within a region.
The hon. member from the New Democratic Party asked: "Who is in command"? The forces that are deployed are under Canadian command and control at all times and they will remain under Canadian command and control at all times.
I do not know whether the hon. member understands the significance of that. Canadians have long ago given up the right to another country or another jurisdiction to command and control our men and women who are deployed on behalf of the people of Canada in any conflict around the world.
Madam Speaker, the questions as to the risk are serious. There is risk in any activity involving forces. Indeed, today there is more risk involved in this activity probably than there has been at any time since the Korean war. That risk was weighed. It was not weighed by politicians. It was weighed by military leadership. That risk was assessed as being acceptable.
I want to give colleagues some idea as to how that decision was arrived at. Yes, Iraq has a very impressive standing army of some 5,000 main battle tanks, but these land forces do not pose a significant risk to Canadian air and naval operations in the region. The Iraqi air force has approximately 500 combat aircraft. The navy, on the other hand, consists of a small number of frigates and coastal patrol craft. Both the Iraqi navy and air force are equipped with anti-ship missiles.
I want to take a minute to talk about the defensive capabilities. In addition to the active defence systems that were put on the task group before it left Halifax, our ships have new passive defensive including mine detector sonars, chaff dispersers and air search radars. The Terra Nova has been fitted with harpoon surface-to-surface missiles. These systems will enable our vessels to defend themselves against a potential missile threat and thus fulfil their role in the Persian Gulf.

September 24, 1990
Government Orders
With the Phalanx anti-aircraft guns and missiles as well as the passive defence systems we should be able to effectively operate against any threat posed by the Iraqi anti-ship missiles.
The squadron of CF-18s which has been deployed will also help in the defence of our vessels. The pilots and ground personnel which will be drawn mostly from Europe are trained and experienced. They are experienced in multinational air defence operations. Indeed, some have already trained with the task group as it proceeded into the gulf area.
I believe one of the most difficult things to defend against and one of the weapons that Canadians have difficulty in understanding is that of chemical warfare.
I am not too sure what the comment was from the New Democratic Party. I am sure they will have a chance to speak later.
I want to assure Canadians and I want to bring to the attention of the families of the men and women who are serving that even though the Iraqis have been ruthless in the use of chemical weaponry-They have used it against their own people, the Kurdish minority in their country. They it used in Iran-we have assessed the chemical threat. We have taken steps to ensure that we will be able to meet that threat.
Those steps are involved with the external sprinkling system. They are the opportunity to rinse off the contamination, the opportunity to seal off our vessels and pressurize compartments, and all crew members have been provided with individual protection suits and gas masks. In the CF-18 in the aircraft area there is also the protection that is necessary against possible chemical attack.
I know you are giving me the time signal, Madam Speaker, but I believe it is important to take a minute in closing to talk about the over-all defensive capability of our task force. It will be enhanced by other task groups in the area, and it will be enhanced by the co-operation of those groups. Some naval forces possess longer range detection and defensive systems against aircraft and missiles than Canadian vessels do.
All these factors, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, have made the risk acceptable. That does not mean that it should be taken lightly. That does not mean that we should discount it, but I believe with the co-operation of both naval and air and in co-operation with allied forces in the region in this multinational effort we will be able
to ensure that those men and women have the best protection that Canada can provide, the best opportunity to bring about a successful conclusion of their mission which, again I reiterate, is to enforce the sanctions levied by the United Nations and to deter any further aggression.
Canada has been a long-standing member of the United Nations, and we would not be expected at this time to relegate ourselves to a minor role in an important task that has been designed and debated.
I say in closing that under Canadian command and control the provision of our co-operative efforts in a multinational effort we are contributing to the longstanding aims and goals of the Canadian foreign policy. We are supporting actively the United Nations. We believe that it is in the true historic tradition of Canada that we do take tough decisions, that our men and women serve well, and that we do not and will not tolerate aggression.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I know that all members of the House view this as a very important debate. As a result I have been back and forth across the floor several times today in an attempt to negotiate a way by which we could as a House agree to extend hours and allow a fuller participation by all members on all sides of the House.
