1990-09-27

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture concerning Funding of the Canadian Native Arts Foundation.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
1989-90 ANNUAL REPORT
As well, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 47 of Part III of the Broadcasting Act and to Standing Order 32(5), I have the honour to table the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year 1989-90.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

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



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Considering the recent developments at Oka, particularly in the last few hours, I was anticipating that the Minister of Indian Affairs would be making a statement, indicating what the government plans to do in response to the blockade being taken down.
Perhaps I could ask the government House leader, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the minister will be making a statement later in the day. If he is, we are quite prepared to provide that opportunity for him in terms of changing the Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out that the hon. member is asking a question under the guise of a point of order. The hon. House leader may wish to respond but I think, strictly speaking, there is no obligation to do so at this point.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Hon. Andree Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present in the House, in both official languages, the eighth and ninth reports on the activities of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES ACT


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-83, an Act to revise and amend the law

September 27, 1990
Routine Proceedings
governing federal trust and loan companies and to provide for related and consequential matters.


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


Gilles Loiselle: The purpose of this bill is to improve the structure and operations of Canadian institutions. It updates the regulations governing trust and loan companies-


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Gilles Loiselle: The Canadian consumer will benefit from increased competition and a wider range of services.
This bill would strengthen the ability of Canadian financial institutions to compete at home and abroad by giving them new opportunities for growth.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. He is right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that I said to him out of courtesy and I thought for a moment in absolute certainty of my procedure that his intervention was well taken. It was up to a point. The minister does have the option. Perhaps we could discuss it.



COMMEMORATION OF THE BIRTHPLACE OF CONFEDERATION ACT


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-330, an act to commemorate the birthplace of Confederation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce this bill asking the Parliament of Canada to designate Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island as the birthplace of Confederation. This has been the goal of many Prince Edward Islanders for a long period of time and I ask you, the representatives of all the people of Canada, to give your support to the first reading of this bill.


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

['I take nothing away from the seriousness of the matter that the hon. member has raised, a matter of concern to all members here and to Canadians across the country. I also point out that there was a long debate two nights ago and I think that it would be appropriate to wait and see how events unfold later on today.\nThe hon. member has raised a matter which is, as I said, of great importance, but at least at the moment it would not be appropriate to order an emergency debate. I thank the hon. member for raising the matter.']
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Routine Proceedings to seek the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to put the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, a committee of members travel
to the Middle East region to consult with members of the Canadian
Armed Forces, to observe all aspects of their operations and report its
findings back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: No.
Motion negatived.



George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present a number of petitions from the Canada Employment and Immigration union employees asking that they be granted pay and benefits the same as full-time employees.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions from hundreds of individuals from my riding and around Nova Scotia. It is particularly appropriate on this day to present them.
The petitioners urge the government finally to see the error of its way and withdraw the regressive, unfair tax grab called the goods and services tax. They feel that this tax is not only unfair but is unprecedented and they are begging the government at this late date to do the right thing and withdraw this regressive tax.
September 27, 1990


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the city of Ottawa, all of whom are opposed to the GST bill and call on this House and the other place to reject this bill.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to place before the House some petitions from Broadview-Greenwood.
My constituents are repeatedly asking the government to release the money it committed in the fall of 1988 to begin the clean-up of the hot spot, specifically the Don River.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of the fine citizens of Kamloops, British Columbia, who point out that they are aware that as few as a single Liberal Senator can filibuster indefinitely in the Senate and, therefore, stop the GST. They are calling upon at least one Liberal Senator to do just that, stop the GST, if a single Liberal Senator can be found who will do that.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House a number of petitions containing the names of several hundred people. They call on the Parliament of Canada to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the lives of both mother and child from the moment of conception.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition from numerous Canadians regarding the GST.
The petitioners point out that there has never been a tax on magazines, books, and newspapers and now they will be included in the GST. They feel that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a corner-stone of democracy, culture, education, and a literate and pro-
Routine Proceedings
ductive society. If we are asking for literacy, why are we applying the GST to magazines and so on?
The petitioners ask that this part of the GST be axed, that is, to retain a zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations on magazines, newspapers, and books.


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. 302,308, and 322.1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mrs. Finestone: In light of the Supreme Court's decisions on freedom of expression, is it the intention of the government to seek, under the Constitution Act, 1867, the disallowance of Quebec's Bill 178 imposing language restrictions and, if not, for what reasons?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: The Government of Canada made it clear at the time that it regretted the resort to the notwithstanding clause by the legislature of Quebec to restrict language rights, just as the Government regretted the legislation enacted earlier that year by the legislative assemblies of Saskatchewan and Alberta to reduce the language rights of the linguistic minorities in those provinces. However, the Government did not believe that the exercise of the disallowance power would have been an appropriate response to the use of the notwithstanding clause of the Charter, anymore than the Government of Canada believed it appropriate to disallow Bill 101, with its more restrictive signage provisions, in 1977. The Government has always encouraged the provinces to adopt generous positions respecting language rights in Canada.


Mr. Vanclief: Does Mrs. Mila Mulroney occupy an office in the Parliament Buildings and, if so (a) what official business of the government or Parliament does she conduct in it (b) what is the operating budget of that office (c) how many people are on that office's staff (d) what office equipment and furniture has been supplied to the inventory of that

September 27, 1990
Routine Proceedings
office (d) what is the source of the funds used for this operating budget?
Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister): No.
a)	N/A
b)	N/A
c)	N/A
d)	N/A
e)	N/A


Mr. Robinson: 1.	In fiscal years (a) 1988-89 (b) 1989-90, did any multicultural or minority rights organizations apply for funding from the Department of Justice and, if so (i) what number (ii) did any actually receive funding and, if so, what number (iii) were any applications received from Quebec and, if so, what number (iv) were any granted and, if so, what number?
2.	In fiscal years (a) 1988-89 (b) 1989-90, were any projects dealing with human rights or legal aid funded (i) in Canada (ii) in Quebec and, if so, what number?
3.	Were any applications for funding of such projects received and, if so, what number?
4.	Has Justice Canada taken specific steps to comply with subsection 3(2) of the Multiculturalism Act and, if so, what steps?
5.	Has the Minister of Justice entered into any agreement or arrangement with any province respecting the implementation of the multiculturalism policy in Canada, as per subsection 6(2) of the Multiculturalism Act and, if so, has there been any agreement or arrangement respecting multicultural legal aid services?
6.	According to the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act Annual Report 1988-89, the Department of Justice "has committed funds for four major conferences in 1989-90, each of which will include exploration of issues relating to multiculturalism"; were these conferences planned or held and, if so (a) what were they (b) in what locations were they held?


A. Kim Campbell: 1. The question refers to "multicultural or minority rights organizations". This term is unclear and has been defined broadly to include all organizations applying for funding in the area of multiculturalism or human rights in order to provide a more complete answer.
No statistics are kept regarding the type of information requested in this question and so all numbers have been manually determined and are approximate.
a)	In 1988/89, 49 aplications from such groups or for such projects were received, including 9 from Quebec. Twenty-one projects were funded, including 4 from Quebec.
b)	In 1989/90, 33 applications were received, including 7 from Quebec. Twenty eight projects were funded, including 7 from Quebec. In many instances applications were received in one fiscal year and approved for funding in the following fiscal year.
2.	In answering this question and the next question, human rights has been broadly defined in order to provide a clearer answer.
a)	In 1988/89, 33 projects dealing with human rights or legal aid were funded by the Department. Of the 33, 9 were located in Quebec.
b)	In 1989/90, 37 human rights or legal aid projects were funded in Canada, including 10 from Quebec.
3.	In 1988/89, the Department received 68 proposals dealing with legal aid or human rights. In 1989/90, 42 proposals dealing with legal aid or human rights were received by the Department.
4.	Yes. The Department has taken action during the past years to meet the objectives of the Act. Specifically, programs and activities were undertaken in the following areas:
(a)	Human Resources Management
-By developing a three year employment equity plan to improve the participation of visible minorities in the department's work force.
(b)	Communications
-By increasing Employee Awareness of the Act and Canada's Multicultural, Multiracial Diversity through internal communications.
-By portraying in communications materials Canada's multicultural and multiracial diversity.
-By the use of languages other than French and English, in accordance with the Government Communications Policy.
(c)	Funding Initiatives

-By funding research and education centers, workshops, conferences and courses with a multicultural and minority rights groups component.
-By continued funding of the Canadian Judicial Centre, the Public Legal Education and information (PLEI) agencies and legal aid under the Criminal Legal Aid Agreements with provinces and territories.
-By holding a seminar to sensitize all funding officers to the Multiculturalism Act and multiculturalism aspects of funding.
(d)	Research
-By conducting research to enhance access to justice for multicultural groups.
(e)	Service to the public
-By continued adherence to Guidelines for the Representative Depiction of Ethnic and Visible Minorities and Aboriginal Peoples in Government Communications.
-By the use of languages other than French and English, in accordance with section 13.2.4 of Government Communications Policy.
-By distribution of materials through the mail and/or through attendance at multicultural and multiracial groups' conferences.
5.	No. The federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements for adult criminal and young offenders legal aid services provide for uniform, mandatory coverage to ensure equal treatment in cases covered by the agreement, namely, all serious offenses and those in which loss of liberty or livelihood is likely; the provincial agency will determine the financial circumstances under which an applicant for legal aid may be approved as a recipient.
All applicants charged with an offence covered by the agreement and who meet the financial eligibility test must be approved as an applicant regardless of their ethnic background or cultural association, and the cost of services provided is shareable under the agreement.
The presence of well established legal aid clinics throughout Canada, including areas where various ethnic groups are predominant, assures that legal aid services are accessible to all Canadians.
6.	In 1989/90, the Department of Justice provided funding for the following conferences:
The conference entitled "Realities and Needs for the 90's" was sponsored by the National Council of Jamaicans and Supportive Organizations in Canada, Inc. It was held in Toronto on May 19-20, 1989, and included the participation of human rights organizations, youth groups, social development agencies, NGOs, etc.
The conference included workshops on the following topics: literacy; economic development; institutional participation; the Canadian justice system and minority rights; youth; housing; and the aging visible minority population.
The Conference entitled "Human Rights in CrossCultural Perspectives"-University of Saskatchewan, College of Law, was held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan from October 12 to 14, 1989.
The National Conference on Racial Equality in the Workplace-Faculty of Business, McMaster University in conjunction with the Hamilton and District Chapter of the Industrial Relations Research Association, was held in Hamilton, Ontario from March 2nd to 4th, 1990.
The conference entitled "The Contemporary Women's Movement in Canada and the United States: A Retrospective and Prospects for the Future", Centre for American Sudies and Centre for Women's Studies and Feminist Research at the University of Western Ontario was held in London, Ontario from May 3rd to 5th, 1989. This conference included a major session on "Racism and the Women's Movement".


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 52 to request leave to adjourn the House to debate an urgent matter of pressing public importance.

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, although the headlines portrayed the disturbing incidents at Kanesatake last night as a surrender, in fact it was a final act of defiance.
Aboriginal people are now concerned for the immediate safety and personal security of those being held at Farnham military prison and by the Surete du Quebec. Many Canadians are concerned that the disturbing events of last night could precipitate further civil disobedience or possibly even acts of violence. Canadians are also insistent that the people apprehended at Oka are treated with full respect to criminal and human rights laws in this country.
I trust you will recognize the immediacy and the urgency of this matter, Mr. Speaker, and will rule accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: I take nothing away from the seriousness of the matter that the hon. member has raised, a matter of concern to all members here and to Canadians across the country. I also point out that there was a long debate two nights ago and I think that it would be appropriate to wait and see how events unfold later on today.
The hon. member has raised a matter which is, as I said, of great importance, but at least at the moment it would not be appropriate to order an emergency debate. I thank the hon. member for raising the matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and, encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the United Nations Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2
and for the despatch of members of the Canadian Forces to take part in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula; and
That, upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):
That the motion be amended after the words "Canadian Forces" and read:
enforce these United Nations resolutions;
That this House censure the government for not recalling Parliament at the earliest opportunity to fulfil its legitimate function of consultation and debate as to what role Canada should play in the resolution of the present crisis; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
and the sub-amendment of Ms. McLaughlin:
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."
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Northumberland.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to continue debate on the motion relating to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. I must say to begin with that it is with dismay and great trepidation that I rise as the member of Parliament for Northumberland to debate this issue.
I have been devoted for most of my life to non-violence, have advocated non-violent resolution to problems, and now represent a constituency in Canada, a country which at this present time is close to open warfare in the Middle East. This puts into jeopardy the lives of many Canadian men and women, each one whose lives are sacred to me, each one of those people who right now with our Armed Forces are very important to me, each one who are as a sister, a husband or a wife to me. It is with great trepidation that I rise in the House to present my views on the government's action and inaction, and to express my concerns about the motion on the floor of the House today.
September 27, 1990

First, I cannot accept that our government sent Armed Forces into this crisis in the Middle East without recalling Parliament so that we could have full debate on the issue and an understanding of what the circumstances are in the Middle East. I also condemn the fact that the Government of Canada sent our forces into the crisis in the Middle East two weeks in advance of any UN resolutions which would have required their presence there. Rather, we sent forces into the Middle East crisis in response to an American request.
In terms of the motion that is before the House today, I cannot deny for a moment that I support fully the first comments in the motion which are:
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 of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2-
That, I support fully.
I have to say at the outset that I have the highest regard and respect for Canadian Armed Forces now serving in the Middle East or who have served in the past in other areas of the world, and the greatest respect for those many people in Canada who have lost their lives in serving the cause of justice and freedom on behalf of all Canadians. But I am quite alarmed that the purpose of our Canadian Armed Forces seems to be changing radically from that which Canada has represented in the past decades.
It is ironic that yesterday here on the Hill we had the unveiling of a statue of a very highly respected Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, who was present when the United Nations came into being, who was so outspoken in support of this country being involved in dialogue to resolve crises world-wide, and who made this nation so respected in our peacekeeping role. Suddenly, it seems to me that we are diverting from this traditional role in Canada and that we are willing to set that aside, become regressive and take on an offensive role.
Our government has not done sufficient to carry on a process of negotiation to try to bring the crisis in the Middle East to a peaceful resolution. Lives of Canadians are being put in jeopardy.
Government Orders
To describe in some detail what I am referring to, I think it is important that Canadians understand that in the Middle East presently there are two operations in place. The Americans have two different strategies for resolving the crisis which are being hotly debated in the United States. Again, as I say, Canada has two possible positions, one to maintain our traditional role in peacekeeping and being strong advocates as negotiators, or the role of going in, forgetting about strong diplomacy and negotiating positions, and being prepared for offensive action.
In terms of the operations in the Middle East, I totally support our Canadian Armed Forces, with all of the skills they have, and their presence in the Middle East to support United Nations resolutions. From that perspective I can support the role of our Armed Forces, the three ships and equipment, and the CF-18s that are in the area, so long as they are employed only to support UN resolutions.
The second operation that is taking place in time in the Middle East is as a result of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait calling upon governments around the world, Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, asking for nations' support in resisting further invasions by Iraq, particularly into Saudi Arabia. The U.S. and over 26 other countries around the world, now and over the past weeks, have been building up troops and military equipment deterring aggression but also putting us in a very vulnerable position in terms of an unplanned offensive act on the part of any of the participants. The activities and build up of those troops and equipment on the Saudi Arabian border are not as a consequence of any UN resolutions but they put us in a very volatile situation, one which puts at risk Canadian lives if there is one mistake. I believe that we, as Canadians and as Parliamentarians, should have had the opportunity to debate more fully exactly what the strategy of Canada is in this crisis and to have urged, as is our traditional role, much more dialogue and negotiation as a process to bring about peace to the Middle East situation.
Personally, I cannot support any action on the part of our government which directly numbers and counts the loss of Canadian lives in the strategy. I believe that the strategy of peacekeeping is no less difficult and requires no less strength than that of offensive military action. I believe that the difference between the clenched fist and the open hand exists in the mind of the person who holds

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
that hand. But I believe that the same strength of conviction, determination and skill is required from both postures and I believe that traditionally Canada, with the skills of our armed forces which cannot be surpassed, I do not believe, by any force anywhere in the world, that our position has been to offer the open hand of negotiation and peace and not the clenched fist. That is what I will personally support.
In the motion of the government, I believe that the government does not give through that motion the necessary respect to our forces supporting only UN resolutions, but leaves a door open for our troops to become engaged in conflict beyond anything envisioned through the UN resolutions at this point in time.
I understand from the speeches that have been given on the other side of the floor that the Canadian forces are present in the Middle East under Canadian command. I believe, given the risk and the insecurity that exists in the situation in the Middle East at this time, that there should be a UN command for the forces in the area. If that is difficult to achieve, we should at least have a joint command in that area so that there is a co-ordinated effort in the area come whatever may come. I certainly pray to God that we can resolve the situation in the Middle East peacefully.
I also believe that if you look at the past history and the recent past history of what has happened in the Middle East, we as Canadians bear responsibility for some of what is happening today. It has been known to us that during the eight year war between Iraq and Iran that Saddam Hussein of Iraq used chemical warfare against troops in that war. In fact, we know that he used chemical weapons against his own Kurdish population within the country of Iraq.
I do not believe that we did everything possible to stand up and condemn those transgressions of all international law. As well, we have been aware of many other human rights abuses in Iraq and in and about the Middle East area. And yet, we have continued to benefit, as a nation, from arms sales to that area.
At the present time in our world's history, we are seeing many precedents being set. We have the end of a cold war, which we all welcomed, and we see in the Middle East crisis new alliances which we would never have imagined possible. We must be doing everything
possible to support the United Nations in a process of condemnation of Iraq for its activities and in trying to improve what has been accomplished today by the United Nations through the resolutions that have been supported in relation to the Middle East crisis. We are all encouraged by what has been achieved so far in that forum and we must do everything possible to protect that process and enhance it.
I believe by expressing support for actions outside of UN resolutions, we set the foot for destruction of what has been achieved to this point in time by the United Nations. Alliances could change very, very quickly in the Middle East if conflict were to open up. I think that we set ourselves up for a holocaust of proportions that we do not want to imagine and that I personally cannot countenance. As a Canadian member of Parliament, I believe that every life is important, particularly Canadian lives, but the lives that have been lost already as a result of this man who runs the regime of Iraq are also important to me.
The lives of everybody involved in a conflict in the Middle East are important to me and we must focus constantly on the faces of those people who are in the region, who are there to protect our peace and our democracies and systems of government that represent the peoples of the world everywhere. We must be aware and conscious of the importance of those people's lives, their dedication to maintaining peace on our behalf. We cannot become involved in a conflict whereby we can start counting how many lives we are willing to lose in order to achieve other objectives. I believe that it is possible, but it is not easy with our forces there who are prepared to maintain a peacekeeping role. It is important to achieve the same objectives through dialogue and negotiation and peacekeeping that is possible. I believe it is more possible to achieve those objectives than it would be through open conflict and warfare.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore have to say that I support totally the amendment proposed by the Liberals on this side of the House that says yes, we do support Canada's role in enforcing United Nations resolutions, but we 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

Government Orders
referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Northumberland on a very thoughtful intervention. I share many of the concerns that she raised in the course of her remarks.
I want to ask her a question with respect to one of the longer term issues that obviously has to be addressed in the course of resolving the tensions in the Middle East. It goes without saying that the immediate priority is to seek the enforcement of United Nations resolutions calling for the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait and an assurance that security will be maintained in that region.
Obviously though, one of the long-term questions that has to be addressed is the very difficult and tragic plight of the Palestinians. Of course, this has been exacerbated by the events in Kuwait resulting in some 40 per cent of the resources which would normally be sent to support the people of the West Bank and Gaza being cut off. So, it is a desperate situation.
We know as well that unfortunately Israel has stepped up its campaign of harassment and violence in that region. We have seen the bulldozing of homes and shops in the Gaza. We have seen the refusal to reopen universities on the West Bank and Gaza.
I would like to ask the hon. member what her views are with respect to the importance in the longer term of responding to this crisis as well as part of a regional solution to reduce conflict in the area, and very specifically, whether she agrees that there must be an international conference in the region, which would include representatives of the Palestinians or the Palestine Liberation Organization, which has been recognized as their representatives, an international conference which would deal with the claim of the Palestinians for self-determination which may include a state and which would finally resolve this historic and tragic grievance of the Palestinians in that region. Does she support this as part of an over-all comprehensive approach to the situation in the Middle East?


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my comments, I believe that right now there is an unusual alliance of interest in the conflict represented among the Arab nations themselves. Also, on the international scene, we are seeing alliances that we would never have dreamed of even a year ago.
As I was saying, I believe as well that if we were to get into open conflict, we would put those alliances that exist right now in support of peace in the world in jeopardy, because there are so many unresolved issues in the Middle East. One that my colleague raises is the situation of the Palestinians in the Middle East.
Yes, I believe that we must do everything possible as a nation, and we must be more aggressive in trying to promote peaceful negotiations and dialogue to address the issues of the Palestinians and the state of Israel, and all of the many other very difficult historic problems in the Middle East region.
Before the Middle East crisis erupted on August 2, it was the intention of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to look carefully into the situation as it exists and to analyse the situation in the Middle East before this crisis.
I think it is important that our committee continue to look at and try to investigate so that Canadians can understand just what the problems and positions are of the different parties to all of the conflicts in the Middle East.
I think there has been trepidation on the part of Parliament to discuss these issues in the past. Without discussion, without witnesses coming before us to explain the various positions that exist, we will never be able to take an effective role in trying to resolve the issues of the Middle East.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.
I want to follow up on what the member for Burnaby- Kingsway said. He is asking a question to the member who spoke. She is the associate critic in this area for the Liberal Party. I would ask her if she would answer the question and take a position for the Liberal Party.
With respect, I think that is fudging it a little bit. The question was veiy specific. The question was: Does the hon. member favour an international-

September 27, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Walker:: What does this have to do with Kuwait?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has the floor. I would hope that we could get him to ask his question and try to anticipate an answer.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The question is: Does the member favour an international conference to deal with the broader questions in the Middle East which includes the question of the Palestinians, which tragically seems to becoming lost in the immediate Iraq-Kuwait problem?
That is the question specifically. What is the position of the Liberal Party on that? Does it favour an international conference to deal with the broader aspects, to be specific with the Palestinian question.


Christine Susan Stewart: In response to that question, I believe that many issues involved with the Middle East crisis have been lost because of the existing current crisis. Many issues must be looked at, not just the issue of the Palestinian cause.
I would say in response to the question that I, personally, would not be adverse to that. But, I would rather first have our standing committee here in the House of Commons, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, look into all of these issues.
I believe, as I said, that there is a profound ignorance in this House and in this country as to just what all those problems are and that we must try to understand them better before we can stand up and say we endorse an international conference. This would be an international conference to do what?
First, we have to decide as a government, together collectively, what is justice in our view for the Middle East crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the member for York South- Weston had a question or a comment.


John V. Nunziata: I am concerned about the partisan nature of the previous question to my friend and colleague.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John V. Nunziata: It is so unbecoming of the member from B.C.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brant on a question or comment.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the hon. member for Northumberland would specifically answer the question.
The question was not what her personal view was on whether or not there should be an international conference on those issues dealing with the Middle East, particularly the Palestinian issue, but what is the Liberal Party's position on an international conference to solve the problem of the Palestinian issue in the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem along with other issues in the Middle East. What is the Liberal Party's position on it? That is the question.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I get the impression from listening to my colleagues in the NDP that they have all the answers. Obviously that is not the case. They are asking for an international conference with no definition of what should be discussed or what the agenda would be of such an international conference.
I say, and this party and I agree-that there are many problems in the Middle East which must be addressed and which we as a government and as a Parliament must come to some conclusions about, before specifically going out and broadcasting that an international conference is what we want. We have to understand the underlying issues before we were to call such a conference.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to that exchange in this debate, it sounds like the position of the Liberal Party may very well be in keeping with the honourable traditions established by former Prime Minister Mackenzie King, which would be stated a conference as necessary but not necessarily a conference.
That is not the point I wish to pick up from what the hon. member for Northumberland has said. I listened to her speech and I found it a very heartfelt speech. There are a lot of points I would like to pick up, especially when she talks about an historical perspective and this whole role of peacekeeping. In the next few moments I want to concentrate on peacekeeping, Canada's role as a peacekeeper in the international community and the United Nations.
Perhaps, even following the hon. member's example, we could go back and look at some history. I will go back even further than the recent history to which she referred. I was reading very early yesterday morning a
September 27, 1990

passage which pertained to a Canadian by the name of Stephen Leacock who in 1913 was expressing his fury. He was furious when the Liberal dominated Senate killed the Conservative naval bill which would have provided the money to build three dreadnoughts as an emergency contribution to the British navy.
It almost begins to seem that there are just a very few pieces on the Canadian political chessboard. Whether it is 1913 or 1990, we are still involved with whether the Liberal dominated Senate is going to kill a Conservative bill. In this case another element has to do with three Canadian ships being deployed on an emergency basis, or in that case money provided for their purchase as part of an international peacekeeping effort. Indeed there are many parallels.
That case in 1913, just as the debate we are having now, followed two years after a hard fought election on the issue of free trade with the United States or, as they called it in those days, reciprocity. Here we are many years on and we might well ask: Is there progress?
To come to the present and think of just yesterday afternoon when the statue to former Prime Minister Lester Pearson was unveiled here on Parliament Hill, we can reflect that through his person we see epitomized in fact some of these steps of progress, because he was very much identified with the formation of the United Nations and particularly, for which he was recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize, the role in the Middle East in dealing with the Suez and at that time a new role for the United Nations as a peacekeeper. That brings us again to this theme that I want to explore more: Canada's role as a peacekeeper whether it is in the Middle East or elsewhere, but in keeping with the debate today, most assuredly in the current crisis in the Gulf.
At the end of the First World War, the nations of the world created the League of Nations. At the end of the Second World War, the countries of the world created the United Nations. Now, at the end of the cold war, what are we creating? This is in fact our moment of history. What I think we are creating or have the potential to create is a new world order that coincides and completes the dream, the spirit, and the words of the United Nations Charter, words and the spirit that were
Government Orders
confounded during the long twilight years of the cold war.
When I was a student of international law at the University of Toronto, and after that when I was studying international law at the Academy of the International Court in The Hague, what really came to impress itself on me was the realization that we cannot genuinely have international law until we have international law enforcement.
For a moment let us consider this proposition in its domestic context to drive the point home. I think all of us feel that Canadians are peaceable people and that we are generally law-abiding. I can remember living in Montreal at the time of a police strike in that city. I think it could have been any other city in Canada as well; let me make that very clear. As there were no police forces, the principal streets in Montreal were turned into drag strips, the traffic lights meant nothing, store windows were smashed, there was looting and so on in Canada's premier city.
That was convincing evidence once again that although 99 per cent or more of Canadians are routinely law-abiding, there are always some who are willing to push beyond the limit and to take advantage of the fact there is no one around to enforce the laws, laws formed by consensus that are necessary for the maintenance of domestic peace, order, and good government.
I do believe profoundly that the same applies on the international level. Until we have international peacekeeping forces of a permanent and standing nature, an international police force, international law will lack the essential element of any law and that is the ability to see that it is obeyed. We are not starting on this from scratch.
I referred earlier to the work of Prime Minister Pearson. His contribution was to introduce a new notion about peacekeeping in the Suez context and, in keeping with the UN charter, to see the deployment of military forces from various member countries of the UN, under the blue flag of the UN, into the situation to assert the military force behind international law and order.
We have seen that example. We have seen the most acute example of military action being taken in the case of Korea. However, generally something that all Canadians are proud of is the fact that there has not been a single United Nations peacekeeping operation in which Canadian Armed Forces personnel have not participated