I would just like to ask once more publicly if there might not be unanimous consent for the following motion:
That this House sit beyond seven o'clock p.m. to continue its consideration of the business now before it provided that when no members rise to speak the debate be deemed adjourned and the Speaker adjourn the House until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., and;
Provided also that neither dilatory motions nor quorum calls be accepted by the Chair.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion presented by the parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.

Motion negatived.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I think it is no mystery to my colleagues that I know that part of the world pretty well, if I may say so. I do not wish to underestimate this knowledge nor to overestimate it. It is quite complex. I will certainly take part in the debate to come.
I can think of a few points I would like my hon. colleagues to ponder over.
As one who, in his long career, has had the honour to travel in most of those countries and to put out a number of fires, I can tell you that I have always been careful for some reason. I did not make any concessions, that would have been out of character for me. I have yet to visit Lybia and Saudi Arabia. Those are about the only countries left for me to visit in that area.
I spoke before the Parliament of Kuwait in the days when it existed, that is before it was dissolved by the Emir. It is rather unusual for a North-American parle-mentarian to speak there.
I have learned one thing though. One may know when and how he entered the Middle-East, but let me remind you that, according to another proverb, one never knows when or how he will get out of the Middle-East. Please think about it before we get into the debate.
Since the beginning of the debate, especially as regards our neighbours and friends to the South, I have found outrageous all the new and dreadfull names used, the sudden equation Hussein-Hitler. I have no intent to defend Mr. Saddam Hussein. I have met him, but I will not stand up for him. I am surprised however by such sudden discovery of who he is and by how suddenly people came to realize that he is armed with the most destructive weapons in the world. His nuclear capacity is not as strong as that of Israel, I agree, but chemical and bacteriological weapons do cause disasters. Let us keep in mind, when the time comes to debate that question, that many young people risk being killed by the very weapons that there own countries, be it France or another country, have sold to Irak.
Government Orders
What I want to ask the minister has to do with the new war logic. French President Mitterand keeps saying that we are on the verge of endorsing war logic principles. My esteemed colleague and friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy), my Party's new critic on Canadian foreign affairs, is a brilliant man fully conversant with such issues. He knows that when people talk about a war logic-I direct my remarks to the Minister of National Defence-they seem to forget that there should also be a peace logic. Obviously the minister stated that we will do our share. The Prime Minister made a few comments, superlative as usual. I suggest that Canada's contribution should be made at the diplomatic level.
My question to the minister is precise: other than this war logic which, we are told, seems to fascinate all nations of the world, is there a peace logic to which Canada would more readily subscribe? I think I will make a suggestion, the first. Referring to countries like Canada, Algeria, Senegal, India, I ask the Minister of National Defence whether his department and the Department of External Affairs now have a committee considering the best contribution Canada might make to this debate?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my colleague puts forward an important question and I understand the dilemma in which he finds himself, as others in the House may find themselves.
He asked a specific question: Is there a group or are we in the Department of National Defence and in the Department of External Affairs looking at other things that Canada can do to bring about a peaceful resolution?
Yes, Mr. Speaker. At the outset, Canada, through its ambassador and its seat on the Security Council, has been focusing on the involvement of the United Nations in this action, not one country but the United Nations, and we are continuing to work in that manner. Both our departments, if I could say to my colleague, would welcome and are working toward and imploring the United Nations to put a blue flag over the whole of the multinational effort. That is what Canada would like to see, but we cannot wait for the United Nations to make that decision because, as we know, in the past the United Nations at times has not been able to arrive at a decision. If he is asking about the efforts, both government

Adjournment Debate
departments, in fact the whole of government, would welcome that initiative and are working toward it in the United Nations. Hopefully we will be successful.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, first of all the House should know that we fully support our troops and the men and women who are there. What we have some difficulty with is the clarity of the government's policy in this area. I would just like to ask the minister for some very specific and clear commitments to this House.
He has said that the troops are under Canadian command, and he said that very emphatically. I would like to know what directions the government has given to the commanding officers in the Persian Gulf in respect of the outer limits of their mandate.
A retired rear-admiral in the United States has given quite an excerpt on the view of the American government, that it is moving into an offensive build up in the Middle East. Many other military analysts have said the Americans are preparing for an offensive assault on Iraq that at this stage has no UN sanction whatever. The chief of staff of the United States Air Force was fired because he made it veiy clear publicly that the Americans were building up an offensive capacity in the gulf.
UN resolution 665 which the government has relief on in support of its direction of our troops into that area very specifically calls on members states to deal with the necessary military involvement to "halt all inward and outward maritime shipping in order to inspect and verily their cargoes and to ensure strict compliance with the provisions related to such shipping laid down in UN resolution 661".
My question is very specific. Will the minister assure this House and the country that the government has given clear direction to the commanding officers of the Canadian contingent in the gulf that they are not to participate in any offensive action in the gulf and that their mandate for military involvement is not to exceed the terms of reference of resolution 661?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: If I can be brief, Mr. Speaker, we have not given definitive direction, as the member asks, that their terms of reference will not exceed 661.


John F. Brewin: 665.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Then 665. That is different.
There is another thing that we have continually said, that we are also there to deter further aggression. That is part of the mission that has been given to the Canadians who are serving. They are given the ability, and their rules of engagement will not deter from their ability to defend themselves. The assurance that I can give the hon. member is that they do not have their ability for self-defence deterred by the rules of engagement that they have been given.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this first day back in session because I was extremely dissatisfied with an answer given to me by this government during Question Period.
In her answer to me the minister responsible for the status of women said that violence against women was her top priority. Yet she and her government have put a spending limit on the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal-provincial funding mechanism for shelters for battered women.
Three provinces were singled out for this spending limit. My own province of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. The Minister for National Health and Welfare replied to my question about CAP by saying that only the rich provinces are affected by this spending limit.
Well I said, Mr. Speaker, that the women in British Columbia who are battered are just as battered and bruised as any abused women in this country. Their pain is real. It makes no difference to them when they are being battered that they live in a so-called have province.
Currently the government says it is spending a fortune, a lot of dollars on battered women, and the figures that it releases does sound like a lot of money until you realize that this figure is spread out over four years and that much of it is spent on research and not on shelter spaces.

The figure amounts to $10 per year per battered woman. One of every two women who seeks shelter at a refuge for battered women is turned away because there is no space for her. These women often have small children and the shelter is their last resort. There is nowhere for them to turn except to the streets or to go back to the abuser.
A woman and her children usually arrive at a shelter when all of their options have been exhausted. She has already tried her family and her friends. She does not have the money for a hotel or an apartment. And this government claps itself on the back and says what a wonderful job it is doing for battered women.
The legislation that puts a spending limit on CAP passed the House of Commons and is now in the Senate. The Prime Minister is currently attempting to stuff the Senate with Tory appointees so that the CAP legislation and other legislation will go through quickly.
What we are seeing in this country is a level of patronage appointments that is unprecedented. Canadians are sickened by this display by the Tory Prime Minister. We have had a summer of discontent in Canada, a difficult summer for all Canadians, and our Prime Minister refused to recall Parliament to deal with these issues.
Now the Prime Minister wants to shut down Parliament, shut down this session as soon as possible. In this way he and his government can avoid their responsibility to Parliament and their responsibility to Canadians, the responsibility with the crisis at Oka, the responsibility with the Persian Gulf crisis on which we have heard debate today, the responsibility over GST and all of the Tory unpopular policies.
My constituents in New Westminster and Burnaby elected me to represent them on important issues facing them and affecting British Columbians and other Canadians. The Prime Minister is thwarting democracy by attempting to stifle the voices of members of Parliament and not listening to the Canadian public. This whole affair not only shows that the Prime Minister and his government have no commitment to the poor, to the children, and to battered women in this country, but also no real commitment to Senate reform.