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
or, put positively, we have been there every time there has been a role for a United Nations peacekeeping force.
As I said earlier, it is after the cold war, we see a consensus among nations and, this is our moment of history. In the debate on Monday the hon. member for Waterloo pointed out the following:
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.
He urged that we try to establish the machinery for a UN standing peace force with battalions held in reserve by national governments so that in an emergency, such as the current one we are debating or any other regional conflict, the United Nations and Canada as member of the United Nations would not be beholden to any one major power, formerly called superpowers, to act and take a leadership role.
I believe that this is truly the opportunity for us to look at new possibilities and seek a Canadian role to advance this concept of a standing United Nations peace force, just as we have within the respective countries of all member states domestic peace forces.
Certainly the unprecedented situation in the gulf crisis shows that we do have a truly united nations effort going on there. There are 158 countries that have come in, in support of the actions being taken by the United Nations.
Just briefly but for the record, I think it is important to note what those resolutions are. They seem to increase as each day goes by. We are now at the stage where eight resolutions have been passed by the Security Council of the United Nations concerning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
On August 2,1990 Security Council resolution No. 660 condemned the invasion of Kuwait. On August 6, resolution 661 instituted sanctions against Iraq and occupied Kuwait. August 9, resolution 662 condemned the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. On August 18, resolution 664 called on Iraq to allow other nationals to leave Iraq and occupied Kuwait. On August 25, resolution 665 authorized the use of reasonable force to inspect shipping and
ensure that the sanctions outlined in resolution 664 were in fact being respected.
On September 13, resolution 666 set out the conditions under which humanitarian shipments of food and medicine could be made to Iraq and occupied Kuwait. On September 16, resolution 667 condemned Iraq's incursion into diplomatic premises in occupied Kuwait- I would note that that included premises of the Canadian mission there-and the detention of diplomatic personnel. On September 25, resolution 670 was adopted limiting air transport into Iraq in furtherance of the sanctions.
Never in peacetime has any countiy, which has violated international law the way Iraq has, faced such a solid wall of sanctions. Many of us have looked at previous examples of the use of sanctions and felt that it was a flawed instrument, an effort that was often circumvented and of very little effect. Certainly in this case the United Nations support-and I mean the 158 or so countries of the United Nations that are behind these eight Security Council resolutions-indicates that this very serious situation is being well handled and the aggression that was anticipated has to date been contained to the invasion of Kuwait.
Any suggestion that Canada's actions in the gulf crisis have been contrary to our tradition as peacekeepers reflects an opinion that has been overtaken by the facts. This is both peacekeeping and peace making. That is theme I want again to emphasize as we now look at the new possibilities in the post-cold war era of finding co-operation to make the United Nations all that it was dreamt it could be in 1945.
Peacekeepers have traditionally been deployed under the United Nations flag between the parties to a conflict following a truce. Certainly in the case of the current conflict, Canada would support the placing of peacekeepers between Iraq and Kuwait once Baghdad withdraws from the countiy it has invaded.
This also raises other questions that I do not have time to go into now, but one must contemplate the nature of a liberated Kuwait. Speaking for myself, I would hope that we would be supportive of democratic forces in Kuwait so that in the future the people of that countiy would have the opportunity to really have a representative and democratic countiy.
September 27, 1990

The sending of Canadian sailors and ships, of Canadian aircrew and aircraft to deter this aggression and to enforce the UN sanctions that I have referred to is also peacekeeping. It is as much peacekeeping as having Canadian soldiers wearing the blue beret of the United Nations in Cyprus or anywhere else around the globe. Our naval and air forces and the forces of a number of other countries are there under explicit UN auspices.
I listened to the member for Northumberland talking about when forces were deployed and when resolutions were passed and I understand the narrow points that are being made. She also asked whether Parliament was or was not recalled soon enough. I do not want to debate that, I am simply saying that when taking a broad view of Canada's role as a peacekeeping country and as a peacemaker, we must go beyond the small details and look at the broad outlines of what is happening. I think it is a very significant moment in world history as we pursue global peace to see this concerted action by so many countries, not only Canadians, but the people of Bangladesh putting their armed forces in harms way.
This drawing of a line is indicating to the Saddam Husseins of the world that international boundaries are to be respected and that the united nations of this world will not tolerate armed invasion and occupation of independent countries.
Our commitment to peacekeeping is and must remain unshakeable. In these difficult days, as we consider our future as Canadians and what the new constitutional arrangements will be for our country, the essential thing is to focus on the values that really make us all Canadians and that do unite us as Canadians. One of those, most assuredly, is the value of peace and the honourable and sometimes very costly tradition of maintaining peace even when that requires the deployment of Canadians who proudly wear the uniform of our country.
Our contribution to international order, not only through United Nations peacekeeping forces, but our overseas assistance, our diplomatic initiatives and so many other roles that are part of this proud tradition is now coming into a new phase, a new era. It is not one where anyone can state, with certainty, what will be, but certainly we can outline what the goals ought to be and work towards those.
Government Orders
It is certainly something that other countries recognize in us as Canadians. Whether it is this current situation in the gulf, whether it is Central American governments designing a peace plan and getting support and assistance from Canada, whether it is our involvement with Japan who is developing its own new interest in this area, whether it is our efforts with Namibia turning it into a new country and a member of the United Nations from having been the last colony in Africa and making it become fully a democratic country, or whether it is the parties to the Cambodian conflict finding where we have provided valuable suggestions for monitoring and upholding international peace there. This is the point. Canadians are committed to peacekeeping and peace making. International order, respect for sovereign countries and the rule of law depend on it.
I hope that we can find here in Canada, just as Lester Pearson found in the fifties in the Suez crisis, a new dimension, an additional forward step in defining and in defending the role of peacekeeping. We must work toward a United Nations standing peacekeeping force to continue through the long and difficult months that will lie ahead. The resolve must be there, not only in goods times of peace but in times of bleak and difficult challenge like this, when Canadians have to be sent into areas to support the principles and the spirit of the United Nations to see that we truly have the rule of international law.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a discussion with the parliamentary secretary, and I thank him for outlining the government's position. Perhaps he and I, unlike the NDP, can stay on topic. He probably notices that every time the NDP do not know what to say, they find another topic because there are some areas such as foreign policy to which they cannot contribute. I certainly hope in the next few years they will be able to understand the world a little bit better than they have shown in the past.


An hon. member:: We are trying to get straight answers.


David Walker: Straight answers? If you had a question about the subject, you would get a straight answer. I am sure the new critic from British Columbia will be spending a lot of time in the library in the next period getting caught up on world affairs.

Government Orders
The parliamentary secretary suggested that the issues raised in the speech of the member for Northumberland were nuances in the debate and not central to the point. I think they are central to the point. I think Parliament has a very important role to play in Canadian foreign policy. We have a long tradition of having good discussions on foreign policy and there is a goodwill among Canadians that we do the right thing. Whether it is in areas of human rights, peacekeeping or dealing with nuclear disarmament, this House has spoken at times with one voice to ensure that Canada proceeds in the proper way.
The absence of Parliament sitting during the summer was not just a minor nuance to us but in fact is central to our criticism of what the government is doing and central to our criticism of the motion.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could elaborate on why the government has not been more insistent that the command of this military operation-because it is a military operation-is not more directly in the hands of the United Nations. We have, as a middle power, consistently taken the position that it is organizations like the UN which have to be the vehicle for keeping peace. Although we appreciate the speed with which people have to respond to the crisis with the dangers that are there-and nobody kids themselves about that and the goodwill with which we have supported the United States-the point still is that other countries turn to Canada to make sure that organizations like the United Nations are front and central in these missions.
It seems to me that the government could have done more to ensure that the United Nations was in control of this particular operation. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain exactly why this was not done and what efforts will be made in the future.


Patrick Boyer: I did not refer to any nuances in the speech of the hon. member for Northumberland. I said I was concentrating on the broad lines of what is happening in historical patterns and that I did not seek to enter into a debate as to the chronology of certain events or the timing of the debate within Parliament. However, I welcome the question of the member from Winnipeg. He and I studied questions of international relations
when we were both students at Carleton University, it seems just the other day. In fact, it was in the mid-60s.
I want to pick up on this point about the current initiative of Canada in relation to the United Nations. First, the Prime Minister, in his discussions with the President of the United States as this matter developed during August, played an important role in driving home the point to the American government that any action they took in the region ought not to be a unilateral American initiative but rather ought to be a United Nations enterprise. I think this is something that has not been known generally, but it is a fact that this was a very important effort and those of us who recognize how the United States responds in international crises would detect over the long view of history a tendency to go in alone and deal with the situation according to American interests.
The Prime Minister, and I say this very proudly, displayed a good use of his good relations with the American president in urging that this become a United Nations initiative.
I would also draw to the attention of the member from Winnipeg, in case he was not here to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaking on September 24 in the House, a quote from page 13246 of Hansard:
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.
That was a statement in the House on Monday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Further in reply to the member, our Minister of National Defence also said in the House of Commons on Monday that both the Departments of National Defence and External Affairs, and I quote from page 13261 of Hansard:
-are working toward and imploring the United Nations to put a blue flag over the whole of the multinational effort.
Certainly Canada wants this to be and be seen as a United Nations effort. That is the whole thrust of Canadian foreign policy. It is consistent with the policy of previous governments and I am sure will be the policy of future governments of our country. We were there at the creation of the United Nations. We are there now at this time of testing for the United Nations. We want to see

this continue under the blue flag and with the blue beret of the United Nations in this area.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last point with which the parliamentary secretary dealt with respect to the assurance that Canada is playing an active role at the Security Council in an attempt to bring this operation in the Middle East under effective United Nations command.
I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that he was urging the United States not to take unilateral military action in the region but rather to ensure that any additional moves that are taken are within the context of United Nations.
Given the fact that the subamendment which my colleague, the leader of the New Democratic Party, moved urges this House to agree "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".
I would hope, given the assurance of the parliamentary secretary, that in fact he would be prepared to indicate that he and his colleagues are prepared to support this subamendment since this is precisely what has been indicated as the government position at the United Nations.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether, indeed, he does support the thrust of the sub-amendment because, as I say, it indicates that Canada would work toward this as an objective.
Second, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary the same question I asked the member for Northumberland. I know he will not give us a Mackenzie King answer because he has just condemned that. What is the position of the Government of Canada with respect to a longer term regional resolution of the very serious questions concerning the situation of the Palestinians in the Middle East? Does his government support the convening of an international conference with the participation of all affected parties in the region, including the Palestine Liberation Organization? If so, is he prepared to make a commitment that Canada will work toward achieving this objective?
Government Orders


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway on his recent appointment to the position as External Affairs critic for his party and answer both his questions, dealing with the last one about a conference first.
Yes, we would support the holding of a conference in the region to bring the outstanding issues to some resolution. We think it is important that the representation of those attending such a conference be equitable. We think that the agenda for the conference ought to be clearly defined in advance of the meeting taking place so that there can be a fairly specific indication of the issues to be dealt with and the approach to them.
As to the timing of it, this would obviously be determined by the judgment of a number of players in the region, a number of countries and the United Nations, as to what would be the appropriate time to get this under way. Speaking for the Government of Canada, it is our view that the earliest possible opportunity should be seized for this.
The situation with which we are preoccupied involves primarily a military confrontation, but Canada has never pursued its role as a peacekeeper simply in one dimension. We have sought, apart from any military role, the two other avenues of diplomatic initiatives and overseas financial assistance and development programs and so on. On the diplomatic side Canada is quite open and would be supportive as to how this could be done. I think that is a clear statement of the government's policy.
With respect to the resolution that is before the House and the New Democratic Party's subamendment to it, I agree with the NDP critic that the general spirit of what is there is consistent with what I have been saying. I recognize the sometimes devious nature of the hon. member in trying to deal with parliamentary points. Everyone understands that when resolutions are drafted and amendments proposed to them, there is some effort to catch members in an awkward position where they may have to vote against their own views or the policy of their party. This is something that is understood as parliamentary games. Consistent with what I said to the hon. member for Northumberland, I do not want to deal with it on that level. I am trying to look at Canada as a peacekeeping country and where we can go in the broad

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
terms of the foreign policy of our country in dealing with this.
To complete, in answer to his question-and it is really further as well to the hon. member from Winnipeg- what kind of role and what kind of say Canada has in a situation like this directly depends on how prepared we are to be there, contributing. Unless we have Canadian forces in the situation, we cannot expect to have a voice in the situation.
Canada is respected internationally because in the past we have been present and accounted for. In the past when Canadians have had to make sacrifices to be part of some effort internationally, to respect peace and international law, those sacrifices and the blood that has been spilled by Canadians are the price for us having a voice and respect internationally today.
It is not easy, but it is in fact the reality with which we are dealing. I think that is an important element in this.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on this very important question, and specifically on the government's motion.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress that the New Democratic Party fully supports the condemnation of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, as well as the rest of the resolution which states, for example, that "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," the House affirms "unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the Unites Nations Security Council".
Of course we support these principles set out in the motion, as well as "all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2".
Mr. Speaker, the problem we have is with the part following that. The part about supporting without restriction "the dispatch of members of the Canadian Forces to take part in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula". That specific part is the one we have a big problem with. The government of
Canada always took the position that collective action under the United Nations, as integral part of our foreign policy, is the best way to ensure lasting international peace and security.
However, Mr. Speaker, recent decisions made by the Conservative government in response to the Gulf Crisis take us far away from this basic Canadian foreign policy principle that a great many Canadians agree with.