New Democrats have been offered Senate seats in the past and they have always turned them down. They have
Adjournment Debate
turned them down because New Democrats do not believe in a non-accountable body and people living on the public purse without accountability to the people.
Under a New Democratic Party government you would not see British Columbians singled out for punishment in this matter. You would not see social assistance, child care, shelters for battered women choked off by capping the Canada Assistance Plan.
A recent National Council of Welfare report showed that 60 per cent of the poor in Canada are women. In British Columbia the federal and the provincial governments are collaborating to ensure that they and their children do not have enough to eat.
One in five Canadian children is poor. New Democrats have outlined ways to ease this poverty with a view to eliminating it in the long term.
There are two foods banks in my constituency. Poverty is a national disgrace. It affects seniors, single parent families, children, the disabled and the working poor.
Children are the largest users of food banks in this country. In a country as rich as ours, it should be a crime to choke off social assistance and child care programs as well as programs to aid women who are victims of violence.
We need programs that will help people to get back on their feet again, not inadequate programs that dole out money once in a while. Literacy, job training and counselling are all necessary to help people become self-sufficient.
Shelters for battered women funded through CAP are not simply a roof over the heads of victims of violence, although that is extremely important. They help the woman to find a job, housing, schools or child care for their children. They provide the counselling that tells the woman what she most needs to hear, that she is a valuable human being and that she does not deserve abuse. She needs to hear that help is available and that others in our society do care.
The shelters refer women to doctors or lawyers who they may need. They offer support groups and a new start on life. These are the programs that this government wants curtailed. Other programs funded by CAP

September 24, 1990
Adjournment Debate
do not even have the chance to develop the way the shelter program has.
The goal of all social assistance should be to help people to become self-sufficient again, to break the cycle of poverty and not to reinforce it.
I call on this government to stop this legislation and to put a ceiling on the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, strange though it may seem, I would like to thank the hon. member for Westminster-Burnaby for giving me a chance to respond to her question about what the government is doing about its priority on fighting family violence.
The hon. member knows perfectly well that since May 14,1990, when she asked this question, there have been a number of unprecedented events in this country, including, Mr. Speaker-and unfortunately she is right-the events in Oka, in my riding, and in Chateauguay, as a result of which there was no mention of the women and children murdered over a period of five weeks. Mr. Speaker, family violence is taking on alarming proportions.
She said that the Budget proposals would cap increases in payments to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia at 5 per cent.
She also referred to unpopular measures our government must take. I think she may be right. We are taking unpopular measures in order to curb the deficit, so that we can keep essential programs like those that deal with family violence.
She ought to know that more than one billion in real dollars, and I repeat "real", will be paid under the Canada Assistance Plan during the current fiscal year, and this is only for provincial programs designed for victims of violence.
There is one very important program, Project Haven, under which $22 billion has been earmarked over a period of four years, across the country, to create new spaces for women and children who are victims of family violence. In my own riding, la Maison Citadelle in Lachute has been involved in this program, and we have been able to allocate about $200,000 for the construction of new beds.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the program did not exist, because that would mean there are no women or children who are victims of family violence. Unfortunately, the reality in this country is quite different.
I can inform the House that the Department's program for shelters has been very successful. Of course it is not enough. We would need $44 million. However, I would urge the hon. member and all members of this House to speak out against violence and try to help both men who are violent and women who are victims of family violence.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, last March I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question about the latest annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission in 1988 referred to the situation of aboriginal people in this country as a national tragedy. Last year the commission said it had no reason to alter that judgment.
I asked the minister last March what immediate action the government was prepared to take to turn this tragedy around. The minister gave the standard government response. He referred to how much money the government was spending and to certain areas of current government activities. At the same time he acknowledged that further improvement in the conditions of aboriginal people is required.