As I said, I want to make it very clear that we join in the unreserved condemnation of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. We fully support the United Nations resolutions which have been adopted to respond to this aggression on the part of Saddam Hussein.
As well, I want to note that Canada's response has not been in the traditions of this country. Indeed, that started with the failure of the government to recall Parliament to allow parliamentarians to debate this very important decision to send troops into the Middle East to the gulf at the earliest possible opportunity.
During Question Period on Monday, I reminded the House of the fact that in August 1988, when the government sent peacekeeping troops to the Iran-Iraq border following the cessation of hostilities on that border, that the then Minister of National Defence indicated: "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."
That moral responsibility has been completely abdicated by the government. We can certainly contrast this, as other members have pointed out, with a decision to recall Parliament in August of 1987 to deal with 174 refugees arriving on the shores of Nova Scotia. There was no hesitation to recall Parliament then.
Indeed, many other jurisdictions and Parliaments were recalled by their governments, including the British Parliament, to deal with this crisis in the Middle East. We condemn the failure of the government to recall Parliament at the earliest possible occasion to ensure that we would have an opportunity to speak and that our voices might be heard before the decision was finally made to send our troops into the Middle East. We recognize very clearly that this is simply a continuation of
September 27, 1990

the old manipulative style of politics that we have seen too frequently from the government.
This was the first opportunity, following the end of the Cold War, for Parliament to debate on an early occasion what our response might be in this very serious issue of the crisis in the Middle East. I suggest that the government failed this first test of foreign policy.
I would note as well that our military responsible was not made pursuant to any United Nations request or, indeed, under United Nations command. We recall that the day after of the invasion the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada would not be involved militarily in the gulf crisis. A couple of days later, the Prime Minister met with President George Bush. Four days later, before any United Nations resolution had been adopted, he announced, that Canada would be sending three ships to the Middle East.
It was not until two weeks later that United Nations Resolution 665 was adopted which authorized enforcement action. It had the very limited purposes of enforcing the sanctions agreed upon by the United Nations.
There is no question that current United Nations resolutions do not in any way authorize the massive military build-up which has occurred in that region. There is no UN command structure. There is no overall UN co-ordination of military activities in the region.
There was an alternative. Canada could have played a role in leading the world, along with like-minded nations, in ensuring that this operation did come under effective United Nations command and co-ordination. There are mechanisms in the United Nations Charter, under Article 42 and other articles, to ensure that the United Nations would be in charge.
As well, there is the military staff committee of the United Nations. This a body which admittedly has not been active over the years, but this could have been an opportunity for the military staff committee to play an important and effective role in ensuring military co-ordination of this operation.
We must also note-and many Canadians have expressed concern about this-the hypocrisy which has too often characterized the American response to these questions. For example, the Americans are now wrapping themselves in the United Nations flag. We welcome
Government Orders
the United Nations role that has been played, but it was just a very short time ago that the deputy representative of the Americans at the United Nations was saying that he looked forward to the United Nations leaving New York. He said he would bid a fond farewell as it sailed off into the sunset. As well, we know the Americans are behind in their contributions to the United Nations by some $750 million. It is interesting to note this newfound support for the United Nations, and it is one that we welcome, but it is certainly not coincidental that it comes at a time that it is in the American interest as well.
I would have hoped that the Americans would have called for the enforcement of other United Nations resolutions affecting that region as well, including Resolution 242. We have heard nothing from the Americans calling for effective enforcement of United Nations Resolution 242 which calls for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in that region as well. A double standard has been in force for some time.
Where was the effective international action when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980? Where were the sanctions? Where was the world condemnation at that point? Where were the sanctions and the effective international action by Britain the United States against South Africa which occupied Namibia for over 40 years? Where was the effective international action following the Iraqi gassing of Kurds resulting in thousands of deaths in March 1988? Where was the condemnation of American aggression in areas such as Grenada, Libya and Panama? Mr. Speaker, there has been a double standard and I think that we must point that out in the response of the world to this crisis.
As well, it is important to note that the nature of our involvement in the peacekeeping operation has changed substantially since the initial debate took place on this question. When troops were first deployed to the region on August 10, Commodore Ken Summers, who was one of the military commanders, stated that Canadian ships and the helicopters they carry would be operating beyond the range of Iraqi missiles and aircraft in the Gulf of Oman. At some point that mission was changed Now we have our ships and their personnel and troops going right into the heart of the Persian Gulf. Of course, they

Government Orders
need air cover. That is why a squadron of CF~18s has been sent.
We must ask ourselves, why have they been sent, not just to the Gulf of Oman, but right into the heart of the Persian Gulf? Who made that decision? Why was it made and who is, effectively, commanding our troops in the region at this time? What happens if the Americans decide to launch unilateral military action against Iraq or, indeed, if another jurisdiction such as Israel decided to launch a pre-emptive strike, the kind that has been suggested, for example, by Henry Kissinger or, a surgical strike as he called it, on Iraq. The potential consequences for our troops in that region could be absolutely devastating. Yet there is no effective United Nations command.
As well, I would note that unfortunately the peace dividend, which so many of us have been looking forward to, resulting from the end of cold war hostilities, may be squandered as a result of this new action. Unfortunately, we know that the arms merchants are always looking for new areas to sell their wares. Indeed, the arms merchants were active in supplying Iraq for many years. Of course, George Bush has already indicated that Operation Desert Shield is going to be used as an excuse to increase substantially his military budget and seek support for funding for Star Wars and other military buildup.
Canada's longstanding reputation for peacekeeping is exemplified by our involvement in UNIIMOG, the United Nations peacekeeping activity on the Iran-Iraq border in 1980, which is continued, risks being diminished by our military response to this crisis in response to American requests and not under UN supervision. I suggest that there was a different way that Canada could have at the outset offered to be available for a peacekeeping role when needed. We could have offered substantially increased resources to assist in the repatriation of refugees in that area.
We know the devastating plight of tens of thousands of refugees who are streaming out of Kuwait, people from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Philippines and other countries. We know the impact that this is having on those people and on their families as well that they were supporting through the money that they sent home. We know that this is having a veiy serious impact on the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who were supported, as some
40 per cent of their income came from remittances from Palestinians working in Kuwait.
Canada has offered resources. I welcome the commitment of the government of $75 million in resources to assist those states that are particularly hard hit, but much more could and should be done.
As well, we must assess the impact of this crisis on prairie grain farmers. They may very well need additional compensation. That is something that we are going to have to look at carefully. I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, has addressed and will continue to address this issue on behalf of prairie farmers. In the year leading up to June 30, 1990, Iraq was in fact Canada's largest customer for wheat, at 721,000 tonnes.
As my leader indicated, we want to pay tribute to the troops who are in the region under very, very difficult conditions, to the embassy staff who have worked so hard, again under unprecedented difficulty. We want to express particularly our concern for the Canadians who are still in the region and for their families at home who are obviously suffering a great deal from this situation. Where do we go at this point? What are our recommendations to the government at this point? First of all, as our subamendment indicates, we believe very strongly that Canada should be playing a leadership role within the context of the Security Council to ensure that this operation comes under United Nations command and United Nations co-ordination to ensure that in fact there is not unilateral military action taken by any state, whether it be the United States or elsewhere.
We must note as well that of course there are other agendas in this debate. We have seen oil companies in too many instances making windfall profits. I would suggest that the government look at the possibility of a windfall profit tax. Why should the oil companies be able to profit from this crisis? Why not ensure that those excess profits are taxed and perhaps put them into a fund to assist the refugees in the region. We know that the Americans do have strategic interests in the region. They want to ensure a continued supply of cheap oil. They have wanted for some time to establish a military base in Saudi Arabia.
I think we have to ask, among many questions that must be asked, what concrete evidence was there to suggest that in fact the massive American build-up in Saudi Arabia was necessary to in fact deter a possible attack on Saudi Arabia. We are looking at concrete

evidence. What was the concrete evidence suggesting that such an attack on Saudi Arabia may have been imminent?
We should give sanctions an opportunity to work effectively. They are going to have a serious impact on the Hussein regime. Iraq stands to lose over $19 billion per year. They rely on imports for 80 per cent of their basic materials. They are dependent on the sale of oil for over 95 per cent of their export earnings. We suggest that our ships should go no further, should have gone no further because I believe they have passed the Straits of Hormuz now or they are in the process of doing that. They should have gone no further than the Gulf of Oman. We should have invited United Nations observers on to our ships. We should have, again, played a key leadership role in ensuring that all foreign armed forces in the area come under effective United Nations command.
We should be doing far more to assist those countries that are particularly hard it. We heard from the President of Zimbabwe yesterday. Sixty per cent of their oil comes from Kuwait. There are other countries as well that have co-operated in sanctions that are hurt particularly hard. I am thinking of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and others such as Romania which have played an effective and important role in enforcing these sanctions. I hope that Canada together with other countries can in fact assist in reducing the hardship.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I just have a couple of minutes left and I want to close by talking about the longer term approach that Canada might take in resolving this crisis. First of all, as I say, we did have an option. We had an option to operate within the framework of the United Nations, to recall Parliament early and that was not done. Instead, we are seen, I fear, by too many countries as having responded, whether it be to George Bush, Secretary of State Baker or to NATO, instead of within a comprehensive and clear United Nations framework.
I hope that the subamendment which we propose with respect to an assurance that no country will undertake offensive military operations against Iraq unless they are under United Nations command and explicitly authorized by a resolution of the Security Council that will be adopted that will bring about enhanced support for the repatriation of refugees in the area as well as those
Government Orders
countries and areas that have suffered, including the occupied West Bank and Gaza and, finally, that there will be effective leadership in reaching a long-term solution that includes ending the possibility of chemical or nuclear warfare in that region. That has got to be done.
We are are talking about all states in the region, Iraq quite clearly, Libya, Israel, other states. There must be effective international assurances controlling the flow of conventional arms. We have been dumping arms into that region for years. We must move toward a just distribution of wealth, respect for human rights and democracy. Many of the nations in this region have been condemned for serious breaches of human rights. We must reduce western dependence on fossil fuels and promote conservation and alternative energy sources. Of course, we must convene an international conference which would include all parties affected, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, to facilitate the right of Palestinians to long overdue justice and self-determination.
I would hope we can still, even at this late date, change our policy as a nation, show effective leadership within the context of the United Nations and make all Canadians proud of our re-establishment of that traditionally respected role of leadership and not be seen, regrettably, to once again be following American leadership as opposed to international leadership in world affairs.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment or two.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, who is the NDP critic, has singled out a number of points in his exhaustive remarks, and in response I should like to raise just one or two points. My first point has to do with the chronology of events.

The member was condemning Canada and urging a change of our policy because of, as he put it, following the United States. Canada was not following the United States. Canada was consistent with our traditional policy which I would argue is consistent. Just for the record, when the New Democratic critic said that our action was

Government Orders
taken before these resolutions of the United Nations, I had already read into the record this morning, and I will repeat, that it was the August 2 UN resolution which condemned the invasion of Kuwait. It was the August 6 UN resolution which instituted sanctions against Iraq and occupied Kuwait. It was August 9 which condemned the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. It was August 10 when Prime Minister Mulroney announced the intention of the Government of Canada to respond to this crisis by deploying the three ships, the Athabaskan, Terra Nova and Protecteur to the region, and announcing at that time that with the understanding that it would take time to prepare the ships to sail and time additionally to arrive there that there would be opportunity for the debate which we have been having here since Monday on this issue.
I think that it is important that the condemnation that is being made of our government should at least try to be factually based. The government does not apologize for the swiftness of the response to this crisis. The fact is that efforts at the United Nations, and generally through the international community, were moving in tandem. I hope, although he only confined himself to discussing future possibilities in the last several moments of his speech, he could in his response pick up, for example, the point I was outlining about having a United Nations standing peacekeeping force, some of these ideas. Let us, on something as important to this country and this world as this current crisis in the gulf, try to stop scoring parliamentary points and look at the broad outlines of what is possible for future Canadian policy.
I would welcome the response of the critic for the New Democratic Party on some of these future actions because I know in bringing to this subject his concerns, he will want, as all of us will, to look ahead to the future and try and see beyond an attitude about the Americans or the Soviets or anyone else in the region, that we look here at what we are doing as an independent country, a charter member of the United Nations, seeking, in a difficult circumstance that to date is being well managed, to find a positive role to ensure that the peace that is tenuous but is still holding can in fact be held.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member's question. I am sure that it was inadvertent but, of course, in his chronology he overlooked a very fundamental point. While the resolutions to which he referred which were adopted by the Security Council prior to August 10 in fact did impose sanctions, it was not until August 25 that the Security Council adopted a resolution which in fact authorized the use of minimal force to enforce those sanctions.
It was the meeting of the Prime Minister with the President of the United States, George Bush, on August 6, followed by a meeting of the NATO countries on August 10 in Brussels, which led to the decision to send troops. That decision was not just pursuant to the United Nations-and indeed it was not pursuant at that point to any United Nations resolution, because it was not until two weeks later that the United Nations authorized that; fortunately most other countries that have troops in the region now did in fact wait for the United Nations-but rather it was for the second mandate.
It is often overlooked that there are two different mandates that this government is operating under. One is purportedly under the United Nations, and indeed at this point under the United Nations, but the second is this vague mandate of deterring aggression which is completely separate from the United Nations mandate. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary would recognize that and recognize that as of August 10 there was no United Nations resolution authorizing the use of force or troops to enforce sanctions.
The hon. member suggests that we look to the future and to what role the United Nations might play effectively. I agree completely with him. I certainly welcome the suggestion of a United Nations peacekeeping force. I think that is a very positive suggestion and one that I hope Canada is actively pursuing in the Security Council.
However, I remind the hon. member-and I would welcome his comments on the point-that there exists now a body under the framework of the United Nations, and I am speaking of the military staff committee, which is in a position to move and to co-ordinate, particularly under articles 42 and 43 of the charter, military action by the United Nations. Is Canada actively pursuing this
September 27, 1990

option within the framework of the United Nations as well at this time?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member's speech. I congratulate him at the outset on being made external affairs critic for his party. I understand he has been relieved of his responsibilities as justice critic and is now taking on the onerous responsibilities as external affairs critic. I may say that his speech sounded rather like that given by a Secretary of State for External Affairs, because it was very difficult to tell what the position of the party was having listened to the speech.
Secretaries of State for External Affairs are known for their obfuscation and coverup of clear positions, because they do not want to make it appear that anything they are doing is too dramatic. I can recall even some Liberal Secretaries of State for External Affairs who were known for that. The Hon. Paul Martin when he was a member of the House-and I am not referring to the present member for LaSalle-Emard; I am talking about the former member for Essex East-was well known for the statements he made.
I recall a comment made by some persons who were sitting in the gallery of this House. They were from the United States and unfamiliar with the workings of the Canadian Parliament. They thought they had been in a church when they left having listened to a speech given by the former member for Essex East. The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam. Do I have the constituency correct? He reminded me of the same when he was giving his speech a moment ago.