What has the government done since then to further improve the conditions of aboriginal people? We have seen no improvement whatsoever. In fact, the government has managed to make matters even worse, as the events of this summer and the Oka crisis have shown.
The Human Rights Commission's 1989 annual report called for a new deal for the aboriginal people of this country, based on the commitment by non-aboriginal Canadians to meaningful political and cultural autonomy and much greater economic self-sufficiency. To date the government has not shown any evidence of such a commitment, despite the growing body of advice it has received on the direction it should be taking.
September 24, 1990

In 1983 the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government provided a clear direction to the government with respect to aboriginal self-government. In 1985 the Task Force on Comprehensive Claims Policy outlined several new directions for the government in the interest of reaching fair and equitable land claim settlements. The major recommendations of these reports have been ignored.
Aboriginal leaders have tried over the years to focus the attention of the government on aboriginal issues. Time and time again the government has been warned that the current conditions are intolerable and cannot be allowed to continue and that the patience of the aboriginal people is running out. Time and time again the government has not listened. The government has refused to make the abysmal social and economic conditions of aboriginal people a priority on the national agenda. Unacceptable conditions in a western industrialized country as rich as Canada are allowed to persist.
With the World Summit for Children coming up this weekend, it is appropriate to remind the House of how badly the government has failed Canada's aboriginal children. Aboriginal people are the poorest of the poor in this country. Poor health and early deaths are among the consequences of aboriginal poverty.
Last year the Canadian Institute of Child Health published a report on Canada's children. That report described once again the continuing inequalities between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. A newborn child in the Canadian population as a whole is expected to live 76 years. A newborn aboriginal child has a life expectancy of 68 years. Infant morality rates among aboriginal people are double the national average. Suicide rates among aboriginal people are many times higher than the national Canadian average.
According to the report of the Child Health Institute, when it comes to the health of aboriginal children we have Third World problems within our society.
The Prime Minister will be co-chairing the World Summit for Children and I suggest that this government and this country cannot be part of the existing and continuing disparities between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. In addition to any concerted action on aboriginal social and economic issues, the government
Adjournment Debate
has steadfastly refused to deal with the fundamental political issues which are at the root of this country's relationship with its aboriginal peoples.
Justice for aboriginal people in the country has been delayed and denied over and over again. Lands claimed by aboriginal people continue to be eliminated even when negotiations are proceeding. Logging and forms of resource development are allowed to continue on lands which aboriginal people have not given up. Throughout the country aboriginal people continue to be harassed in the exercise of their aboriginal hunting and trapping rights in violation of their rights, court decisions, and the Constitution of Canada.
Under this government, post-secondary education was capped and many aboriginal students were denied the opportunity to pursue higher education. Aboriginal constitutional negotiations were terminated by this government. With this history of neglect, the government should not be surprised that the aboriginal people and many other Canadians believe the government has failed them.
In conclusion, the government will continue to fail aboriginal people as long as it insists on its present course. Fundamental change is needed now. Aboriginal people need justice and political action from this government, not platitudes.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that there is a long way to go in Canada in the treatment of our Indian and native peoples, but in fact the government is committed to making changes. I think we should put the question into perspective and talk a little bit about some of the advances that have been made over the last 18 years or so.
We are committed to progress in all the areas that the hon. member has mentioned. Some of that progress has been made, and more will be made, through co-operation with the Indian people and the Inuit people themselves. In fact, Mr. Yalden pointed out in his own report that significant improvements have been made over the past several years.

Adjournment Debate
Our government is absolutely committed to strengthening the capacity of Indian peoples to provide their own government and to design systems that will be flexible to serve the needs of the communities that we are dealing with-programs that are really designed to meet the individual needs of the Indian and Inuit people who are involved, rather than quite as bureaucratic as has been perhaps in the past.
Steady progress has been achieved in transferring control of program expenditures to Indians over the past 18 years as I have mentioned. For example, in 1971, Indians managed only 20 per cent of the budgets that were set aside for their use. In 1990-1991, Indians will manage over 72 per cent of these budgets and that counts for over $1 billion in their hands for the delivery of services to Indian and Inuit peoples across the country.