An hon. member:: Burnaby-Kingsway.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Burnaby-Kingsway, I am sorry. I did not mean to accuse the other hon. member of the same party of making such a pious speech.
I was surprised at the suggestions in his speech that somehow Canada was going to be involved in offensive military operations against Iraq. It is not the expectation here that the forces there are going to used for offensive military purposes. It is designed to bring to an end to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq which has so outraged world public opinion. What I could not understand from the hon. member is-perhaps I am simplifying things-that I think he said he supports the presence of the troops there nowthat they are under some kind of United
Government Orders
Nations mandate. He did not before because they weren't, which I think is clear, and we agree with him in that respect. He seems to be saying that he does not want the troops to be involved in offensive operations, which we would agree with. We do not particularly want offensive operations there either.
What are they supposed to do? Is he saying that they should withdraw if offensive operations get under way? Is he saying that if there are offensive operations they are to be managed by the United Nations, which I think he was saying? Is he saying that somehow the United States which has the bulk of the troops there should manage any offensive operation under United Nations auspices? Is he saying that the United Nations should appoint somebody else and operate offensively, or is he saying the United Nations should appoint somebody to operate the entire force there in a defensive way?
I do not know what he is saying. I found it very difficult to follow that part of his speech. I wonder if he could clarify what role it is he expects the Canadians forces there to fulfil, or does he want the Canadian forces to withdraw?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time for questions and comments has expired, but do I have unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to reply to the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms. Clancy:: Absolutely.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has accused me of being somewhat obfuscatory in my speech, I must say that was the most bizarre, meandering, obfuscatory question I have ever been posed.
Our position in respect of the use of offensive military action is very clear, and certainly I will be pleased to reiterate what that position is. Our troops that have been dispatched should clearly only be operating under the auspices of United Nations resolution 665 for the purpose of enforcing sanctions.
They should go no farther than the Gulf of Oman. I made that clear. Perhaps the hon. member was involved in researching some arcane procedural point at that particular part of my speech, but our troops should go no farther than the Gulf of Oman. They should be there, as

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
I say, for the purpose of enforcing that United Nations resolution.
We have said as well, quite clearly, that there should be no offensive military action taken by any state in the region without United Nations sanction, explicit sanction by the Security Council, and that that should be under effective United Nations command.
That is the subamendment which we have tabled. Perhaps the hon. member has not discovered the Order Paper yet, but if he would read the Order Paper he would find our position very clearly set out in the subamendment.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words, I suspect very brief words, with respect to the motion before the House which is condemning the action and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, supporting Canada's actions at the United Nations and the resolutions by the Security Council, and supporting the dispatch of Canadian forces to the Arabian peninsula.
This is a very severe crisis not only for our country but for the entire world. It is a very frightening one with all of the implications it brings with it not only as a result of this unprovoked invasion by Iraq and the threat of Iraq's forces going farther than into Kuwait but carrying on into Saudi Arabia and perhaps even beyond that, but it brings with it as well all the potential horrors of possible chemical warfare. Certainly it would appear to be a long, drawn-out conflict, a long, drawn-out blockade with the efforts to impose sanctions, whether by sea, by air or over land.
Obviously it is going to have very severe economic effects on countries around the world, particularly on some of the countries in eastern Europe which are now struggling to get on their feet after the forces that have been enveloping them recently have loosened their bonds. Communism seems to be disappearing and democracy and a free market system seems to be taking place. Obviously all of this is going to impact on those countries very severely, particularly countries like Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.
However, with all this great crisis, it seems to me there are some very encouraging bright spots in the whole situation. There are at least three as far as I am concerned. The first of those is the fact that nations around the world have united and come together in an effort to deal with this unprecedented and unprovoked
aggression by Iraq. We now have something like 26 nations involved in this process. I think that is extremely encouraging. It is not just a process involving one or two. It is not a process involving North American nations or NATO nations alone. A vast number of nations around the world are now joining together to resist this aggression.
Second, another very bright light is that for the first time that I can certainly remember-and I suspect the first time that most of us can remember-the United States and the U.S.S.R are both on the same side. They are both taking the same position. They are both co-operating and both doing it in a spirit aimed at trying to promote some sort of world peace and order in opposition to unprovoked aggression.
Third, as far as I am concerned the brightest light of all is the fact that this is taking place under the United Nations. Albeit, notwithstanding the comments of my hon. friend and other members in this House, this is an action which does involve the United Nations. It is sanctioned by the United Nations and is proceeding as a United Nations operation.
In my view it is part of a developing process that I hope will go to the ultimate extent of providing some sort of world order and policing body, which will be able to intervene very quickly, more quickly than we have been able to do so in this situation where we are confronted with unprovoked aggression and similar situations such as we have here now.
With respect to the United Nations, I think it is important for all of us to realize that the United Nations has been a very-I hesitate to use the word useless-ineffective body in the last few years and for a long time. When it was born during and at the end of the Second World War, it was bom with a feeling that here was the great hope for the world, that suddenly we would have some form of world government developing in which we could maintain some sort of world order and rule of law. That did not materialize.
It is like all institutions and, if we look at our own British parliamentary system, that has been an evolutionary process that has taken place over hundreds and hundreds of years. I suspect that the evolution is still taking place. Each step along the way is another step which reinforces and makes it more difficult to go back to the things we have had before. I see this, in that light, as an extremely positive step leading toward something

that will be of benefit not only to Canadians but to all the citizens of the world.
I believe this is something that is consistent with positions that Canada has taken in the past. It is true that some of them were positions of peacekeeping roles to maintain order along a green line in Cyprus or some sort of line of cease fire, truce, or whatever. However, there was also the precedent of the Korean War situation in which Canada participated under the United Nations flag in a very positive way.
All these things are developmental stages toward a very effective United Nations. I think that is an extremely bright spot and one that I welcome.
I have heard a great many comments, concerns, and criticisms about the way this situation has been developing. I hope I have a minute or two to comment on some of those.
The first is that in some way this is a double standard because the United Nations and other nations around the world did not react to other events, other unprovoked aggression, in a similar fashion in the past. That may be very true, but we have to start somewhere. Surely we do not say that this is horrible because we are starting now to react to a situation. We also did not have the United Nations and the U.S.S.R. acting together in the past either. Now we do have. Again, this is part of an evolutionary process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: After Question Period the hon. minister will have 13 minutes left in his debate, plus the 10-minute question and comment period. For the benefit of the listening public who would like to hear him, it will be after three o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do not leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, there is an Indian myth about a tribe, starving, unable to track the mighty buffalo herds. Two children brought the hunters robes made of coyote skins, begging that they wear them. Some hunters laughed, some were angry with the children's interference.
However, two elderly, wise members of the tribe agreed to put on the robes and in doing so, found they had the vision of the coyote and were able to direct their people to the buffalo.
Mr. Speaker, many stories of The Great Medicine Wheel teach an important lesson-that to live in harmony and well-being we must see with the eyes of others, hear with the ears of others and speak with the tongue of others.
The challenge now is for all hon. members of this place to see and hear and thereby better understand the commitment of Canada's first people.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, prairie grain producers face historically low prices owing to reduced world demand and highly subsidized grain exports by the European Economic Community and the United States.
The result is that Canadian elevators and terminals are plugged and producers, through no fault of their own, cannot sell any grain. Their only source of cash is the advances which they obtain at the elevator on the strength of their farm stored grain. While producers have no opportunity to market their grain, they have, at the same time, borrowed to the hilt for chemicals, fuel and other inputs.
In the circumstances, I call on the Minister of Agriculture to waive, for this 1990-91 crop year, the interest requirement on at least the first $30,000 to $50,000 of cash advances per individual producer. This will provide some immediate cash flow for farmers who cannot afford to pay any more interest at this time.

September 27, 1990


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, one lesson that the Oka imbroglio has taught us is that all Canadians must be treated with respect. That is what the First Nations demanded and that is what all of our ethnic communities want.
In respect of this point, I call upon the federal cabinet to listen to the voices of Afro-Canadians and review the CRTC decision of August 8, awarding the last available FM licence in Toronto to country music interests rather than to Milestone Communications Limited, a black-owned and operated firm which seeks to air black music and reflect black interests.
There are 400,000 Afro-Canadians in Toronto who desire, along with thousands of other Torontonians, to hear the entire range of African musical genius, including jazz, gospel, blues, soul, reggae, rap, and classical on Canadian rather than American airwaves. However, as Commissioner Keith Spicer pointed out, the CRTC decision broadcast a message that is out of tune with the multicultural reality of our country. The cabinet must send a different signal. Afro-Canadians and other Canadians are listening.


THE SENATE
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, with the appointed Liberal majority in the Senate intent on killing Bill C-62 many Canadians have already begun to ask, where do we go from here?
Killing the GST will not solve Canada's economic and structural problems, yet our Liberal colleagues offer no alternatives. Seemingly we can no longer expect them to do so. After all, to whom are these Liberal senators accountable? Certainly not the people of Canada. If they were, would they be taking this action, which amounts to no more than simply a partisan statement. If they were, would they not be worried about the costs and fiscal responsibility? Bill C-28, UI changes and the government restraint act are all very important bills passed by the elected House of Commons. They have been obstructed by the Liberal senators and failure of their passage would add $8.3 billion to the federal deficit.
This political opportunism must be stopped by responsible senators in the other place.


CANADA POST
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post continues its dictatorial ways as the corporation strips rural Canada of its postal services.
After October 15, 1990 rural P.E.I. will no longer enjoy Saturday mail delivery. This reverses Canada Post's 1982 position which acknowledged that the island was in a unique situation.
After October 30, many rural post offices will suffer severe reductions in business hours. The Richmond post office, for example, will be closed from 11.30 to 1.30, the busiest time of the day.
The elimination of Saturday rural mail delivery will cost Canada Post Corporation almost $200,000 per year in net revenues which is contrary to their government mandate, force newspapers to set up their own rural distribution routes, thus dramatically increasing subscription costs and generally limit mail service to rural residents of P.E.I.
The reduction of operating hours of rural post offices will reduce their revenue generating capacity, thereby ensuring that they will not be able to operate economically. This will give Canada Post an excuse to close these post offices.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon the government to summon Canada Post before the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations to account for their actions.


THE SENATE
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, on January 18, 1965, a certain Jean Chretien said the Senate should be either abolished or radically reformed. Mr. Speaker, history has shown that for more than 20 years, this great Liberal democrat did not bother to abolish or reform anything whatsoever. They were far too dependent on the system, Mr. Speaker.
On June 23 this year, Jean Chretien, by killing Meech Lake, killed the first real attempt at Senate reform.
September 27, 1990

Today, Mr. Chretien tells us he wants to reform the Senate by abusing its powers and trying to kill the GST. This is a good example of what Liberals mean by democracy, Mr. Speaker.
On April 2 this year, Mr. Chretien kept saying that to kill the GST, people should be told where the government was going to raise the $25 billion. The people are still waiting, Mr. Speaker.
The question that arises today, when we look at the unwarranted action being taken by the Senate, is this: Do we or don't we have a democracy? And it is high time we answered that question.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, once again we have seen women become victims of the Canadian justice system as well as victims of violence. The judge and prosecution in a sexual assault trial allowed two years of delays so that a police officer who had drugged and sexually assaulted a 19-year old police cadet would get his pension. The officer pleaded guilty after 15 court appearances and can now collect $130,000.
Two Ontario crown attorneys have said judges are biased against women in sexual assault cases after a judge handed a suspended sentence to a man who had sexually assaulted a 13-year old girl.
If the government believes as I do, that this is completely unacceptable, it must negotiate with the provinces to ensure that judges receive mandatory education on the issues of violence against women and on women's equality.
It must ensure that all Canadian judges receive this training as they are appointed to the bench and judges who are already there must also receive this training.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, like most other Canadians I have watched with strong feelings the face-to-face confrontation between the army and the Mohawk warriors at Oka.
Considering the incredible tensions and passions, the presence of so many weapons on both sides, the incredible pressures on all involved, and the army of media throughout the situation, I am amazed and relieved that those involved were able to show tremendous restraint and avoided using those arms which could only have resulted in death and injury. In my view the army handled this unprecedented situation in the best possible manner under strained circumstances.
I want to thank Chief Lawrence Paul of the Millbrook First Nations for helping me understand the concerns of the natives throughout the situation. I look forward to working with the chief as we address the outstanding issues in the future.



Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I was appalled by last night's chaotic end to the Oka stand-off. Was it really necessary for the army to fix their bayonets? Was it really necessary to shove women and children to the ground? Those scenes were disgraceful.
This crisis has focused national and international attention on aboriginal issues. The government must now deal with those issues quickly, honestly, and fairly. The Minister of Indian Affairs has said that once the guns were down, the disputed land would be turned over to the Mohawk people of Kanesatake. We expect this to happen without delay.
We also expect real action on the Prime Minister's new aboriginal agenda. The agenda is long on promises, and short on specifics.
Fundamental changes to current policies are needed. To show its goodwill the government should immediately announce that it will no longer require aboriginal people to extinguish their rights in claims negotiations.


BILL C-21
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, today I received a fax from the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs of the Province of New Brunswick, Aldea Landry. Mrs. Landry is very concerned about the difficulty workers in

September 27, 1990
New Brunswick are facing because of the failure of the Liberal dominated Senate to pass Bill C-21, the UI bill.
Mrs. Landry has targeted the real problem, the Liberal majority in the Senate.
I urge the Prime Minister to resolve this impasse, and to appoint the eight senators needed to do the job. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party no longer respects democracy.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Prime Minister will go to New York to co-chair the World Summit for Children.
While there, it is expected that he will reaffirm Canada's commitment to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, obliging Canada to comply with the terms of the Convention. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that the government's record on children's rights is a far cry from the standards set out by the articles in the convention.
Article 18(2) requires a government to render appropriate child care services and facilities for the children of working parents. What has been the Tory response to this problem? After six years of promises, this government has failed to establish a long-awaited and much-needed national child care program.
Article 27 requires a government to "recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for a child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development".
As we see the rapidly increasing numbers of food bank users in this country, an estimated 40 per cent of them are children. Tens of thousands of Canadian children are dependent on food banks due to the Tory attack on universality, the clawback on family allowances, and the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan.
These are only two of many areas in which this Conservative government has failed Canada's children. Before the Prime Minister trots off to the world arena to lecture to world leaders on giving priority to children, he should make sure his own house is in order.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the crisis that has taken place in Oka has had a ripple effect in my riding of Cochrane-Superior. As a result, three blockades were erected on CN and CP rail lines thereby halting all transportation of passengers and goods.
I am pleased to say that although the blockades were dismantled peacefully, on the other hand, I am concerned about the negative impact it had on the economy, the industry, the rail workers and the travellers.
Given the fact that only 42 out of 550 land claims have been settled in the past 18 years, it will be well into the next century before these claims are settled.
Furthermore, there have been three constitutional conferences which have failed to officially recognize the aboriginal people of Canada as a founding nation of this country. During the Meech Lake debate, the Prime Minister had promised to discuss aboriginal issues, which he failed to do. History will show how serious he was when he made his declaration on September 25, 1990.


FORESTRY
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is autumn, young people are back in school, MPs are back in Parliament and Nova Scotia's Christmas tree growers are about to begin this year's harvest in earnest.
This weekend, the Lunenburg Christmas Tree Producers Association celebrate their 24th annual meeting and conference. We wish them well.
The Christmas tree industry yields some $70 million to Canadians and Lunenburg County, Canada's unquestioned Christmas tree capital, exports in excess of one million trees a year. These exports mean jobs for Canadians.
Soon the signs of Christmas will appear. I urge all Canadians and indeed all members to support Canada's Christmas tree industry this year by having a real Christmas tree.