Substantial progress is also being made in other areas. For example, in education, only 53 band-operated schools existed in 1975, but some five times more than that number, 280, existed last year in 1989. Enrolment in post-secondary education in 1989 had increased over 35 per cent from 1985. Contrary to interpretations that were put upon this in the report, post-secondary education budgets were actually increased very significantly to $149 million.
In the area of child welfare, there is no question that there is a need for improvement and that has been recognized. Therefore, in co-operation with Indian leadership, the federal government has entered into arrangements whereby Indian-operated child welfare agencies provide child and family services for many Indian communities. These are agencies operated by the people themselves.
Economic self-sufficiency for aboriginal people is also a priority. It is a priority for the government. This is evidenced by the establishment of the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, or CAEDS as it is more commonly known. This strategy is a very positive initiative aimed at helping Indian and Inuit people to build their own economic structure.
In collaboration with Indian people, changes to the Indian Act are being considered. Through the lands, revenues and trust review, there is collaboration that will bring about changes that will recognize Indian authority over their own lands and money and the governance of these.
Another priority is the development of community-based self-government. The objectives of this initiative are to enhance community control and decision making and to recognize all those diverse needs and traditions that are there. Currently eight projects involving 30 bands are in negotiations. Fifteen projects involving 29 bands are working more closely toward framework agreements and over 100 bands are at the initial state of defining what community development and government means to them.
I know there is a long way to go on the issues that the hon. member mentioned, but the government is committed to achieving those goals and with co-operation and collaboration we will do so.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, education, in all its aspects is, and should be, a right of all Canadians. Post-secondary education is increasingly a necessity in today's fast-paced and ever-changing world. Because of this, it is essential to the welfare of Canadians and Canada to ensure that Canadians from all backgrounds are given the opportunity to attend a post-secondary education institution if they have the ability to do so and if they wish to do so. This, unfortunately, is not the case.
As Canada is a mosaic of different people from different backgrounds and cultures, so must be our education system. More must be done to include those with lower incomes, women, native peoples, visible minorities, and Francophones outside of Quebec. Not only are these groups presently under-represented in our post-secondary education institutions, but they are also hurt the most when government funding is cut and tuition fees increase.
Although advances have been made in the past 25 years, the great majority of potential students in Canada still do not attend a post-secondary education institution. Research shows that a disproportionate number of university students have an upper or upper-middle class socioeconomic background. Much potential talent remains under-developed in other socioeconomic groups. Higher fees, along with rising living expenses and cuts in aid programs, all lead to higher debt loads which further hinder accessibility if the student does, in fact, decide to attend a post-secondary education institution.
September 24, 1990

Education involves personal and intellectual development. It gives students a base of skills, as well as cultivating the ability to adapt, innovate and make responsible judgments. In doing so, not only does the student benefit, but society does as well. Individuals return benefits to society by becoming active, working participants in their community. The growing assumption is that for a person to contribute in society, one must have some form of post-secondary education. Without it, Canadians fear they will be left behind.
Although the investment made by the federal government must be considerable, so will be its future return. By making post-secondary education more accessible, more students are given the opportunity to contribute to society upon receiving their qualifications. A post-secondary degree opens the door to better, higher-paying jobs and opportunities. In the long run, support in keeping post-secondary education accessible through lower fees and increased funding, contributes greatly to the economy.
With federal support, education can be an equal base for all students, allowing them to advance according to personal achievement. With decreasing federal support and with fee increases, fewer students will be able to attend a post-secondary education institution. We cannot allow policies that will create a student body composed almost exclusively of those who calculate education simply as an investment in their own future or who can be comfortable with astronomical debts, equivalent to years of employment earnings.
In the past, higher levels of schooling were seen as a factor in economic growth and democracization of the system was seen as a necessary condition for greater social and political equality. Both the federal and provincial governments called education a top priority. The general public rallied to that idea and we saw an increased demand for higher education and an increased demand for extensive financial support from governments. Even today, 88 per cent of Canadians do not want the cuts to post-secondary education that the government has proposed in Bill C-69.