Real Christmas trees are beautiful, environmentally friendly and one of Canada's great renewable resources.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House the disruption of the ferry service between St. Barbe in the riding of my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and Blanc Sablon in the riding of Manicouagan as a result of a strike that has gone on all summer.
This ferry is the only link between the island of Newfoundland and southern Labrador. The disruption of the service at the height of the tourist season and in the midst of a fishery already in crisis has been devastating for both businesses and individuals.
This labour dispute must be resolved now and similar disruptions prevented in future in what I believe is an essential service. My colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte joins me in calling on the government to immediately bring labour and management to the table for a solution to the problem.
As well, the government should make special assistance available to those in tourism and the fishery who were crippled by the disruption of the service.
Finally, steps must be taken to deal with labour disputes in a manner that will not disrupt what, in effect, is a vital and essential service.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Today, for the first time in our history, the Queen has created eight additional Senate seats, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.
Why did the Prime Minister give that advice to the Queen, rather than advising the Minister of Finance to withdraw the GST, the most unpopular tax in Canadian history, presented by the most unpopular government in Canadian history?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been in this place for a long time and has been a very ardent student of parliamentary democracy. He knows very well that it is the obligation and, in fact, the duty of the duly elected Government of Canada to proceed with its legislative program and, indeed, to pass its legislative measures and particularly budgetary measures.
I think the hon. member recognizes that if the Senate were allowed to kill budgetary measures or block budgetary measures as it has and as it proposes to do so in the future, it would literally strangle the parliamentary process that we have and that we all respect and attempt to uphold. It is for that reason that these extraordinary actions had to be taken.
I simply remind the hon. member that the Senate has delayed three pieces of legislation currently before it, all of which have major financial implications: Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance bill which has been delayed for 10 months; Bill C-28, the large corporations tax which has been delayed for 9 months; and, Bill C-62 has been delayed for five months. We now have a motion before the Senate which states that the bill will not be proceeded with.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. leader's leader outside the House is on record as saying that he is going to kill the GST and there is no major financial bill that has ever been killed in the Senate before. That is why this unprecedented action is required.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions THE SENATE


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the words of the Deputy Prime Minister sound rather hollow when he claims to be using undemocratic means to appoint unelected people to defend democracy. The words are hollow.
When our Constitution was repatriated in 1982, Canadians thought that they had a Constitution based in this country which would not be interpreted outside of Canada on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Right now a court in British Columbia is seized of the matter of the use of the clause in question of our Constitution. Why will the government not wait to appoint the eight additional senators until the British Columbia court has ruled on this matter? If this government is so concerned about the rule of law, why will it not refer the question itself to the Supreme Court of Canada today?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition will want to re-read Article 26 of the Constitution of Canada which says:
If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.
That is pretty clear. It has been upheld in terms of our own legal advisors, plus a number of outside legal advisors who have shared that same view.
If we are going to uphold the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy, we cannot allow an unelected body to run roughshod over the will of the people of Canada, namely as represented in the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister talks about democracy. They are strange words when he tries to use this
method of the Constitution to ram through a measure opposed by 85 per cent of the Canadian people-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and when the government trying to thwart the will of 85 per cent of the Canadian people has the support of the lowest number since polling began in the country 50 years ago.


Some hon. members:: Hear! Hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to a constitutional provision under which the Governor General may appoint eight additional senators. But, Mr. Speaker, Canadian courts never did rule on that provision!
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister why is he not seeking to go before the courts and let them settle the matter instead of relying on private and secret legal advisers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should take some time to spend with his leader and his leader in the other house to talk some sense into them and to lay out the facts as to what really is the relevance of the meaning of Parliamentary democracy and the fact that they are taking unprecedented action by blocking a financial bill which is fundamental to the future of this country-a number of financial bills. If he prevailed upon both of those leaders, we would not have to take this unprecedented action. I challenge him to do it, even at this late date.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, a consititutional expert of the eminence of Eugene Forsey, today stated that, in fact, there was not a deadlock in the Senate, because there has not been a vote and there is no basis to invoke Article 26, which the Deputy Prime Minister has called upon.
Furthermore, before invoking such an article, the Governor General has the constitutional responsibility to consult widely, including consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition in the House.

September 27, 1990

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how his Governor General could call-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member has some strong views and is putting a forceful question, but it is not appropriate to call into question the integrity or the position of the Queen's representative in Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How could the Governor General advise the Queen specifically on a measure which has never been used in the history of Canada without having consulted widely in a way that his constitutional obligations require him to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Forsey has been clearly on record indicating that the deadlock has really occurred with respect to C-21, which is the unemployment insurance bill. We would not even have to consider Bill C-62 as well as C-28. People such as Mr. Dawson and other legal opinions and law officers of the Crown have clearly indicated that the interpretation that we have placed upon Section 26 is correct. I suspect that the Governor General would have sought outside legal advice as well.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question directed to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Can he explain how there has been a deadlock in the Senate when there has not been a vote?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the intentions have been pretty clear. It has been enunciated-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised. Why does the hon. member not read the motion that is currently before the Senate which says that Bill C-62 should not be proceeded with further in the Senate?
Mr. Chretien has said it should be defeated. Mr. MacEachen says it will be defeated. They have indicated that there is a blockage. We have to use every vehicle at our disposal to ensure that we have the legitimate right to pursue our legislative program and that is precisely
Oral Questions
what we are doing, even though it is not the most desirable course.
The hon. member could do her part by taking Mr. Chretien aside and taking Mr. MacEachen aside and talking some sense in the interest of preserving our parliamentary democracy.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Like all Canadians, I am relieved that there have been no more deaths as a result of the Oka crisis and that we are now hopefully able to move on to another phase in dealing with aboriginal issues in the country. I, too, as I am sure everyone in the House and all Canadians, am very concerned about the loss of the young police officer's life as well.
There are many unanswered questions about what occurred at Kanesatake and Kahnawake this summer, questions about the role of the federal government, the provincial governments, the Siirete du Quebec, the army and the Mohawks. On Monday I asked the Prime Minister if he would consider holding a full public inquiry into all of the events that have occurred. He responded to me and I quote from page 13208 of Hansard:
- the government will be more than pleased to take the kind of action suggested by my hon. friend.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Will he, on behalf of the government, today commit to a full and public inquiry on the events that occurred this summer at Kahnawake and Kanesatake?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are certainly relieved that the warriors who were holding out in the treatment centre have laid down their arms, have been taken into custody and that now we can get on with dealing with the healing of the wounds and the legitimate aspirations and the obligations we owe to our aboriginal peoples.
In the context of the future, I would remind the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party there is a motion on the Order Paper, motion No. 17, which would refer all of these questions to the Standing Committee on

September 27, 1990
Oral Questions
Justice and the Solicitor General. Therefore, if we vote on that motion we have the remedy she seeks.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. Clearly what is needed is a full public inquiry so that all aspects can be heard. I would take it from the minister's comments that he is saying no to that.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech last Tuesday the Prime Minister committed himself to speeding up the native people land claim negotiation process. I am delighted, but good intentions and promises are no longer enough: native people have had too much of that as it is.
Here is my question to the minister: what specific long-term plan does he have in mind to speed up this land claim process throughout the country?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in response to the preface to the hon. member's question, I would say there is no more public place than the Parliament of Canada and its committees in which to discuss and review these questions.
In regard to the acceleration of the means of disposing of comprehensive claims, we certainly do intend to make alterations to certain limitations, such as the six-claims limit, and to develop regionalized processes or provincewide processes to deal with the unique circumstances of a province, such as British Columbia. There has not been a settlement of claims in British Columbia, with the exception of two treaties, since the time it entered Confederation. The details will be forthcoming in the days ahead.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is interesting to hear the Minister of Indian Affairs say that there is no more public place than Parliament. I agree. That is why we wanted Parliament recalled during the summer to discuss this.
The Prime Minister also said that he would promote self-government within the context of the Canadian
Constitution for aboriginal people. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: what kind of constitutional process is proposed to be undertaken? Will his government support the entrenchment of self-government in the Canadian Constitution? What will be the plans to involve aboriginal people in that process?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister indicated that the evolution of self-government within the native communities of Canada will be enabled within the constitutional limitations that exist today and if, by some means, at a future day we can modify or amend those constitutional limits, we will have to wait until that time arrives. Meanwhile, we will work to fully accommodate the aspirations of aboriginal people to realize self-government within the present constitutional framework.


THE SENATE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe - Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister who did not answer the question asked by my colleague, how can there be a deadlock if there has been no vote.
The Queen is obliged to take the advice of the Prime Minister. The Queen is not obliged nor, unfortunately, does the Queen investigate the basis for that advice. The fact is there has been no vote on Bill C-21. There has been no vote on Bill C-28 and, most important, there has been no vote because of a Tory filibuster on the GST.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why has the Prime Minister of Canada deliberately misled the Queen of Canada about paralysis in the Senate?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not at all sure that that is an allegation that can go uncommented upon. I know the hon. member would not want to make the allegation that the Prime Minister or anybody else in this chamber had deliberately misled Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. I would ask the hon. member to delete that part of his preamble and question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, taking your advice into consideration as I always do, why has the Prime Minister misled the Queen of Canada?
September 27, 1990


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Beatty:: The rats are back.


An hon. member:: Next question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member would want members to understand exactly what he means. I take it that what the hon. member is trying to say is that the information given to Her Majesty the Queen is, in the eyes of the hon. member, not all the information that ought to be there. If the hon. member would rise and confirm that that is his intention.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that there is no doubt in my mind, and that is what I meant, that the information given to the Queen was obviously incomplete.


Mr. Speaker:: I am quick to point out to the hon. member, as I am sure Her Majesty the Queen would well know, being familiar with parliamentary matters, that of course is a question of debate.
Perhaps the government would like to answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the hon. member's question although the premise of his question is fundamentally flawed because, as he knows-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put a question; there has been the necessity of an intervention; the hon. member has co-operated; the minister is now rising to answer. If it is an important question, as I am sure it is, hon. members will, of course, want to hear the hon. minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said before I was interrupted, the premise of the hon. member's question is fundamentally flawed. He should know, if he does not know, that C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act has been sent back to the Senate on three different occasions and so we can only assume that there were votes taken.


Mr. Harvard:: Call a conference.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It has been before the Senate for some 10 months. Bill C-28, which is a tax bill, has been before the Senate for nine months-
Oral Questions


Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Misleading.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Then, maybe perhaps Mr. Forsey is misleading Canadians too when he said on a program called CBC Newsworld on September 17, 1990, "Unquestionably, the provision", that is Section 26, "was put"-


John V. Nunziata: Be honest.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why don't you quote him on Meech Lake.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Let's get this on the record, "-the provision", which was Section 26 of the Constitution Act, "was put in there to look after deadlocks between two Houses-"


Sheila Maureen Copps: Deadlock.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, just a minute, let me complete this. He goes on to say: "Well, there is a deadlock between the two Houses now".


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should be current. He ought to know that Mr. Forsey said this morning he does not regard the situation that currently exists as a deadlock between both Houses of Parliament. Now, Mr. Speaker, C-21 has been stayed at the request of the government. The GST has not been voted on because of a government filibuster. Let me put this to the Deputy Prime Minister, don't name your senators, we will have votes on all those bills today.


Mr. Speaker:: It may or may not have been a question. In any event, it was not put through the Chair. The government may wish to respond.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to get back to the question put earlier by the leader of the Opposition, a question I feel is absolutly vital. I wish the Deputy Prime Minister would explain why, considering that the question about certain circumstances that might, I repeat, might, allow the appointment of additional senators under Section 26 of the Constitution is being challenged before the British Columbia Court of Appeal. According to custom in this country, the government must await the court's decision. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why his government is not prepared to wait until the court has

Oral Questions
ruled on this matter, before asking the Governor General to appoint eight additional senators.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, veiy simply, because our legal advisers have indicated that the situation that we presently face warrants the invocation of Section 26. Professor William Dawson of the University of Western Ontario and former Senator Eugene Forsey have been quoted to this effect. Our own law officers of the Crown have indicated that and the hon. member should know, in reading Section 26 of the Constitution of Canada Act, it is pretty clear it does not suggest that you have to seek a legal opinion before you invoke it.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, whatever the Deputy Prime Minister may say, it is quite obvious that legal and constitutional opinions in this respect are very much divided on this issue.
Why are the Deputy Prime Minister and his government trying to draw the position of the Governor General into the political arena? Why does he absolutely want to politicize the Governor General's role at this time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members and members of the Liberal Party are simply trying to divert the real issue. The real issue here is the supremacy of the elected House of Commons.
The hon. member, who is a distinguished House of Commons member, should be one of the first ones to stand up in defence of the House of Commons. I am very much surprised to see him promoting the idea that the Senate should undermine the integrity of the elected will of the people of Canada and the House of Commons.


André Ouellet: Answer my question.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister that government lawyers have been wrong before.
The Prime Minister has decided to roll the dice one more time-


Mr. Crosbie:: Take the word "democratic" out of your party name.


An hon. member:: You are turning purple, John.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we all thought the Prime Minister was trying to roll an eight, but I hear that he has rolled a nine and in just a few minutes we are going to have nine Senators sworn in.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, given that this is before the courts, does he not think it unwise on the part of the government to add insult to injury by making what is already an unjust tax a possibly illegal tax? Would that not simply add to the chaos that he says he now fears?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The answer to that question is no, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister quoted an NDP expert on constitutional issues when he said that, "as much as he dislikes the tax, I think we now have a prescription for parliamentary and political chaos which is mind-boggling". That was a quotation by Stephen Lewis.
Today on Canada AM we had the spokesman for the NDP saying and I quote, "It is creating a terrible, terrible precedent that one day the rest of us will rue for these Liberal Senators who say they have the right to stop the functioning of an elected government". I agree with that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friends in the NDP, I did not know that either of them were constitutional experts or that they speak for the NDP for that matter.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question, the Deputy Prime Minister not seeing what is at stake here with respect to what the Senate is doing and the entire crisis. There is the whole question
September 27, 1990

of political legitimacy brought on by the unprecedented political illegitimacy of this government and his is the only government in the history of Canada that can make the Senate look good.
So I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, will he not do the only thing that can restore political legitimacy to this country and call an election?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion reminds me of his former leader who in August 1987 was promoting the same line. His picture was on the front page of Maclean's magazine getting ready to take over Sussex. When the election was called and after the results were known he was the first one to knock on the Prime Minister's door seeking a patronage job.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister could answer the question.


An hon. member:: Withdraw.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, someone says I should withdraw. I say to them: if the shoe fits, wear it.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we now know why they are at 15 per cent in the polls.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister is rather selective in quoting his parliamentary precedent with regard to what is taking place. The Deputy Prime Minister should be aware that in paragraph 338 of Beauchesne's and also by quotes made by the right hon. former Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Yellowhead, stated, and I quote: "That when a matter is raised in two public institutions, one being a Supreme Court, the other being Parliament of Canada, it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister of Canada to respect the roles and customs of the House of Commons and withdraw the matter from further consideration".
Will the Deputy Prime Minister do the honourable thing and withdraw the GST from further consideration in the upper House?
Oral Questions


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member is a lawyer. He should consult with the Table. He will find out that essentially civil actions do not bring this institution to a halt, do not bring the Government of Canada to a halt. He was quoting circumstances involving the Criminal Code and criminal actions, not civil actions.
He should be aware that the government has every right to proceed with its legislative program, and people who believe in democracy would be discouraging the Senate from doing what it is trying to do now.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the hon. House leader, I refer him to quotes made by the right hon. former Prime Minister, the hon. member for Yellowhead, on March 26, 1981 which clarifies that.
Today the leader of my party, the opposition House leader, as well as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, wrote a letter to the Governor General. It states, and I quote part of that letter: "There is eminent authority that constitutional convention requires the Governor General to accept advice from the Prime Minister or to appoint such senators only when certain extraordinary circumstances exist". Such circumstances do not exist today.
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister and that government opposite using the Governor General as an accomplice in a political scandal?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Out, out.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that is acceptable in this place. It is not necessary. In that question he went too far. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that part of the question.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in reference to your instructions, I hope the hon. Speaker has not interpreted my remarks as a reflection on the quality of the Governor General.


Mr. Speaker:: I am asking the hon. member to withdraw it.


David Charles Dingwall: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

September 27, 1990
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, the extraordinary circumstances do exist.
The hon. member and his leader can certainly do justice to the system and the traditions of our parliamentary democracy by prevailing upon their colleagues in the Senate to cease and desist the kind of action in which they are engaged. That is what is the fundamental issue: the preservation of our system of parliamentary democracy.


Mr. Speaker:: I was remiss in not thanking the hon. member for withdrawing, and I do thank the hon. member.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the British Columbia Court of Appeal will be hearing the question on the constitutionality of the appointment of the eight senators. It is obvious the government is not confident that the decision is going to be in its favour.
Why does the government not wait until the B.C. Court of Appeal gives its decision before it forces this unpopular bill on the Canadian people?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not like the action that the government is forced to take, I ask him and invite him to prevail upon his friends in the Senate, the Liberal senators, to cease and desist their action and allow the normal process of legislative passage to go through.
We have three major tax bills currently before the Senate: Bills C-21, C-28, and C-69, plus the GST, which is Bill C-62. Many of these bills have been held up for almost a year.
Why does he not prevail upon them and continue to support and allow the traditions of our system of parliamentary democracy to prevail as they have over successive years?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the government is fond of telling the native people, and indeed all Canadians, that they are not above the courts in this country.
Why this double standard? Why does the government not heed its own words? Why does the government not wait for the court decision before it takes action in this matter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Senate may want to consider the same thing, because what it is doing is unprecedented in the history of this country.
What the hon. members of the House of Commons should discontinue is taking their cues and their leadership from the hon. senator who leads them in the Senate. That is what is fundamentally wrong. He is corrupting and distorting.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the corrupting and the other words used were directed at a conspiracy between the hon. member and somebody in the other place, but I am sure the hon. minister would want to assure us that that was not the intention.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Certainly the comment was not casting any reflection upon any member of the House, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What about the Senate?


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Deputy Prime Minister. He was just talking about things being unprecedented. I want to ask him about the action that is about to follow.
There are now two precedents in history where governments tried to swamp the Upper House. One was in Canada by Alexander Mackenzie back in the 1800s. The second was in Britain by Lloyd George when trying to get a tax bill through the House of Lords. He asked the King to appoint additional Lords. The King responded that there was no crisis; if there was a deadlock, call an election and let the people decide, and "if the people re-elect you then I will appoint additional Lords".

Since members of the Conservative Party are interested in precedent in this country, I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada: Why don't they follow the precedent in these two examples and let the people of Canada decide? That is the precedent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, because the situation is fundamentally different.
What I do find so extraordinary is the NDP supporting the actions of the Senate, and in following that course of action they really are in effect supporting the subversion of the House of Commons. That is a precedent which I find absolutely and totally incredible.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the finance committee is saying: "Abolish the Senate." Why didn't you abolish the Senate a long time ago? You would be supported by this party if you would do that now. Why didn't you do that?
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the possibility of an illegal tax. Section 26 of the Constitution has never been used before in the history of this country. It is now being challenged before the court in British Columbia. It could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
What is the contingency plan of the federal government? If indeed these eight senators are deemed to be illegal senators, does that make the tax illegal? Are people going to be given refunds? What is the plan of the government if that indeed happens?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a hypothetical question, but I think the hon. member is going to have to make up his mind in so far as his relationship with the Senate and the NDP is concerned.
They are going to have to make up their mind as to whether they want to abolish it or use it, because quite frankly we are a bit mystified by their inconsistent action.
Oral Questions HOUSING


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing.
Despite some recent reductions the price of a home in metropolitan Toronto is over $250,000. The average family cannot afford $250,000. It requires a down payment of $60,000 and an annual income of $90,000 a year.
I would like to know if this government has any creative solutions planned to ease that problem. Perhaps the minister of housing could squeeze the Minister of Finance's arm into allowing RRSPs to be used as down payments.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and other members of the House are well aware, the government is developing surplus federal government lands in the metropolitan Toronto area in order to try to ease the affordable housing problems, including lands at Vaughan, Downs-view, and the CMHC branch lands.
In addition, we have introduced an initiative, the ACT program, Affordability and Choice Today. We have set up a federal-provincial-municipal committee dealing with affordability. We are about to hold a housing financing conference, the very first in this country, to examine creative ideas to bring about more affordable housing in the Toronto area and all over the country.



John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the courts in British Columbia have been called upon by the British Columbia government to decide whether or not the use of section 26 is constitutional.
He knows as well that the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Alberta are also considering a court challenge. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has considered the chaotic consequences that will occur if the courts render this government's use of section 26 unconstitutional and illegal.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a completely hypothetical question. The minister does not have to answer it.

Point of Uruer


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government has not given that consideration.
The Government of Canada has consulted with the Governor General and the Governor General has consulted with the Queen. The government indicates that it has legal opinions upon which it bases its decision.
Is the government prepared to table those legal opinions and to table the advice that it gave to the Governor General?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only advise the hon. member that the process that is customary and needs to be followed in circumstances of this nature was followed. I can assure the hon. member that everything is in order.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the agreement signed on September 14 with Newfoundland, the Government of Canada and the consortium were firmly committed to economic spin-offs for the province of Newfoundland, but as far as Quebec and the other provinces were concerned, the agreement on the Hibernia project merely states that, "-the consortium also promises to do what it can-"
In other words, some are more equal than others. After making Clyde Wells a present of $2.7 billion, of which $675 million was paid by Quebec taxpayers, how can the minister justify this double standard?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member has asked me that question because it gives me the opportunity to tell him again, as I did in the debate yesterday, that there are 2.1 million hours of work guaranteed for Newfoundland and two million hours of work for the rest of Canada.
In fact, the hon. member should have heard about the first two contracts that have been released. The first, for $1.3 billion, 59.33 per cent goes to companies in Quebec. If he will look at the management of the top sides and the project management, that contract is for $360 million, 85 per cent of which is for S and C M Anenko in Quebec. What is interesting is that these contracts, of roughly $1 billion, have gone into the province of Quebec while others are going into Newfoundland. What I am pleased about is that my colleagues from the province of Quebec have stayed here to fight for Quebec effectively, I wish he had too.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Akira Ohno, Minister of Transport for Japan.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Vadin V. Bakatin, Minister of the Interior of the U.S.S.R.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Chuck Furey, Minister of Development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention Standing Order 18 relating to disrespectful or offensive language. The Standing Order reads:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of
any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person
administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words
against either House, or against any Member thereof.
At your request, Mr. Speaker, I withdrew remarks which you believed were intended to be disrespectful of the Governor General. However, on numerous occasions, including today, we have heard the Deputy Prime Minister make reference to members in the other House

September 27, 1990

as being very "corruptive", to paraphrase the words of the Deputy Prime Minister.
If the Deputy Prime Minister did not intend to make that kind of reflection with regard to the Upper House, I would hope that he could stand and withdraw that remark. However, if the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that members in the Upper House are corruptive, I think he ought to be very specific in terms of whether that be Finlay MacDonald, Senator Buchanan or Senator Cogger. We would like to know, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that the hon. member would allow me to assist the House. I am not quite sure exactly what the hon. member has in mind with that question. The question, of course, carries its own message, which is a matter for political discussion, but I find that the point of order falls somewhat short of an exact allegation or even a request that the hon. minister withdraw any particular comment. The hon. minister may want to respond but that is up to him.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments and so there is absolutely no question in the mind of the hon. member, other members, and hon. senators, the interpretation of the hon. member that I was making reference to the fact that members of the other place were corrupt was certainly not my intention.
What I was saying was that the process was corrupting, and maybe that is even an inappropriate word. I would ask the indulgence of the House to substitute the words "subverting the process" instead of corrupting the process.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during a Question Period exchange the Deputy Prime Minister-I know the kind of man he is-I think inadvertently gave the impression that the former member for Oshawa had somehow been asking the Prime Minister for an appointment.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he would not just explain that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Cut your losses.
Point of Order


Nelson Andrew Riis: -that it was not the case, confirm that it was not the case, and if he would just clarify that particular point.


Mr. Speaker:: I, of course, heard the reference to the hon. minister but I do not think the hon. minister is compelled to respond to that. However, if he wishes to do that it is completely his business. I think the matter should be discussed elsewhere.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday I would like-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I must save the member for Ottawa-Vanier. I had indicated that the hon. House leader had been seeking the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I just would like, by way of a point of order, to indicate my concern about what happened here in Question Period.
We had a situation where the member for Humber- St. Barbe-Baie Verte made the statement that the government was deliberately misleading the Queen. You got to your feet and asked that he withdraw the statement. He then withdrew the word "deliberately" but said we were misleading the Queen. You then asked him to further withdraw. He then did that.
The net result of that particular question was to leave on the record those accusations. That language is prohibited by virtue of our practices as set out in Beauchesne's. Those kinds of accusations cannot be made.
Having therefore, in a political sense, for the edification of the camera, succeeded, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond then went on to make remarks about the Governor General being involved in perhaps illicit activities, or what have you, with the government.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: Your Honour then, quite properly, asked him to withdraw his remarks. He did withdraw, and Your Honour thanked him for it.
My point of order is this. It is on the record, it is done, it is out there. The net result is to make that sort of thing an acceptable procedure because it accomplishes what

September 27, 1990
Point of Order
was intended to be accomplished, totally contrary to why we have these rules in place.
Now, Sir, I do not know what the immediate answer is to the problem. One of the consequences of what happened was an increase in the disorder in the House, which has to be acknowledged-a lot of barracking, a lot of shouting-I am sure we sent a great example to those who might have been watching as to the nature of the conduct in this House.
Perhaps, Sir, I could suggest that maybe this whole question might be referred to the appropriate committee of the House so that we could ask them to study how Question Period might be conducted, might be led by yourself, in a way that does not bring such discredit on the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to those words.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear. I do not think we have any lessons to take from that gentleman. Further, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you have any orders to take from that gentleman either.
I would like to make two or three points about the editorializing during Question Period. We are fed up with having that minister getting to his feet and preaching to the people of this House when he cannot even practice what he preaches.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to allow that kind of statement from now on, we want a chance to editorialize on Question Period after Question Period, on the quality of the answers we get from that lousy government. We do not think it is proper for the House leader to get up after Question Period and start editorializing, pontificating about how good he is and how to maintain order. It is the Speaker's job and duty to maintain order and I do not think that that gentleman would stand a chance of getting elected in this House as Speaker of the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest when the government House leader was indicating his concern that some members of the House had misstated the truth and then had left that on the record.
I find it rather amusing, when the Deputy Prime Minister who sits near him, stated an obvious mistruth today and refused to correct the record and, in a smug way, just walked out. This is a very serious allegation and for him to say that someone ought not to have done what the Deputy Prime Minister did today, that is cast a slur on the previous member from Oshawa, which I personally find disgusting and despicable, it seems that he waters down his arguments somewhat.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I heard what was said during Question Period. I am not setting myself up as a defender of the Queen but I am sure that we heard a number of instances of lese-majeste. Throughout Question Period, there were insinuations that the Queen had erred in accepting the Prime Minister's recommendation. The monarchy and the Queen's competence have been called into question, and coming from the party of the hon. member for York-South-Weston, one of the great defenders of the oath of allegiance to the Queen, I found this very surprising. I think we should check whether some members broke their oath of allegiance to the Queen today, Mr. Speaker.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member for Shefford that he should listen more carefully to Question Period. What we on this side of the House were criticizing today was the government's misuse of the Governor General's office for political and partisan ends. At no time did we ever question the role of the Queen or her prerogative to respond to a request from her Privy Council. What we did criticize was the Prime Minister's and the Conservative government's misuse of the Governor General's office.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning an exchange with the Deputy Prime Minister earlier today in Question Period, in which he said, quite clearly, that Bill C-21 is being held up in the other place because of the opposition.
I think it is improper to misrepresent the progress of legislation through both our Houses. On May 10-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. Many things are said on both sides of this House that are contradicted, corrected, adjusted or sometimes amended in the course of debate. We could go on all afternoon if we took those points
September 27, 1990