The objectives became to expand and diversify institutions and to encourage individuals to pursue higher education while providing financial assistance to those most in need. To meet the goals, a number of policies were implemented. The number of available places in universities were increased. New universities were founded and the non-university, post-secondary educa-
Adjoumment Debate
tion sector became an important alternative to university studies and a complete network of community colleges and CEGEPs were established.
In the seventies, both levels of government also established student aid programs and post-secondary institutions did their part. More flexible admission policies were implemented, short-term and night courses were developed, and satellite campuses and distance education facilities were set up.
As the seventies gave way to the eighties, funding for post-secondary education gave way to financial retrenchment and constraint. A profile of post-secondary students completed in 1987 revealed that their earlier gains were wiped away and areas that needed improvement never received it.
We had an over-representation of richer Canadians, and an under-representation of those groups who had previously been under-represented: native peoples, women, visible minorities and so on. It also found that students from more modest backgrounds chose a community college education as opposed to university education more often than those in the higher income level.
More people look to education as an alternative as labour markets became more difficult. Many attended post-secondary education institutions for the first time.
Student fees began to be pushed upwards. In the eighties, the percentage of university budgets derived from student fees edged up from 10.6 per cent to 14.5 per cent. Including other costs, students are now responsible for carrying over 25 per cent of university costs. Some call for the deregulation of fees and the privatization of the post-secondary education system. But to do so would ignore the federal responsibility to our children and their future, as well as the future of Canada.
The federal government has an obligation to provide for the national interest and the common good of Canada. This is too great a responsibility to be left solely to the provinces because the long and short-term consequences affect the nation as a whole.
The standard of education throughout Canada must be guaranteed, and it is a shame that this government is perfectly content to cut money to the have not provinces as well as to the have provinces. This decision is leading to a two-tier if not more tiered system, a system which will enable the wealthy to have a better system of education than the less wealthy.

September 24, 1990
Adjournment Debate
This government is not dealing with the education crisis. It is covering up the problem, presumably hoping it will go away. It is doing this without treating the in-depth problem and is disregarding the damage done to Canada's national and cultural consciousness as well as the economic stability of future generations of Canadians.
The government can and must do more. Canadians need and deserve better support for their post-secondary education system. Without it, the future of Canada is at stake. It is time that the government realized that words alone do not solve the problem. Action must speak louder than words.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing makes a number of points that I cannot help but agree with, because he is talking about the people who are the future of Canada.
Of course we all realize that not only those who are attending post-secondary schools in 1990, 1991 or 1992 but for the decades to come will continue to represent the true future of our country.
If we are really going to be looking after their future and the future of this country properly, we have to recognize that the biggest problem we are facing in Canada is the annual deficit.
I am proud to say that this government has addressed expenditures. It has tried to maintain restraint programs more than any other government in Canada in history.
When we first came to office, the federal government was spending $16 billion more on programs than it was collecting in revenues. Today our program spending is $9 billion less than revenues. This is a $25 billion a year turnaround in the stretch of a five-year restraint program.
Seventy per cent of this progress has resulted from expenditure restraint. To achieve that progress, we have reduced program spending as a share of the economy to the lowest level in almost 20 years.
Significant progress has been made in reducing the deficit problem that this government inherited. However, more needs to be done because of the huge deficits built up before 1984.
Federal transfers to the provinces are simply too large for us to ignore. Our transfers to the provinces have been increasing over the last five years at 6.5 per cent annually. Our expenditures have been increasing at only 3.6 per cent. Cash transfers alone to the provinces represent 24 per cent of all of our program spending.
Therefore, in this budget the proposal is to hold the per capita transfers for the next two fiscal years. These transfers have not been cut, they have been capped. It is part of a responsible government's job to ensure that there is a strong, healthy future for young Canadians. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 25,1990