literally. The hon. member, clearly, has picked up something which he thinks is inaccurate and there are other ways to make that point.
I want to return for a moment, if we can finish up this matter which was raised by the hon. House leader. There are, of course, appropriate ways to take the rules which we have in front of the appropriate committee. If at any time hon. members wish to come into my office and discuss this, I would be only too pleased.
In the interest of the public that is watching us, let me point out the dilemma in which a Speaker finds himself or herself in a television age. Something may be said which is inappropriate but it is said. It is then on the electronic media. The Speaker of course, acting under centuries of tradition and according to the rules, asks an hon. member to withdraw or to put the matter in a more appropriate way. Several examples of that were found today and I have to say on both sides of the House there were withdrawals.
What is almost impossible for a Speaker to do, though, is to stop the comment before it is made. Sometimes, because I have an incredible ability to define what is coming, I am able to cut off a speaker before the speaker has spoken. But it does not happen very often and usually it leads to a member visiting my office saying: "What was it you thought I was going to say?" If I tell him or her I may be insulting them, and other times I may have given them a marvellous thought. In any event, you see the difficulty.
On a more serious note-fortunately, we did not have this today-some time ago I had to remark that comments made in preambles, while clearly out of line, after they are said can do great damage to people across the country. To a remarkable degree, and I thank all hon. members for this, there has been a lot of co-operation in keeping that in mind.
Today some things were said which I felt ought not to have been said and they have been withdrawn. I have to point out to all hon. members that ultimately this place depends on the self-discipline of everybody because the Speaker can correct, the Speaker can force a withdrawal, the Speaker can even dismiss a member. It does not stop the fact that things are said. Things are on the electronic
Business of the House
media and of course once there, they are no longer the property of this place.
I would ask all hon. members, especially when we are in matters of great importance, to keep those things in mind. I know all hon. members will try to co-operate.
I think we need the usual business question.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it's Thursday, and the Opposition has a duty to ask the government what will be on the legislative menu for the coming week.
I also would like to know whether the Prime Minister intends to make the necessary arrangements very shortly so that Canadians in the ridings of Beausejour and York North will have a democratically-elected representative in this House. Can we expect the government to call by-elections in these ridings within the next few days?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is the duty or responsibility of the Opposition House Leader to ask for the minutes but he has been doing it. Certainly I want to co-operate with him and provide as much forewarning as possible.
Today, we will continue with the Iraq motion. I hope the discussions can carry on across the floor and other ways so that we could find a way to reach a conclusion on that debate at some time. If there is a desire to extend hours to allow more people to speak, we would be co-operative with that. We want to give everybody in the House who wants to participate an opportunity to participate in the debate, but at some point in time we would like to bring it to a conclusion as well and have it voted on.
Tomorrow, I would hope to continue with the report stage of Bill C-44; perhaps also to complete second reading of Bill C-73, a technical and administrative bill dealing with the Crown Corporation Dissolution Act. There is a time question involved and it would be helpful to the smooth administration of the dissolution of these

September 27, 1990
Business of the House
obsolete Crown corporations if we could have that passed. I hope I could receive the co-operation of the opposition in that regard.
On Monday, the agenda to some extent will depend on the progress we make today and tomorrow. In all likelihood I will be calling Bill C-44, the Hibernia energy legislation, hopefully for completion. In the meantime, we will carry on our usual discussions respecting further business.
In terms of whether or not there is going to be a by-election in Beausejour, one thing I can say with great certainty is that the Prime Minister would relish the opportunity of getting the new "la petite garde du Nouveau Brunswick" in the House and will not present an obstacle.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question with the House Leader.
As he knows, at the beginning of the week I submitted a motion for an emergency debate on the question of the World Summit for Children. I also raised the question directly with the Prime Minister who responded in the House-I believe it was on Tuesday-in a positive way, saying he thought it would be an important opportunity for members of Parliament to express the concerns of their constituents.
There was an indication that there might be a day called before the Prime Minister left for New York. I gather from what the House Leader just said that it is not possible.
In that circumstance, I wonder if the House Leader would be prepared to designate a day next week after the return of the Prime Minister when we have at least seen what the statements were. Members of Parliament would have the opportunity to present what is a very strong and compelling concern of many of our constituents about children's rights and how that is being approached in the international area. It would be certainly in accordance with the Prime Minister's wishes, because he so expressed himself in the House on Tuesday.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, indeed, he did and we did make some efforts to see if that could be accomplished. Having the situation with the Iraq motion, which I am sure the hon. member agreed we needed to proceed with in the House, we had tried to get extended hours on Monday but failed to get consent of the opposition in that regard. Of course, we needed to proceed with the Oka motion, as well as having other legislative business.
We did talk some about perhaps using an allotted opposition day for that purpose but, quite rightfully, the hon. member's House leader said the opposition will decide the subject of opposition days and I will not try to interfere.
On the general question, we would like to be accommodating in achieving a debate on that very important subject. The only caveat I put to that is that we do have some very important legislation and other items on which I need to receive progress. If we can have our usual discussions and achieve agreement on that, we will certainly be ready and more than willing to co-operate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the response of the House Leader and I recognize the difficulties sometimes in arranging House business. I would make the case that I do not think that there is anything more important right now than the concern about children.
While we have a veiy full agenda, as he well knows, we are just back in the first week. We have a nice long time ahead of us through to December and these issues will continue to be debated. I hope that in the next week the government will designate its own day and resolution.
The Prime Minister has taken a role as the co-chair of the summit and it has been a matter of very intense discussion across the country. It would be a very important opportunity for Canadians, not only to hear from the Prime Minister on his return from the United Nations, but for us to reciprocate with our views on behalf of so many Canadians.
I really would urge the House Leader and I am sure he will find full co-operation from this side.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake in terms of the priority. The mere fact that the Prime Minister of Canada is chairing this international confer-
September 27, 1990

ence on children is an indication of the importance that the government places on it.
What I do have to ask, perhaps a bit with tongue in cheek, whether debates in the House are very healthy for children, especially their mental health, given what happened earlier here today.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if we had a designated day for debate on the rights of children, we might show them that this Parliament, maybe once in a while, will live up to their expectation. We expect the House Leader to show some leadership in that regard.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to raise a matter that arose in Question Period yesterday. I have drawn the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that I was to raise this matter.
In Hansard at page 13447, he made reference to me and, based on a newspaper article which I understand appeared in The Ottawa Citizen on September 19, he alleged that I stated things that I simply did not state. He implied a position that I held which is not mine, nor is it even reasonable to draw that conclusion from the words in the newspaper article.
Knowing him to be an honourable man, I am sure that he has had time now to see that he misspoke himself in saying that I advanced this position and I would hope that, in the circumstances, he would be prepared to withdraw and apologize.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend opposite is getting just a little tender.
The quote that he was referring to, if I can read it back to him, is this: "Our credibility"-this is the Liberal Party's credibility-"will be in shreds if we don't come up with a thoughtful alternative to tax reform that stands up to scrutiny."
The point that I was making yesterday is that here we have the Liberal Party in the other place, the unelected senators, saying: "We are going to kill this bill." We saw in the House today where it is fully supported by the
Government Orders
other members of the Liberal Party here and, at the same time, by implication, the member from Ottawa is saying: "We have no alternative to this bill."
The point that I was making to the member for Acadie-Bathurst is that it is quite incredible to me that the Liberal Party would be killing a bill which the business community has said will throw the business sector into chaos over a period of time if not dealt with. At the same time, the member is saying clearly, by implication, that there is no alternative, that they have not come up with any alternative. Since 1987 we have had a white paper on sales tax reform and an election campaign when the party said that it was not going to go ahead with sales tax reform and it really astounds me that this party has not come up with an alternative.
I say to my hon. friends that if they do have an alternative they should say so. But if they do not have an alternative, they should recognize that their credibility is in shreds, recognize that they have no legitimacy in raising these questions in the House, recognize that the Senate has no legitimacy in-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Ottawa South would want to respond.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my presumption concerning the minister appears to have been wrong. He correctly read from the article. I said and am quoted as saying: "Our credibility will be in shreds if we don't come up with a thoughtful alternative to tax reform that stands up to scrutiny." He said that I said: "-the credibility of the Liberal Party would be in shreds if the Liberal Party of Canada, through its non-elected Senate"-its non-elected Senate-"votes down the GST when it does not have an alternative to put in place." I think any reasonable reading of those two would show that the point being made by the minister is quite different.
What I have said, and what I continue to say and what our Leader has said, is that prior to the next election we will need to come forward with a thoughtful alternative to tax reform. I stand by that. If the minister would like to put his GST to the people today, I will do what I can to come up with the alternative right away for him. But in the meantime, the phoney case that he has been trying to make is that his GST is the answer to some bizarre, chaotic, situation crisis in Canada that is calling out for an answer. In fact, his tax is what is going to create chaos and the alternative to it is to put it in the shredding

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
machines in his office and forget it, before he drives the country crazy.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my word was not "chaos". That was the word of the business community which is saying that if this legislation does not go ahead, there will be chaos, there will be major disruption, there will be large losses of money on the part of the business community who are planning for the GST to provide.
The hon. member says to put it to the people. We did put it to the people. In 1988 we had an election which a year and three months after sales tax reform was put forward in broad detail in a white paper. I do not see how much more we can put to the people. It was there at the election in 1987.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. member said. I read what I said yesterday and possibly I was a little-I hesitate to use this word-liberal in my interpretation of what he had to say. But the essence of the point is clear. There is no legitimacy whatsoever by the the Liberal Party here in this House or on the other side in the Senate to stop this legislation and throw the business community into chaos when they have no alternative. They have not stated what their alternative is. In fact, they very proudly say-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me deal with this point first. I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Ottawa South. I have listened to the exchanges and I will look at Hansard and see whether there is any necessity to come back to the House. It, of course, illustrates how careful we have to be when we appear to be quoting another person. Perhaps we all need sometimes to be reminded of that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been parading his moral mandate before the House of Commons for a number of days. He claims to have a moral mandate because of the last federal election. I always believed the Minister of Finance to be a man of integrity. But I explicitly remember when on the issue of the GST in the last federal election he misled the Canadian people.


Harvie Andre: Point of order. Debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has very carefully not said intentionally. We are getting into debate here. I am sure all hon. members know that. The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam on a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, on a point of order. Hopefully we can be of some help to the House and to Parliament.
A few years ago Eric Nielsen, Yvon Pinard, Marc Lalonde, Ian Deans, myself and the present government House leader were able to get together and deal with the bell ringing problem we had in the House of Commons and come up with a solution. Given that the bell ringing problem started in the House with a motion by the now government House leader, I wonder if the government House leader would like to join with me now that the other fellows are not around and perhaps we could get together and deal with the problem in the Senate over the bell ringing?


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to answer on behalf of the hon. House Leader.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (p. 13232); and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) (p. 13240); and the subamendment of Ms. McLaughlin (p. 13232).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House recessed, the hon. Minister of State for Housing had the floor. He has 13 minutes plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as you indicated, prior to Question Period I had expressed my concern and my support for the motion before the House with respect to the fact that the House condemn the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and also the support for Canada's actions at the United Nations, as well as for the support for the dispatch of Canadian forces to the Arabian Peninsula.

I had indicated that with all the black clouds and the frightening aspects of this entire situation, there are some bright spots. The brightest spot, as I indicated, in my view at least, is the role that the United Nations is playing in the development process that is going on in the United Nations, an evolutionary process which I compared to the evolution of the British parliamentary system, which has taken many many hundreds of years and is still going on.
Hopefully, we are now in the process of evolving that institution of the United Nations into something that will be much more effective as a governing body in the world, much more effective in policing against unprovoked aggression and much more effective in dealing with the kinds of problems we have had and will continue to have in the world, much more effective than it has been heretofore, when it certainly has been a most ineffective body as far as Canadians in general are concerned, and people around the world.
I had started to examine some of the concerns that have been expressed by Canadians and by members of this House with respect to the various actions that have been taken by the government and the motion itself.
One of those concerns relates to the question of United Nations authorization for the action of Canadian forces and other forces in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula area. That is an understandable concern in my view.
In light of my comments previously that at the same time this evolving role of the United Nations is understandable, we certainly have not come to the point where the institution of the United Nations can react as quickly as we would like it to. Perhaps in the past it has not been able to react at all except in very limited cases, and well after the fact.
I think what we see here is a circumstance of unprovoked aggression on the part of Iraq. The threat that Iraqi forces would roll on into Saudi Arabia and roll on into other parts of the Middle East provides a need for an immediate response on the part of other United Nations countries in order to counteract that just as quickly as they possibly could. To seek authorization after the fact is exactly what has happened in this case.
Government Orders
We trust that in this ongoing process in dealing with this situation, we will be able to obtain United Nations approval and mandate before any other actions are taken. Obviously, there are circumstances in which Canadian or other forces might have to react before there is such a mandate. There might have to be an effort to try to obtain that mandate after the fact.
I think the significant part here is that we should not be allowing one nation, or a group of nations, to proceed without attempting to get that United Nations mandate.
In fact, as you are aware-unfortunately, I do not believe too many Canadians are aware-Canada has played a leading role at the United Nations in trying to get authority and a mandate for all the actions that have taken place. Although I have not seen too many reports in the Canadian press about this, there are reports in The New York Times.
I would just like to briefly refer to an article in The New York Times of August 14 of this year which indicated that Canada had, and I quote:
- indicated today that a new resolution authorizing the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter would be required before countries could legally use warships to enforce the sanctions.
In fact, Canada has been playing a leading role at the United Nations and in all other discussions on a bilateral and multilateral basis in order to ensure that there is a United Nations mandate and that one nation, whether it be the United States or any other nation, is not acting on its own, but there is a concerted effort as we have seen and it does have United Nations sanction.
Again, I hope that we can develop a process whereby this will be more automatic. This will work faster and certainly more easily in the days ahead in other crises of this sort, hopefully less severe than this sort.
Another concern that has been expressed to me by some of my constituents-not all but certainly some of them and certainly by members of this House who have pointed out their concern-that we would be sending Canadian forces to the Arabian Peninsula, to the Persian Gulf before Parliament had actually had an opportunity to sit, debate and discuss the matter.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the National Defence Act, the provisions of Canadian convention and tradition in this case have been followed.

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
They have been followed exactly in accordance with those traditions.
It is understandable, however, that Canadians should feel that this was an important matter, that Parliament should be called and have the opportunity to debate the matter even though the National Defence Act provides that there is no obligation for Parliament ever to vote on this issue in any way whatsoever, but only to be called to sit in a situation of this sort.
What disturbed me more than anything else was, when some Canadians were expressing this concern and members of Parliament were expressing this concern, when the matter was placed before the House on Monday, the very first day, there was an opportunity for the debate to be continued, perhaps for the entire evening and into the night and, perhaps it could have gone on for several days. Unfortunately, the opposition members of this House refused to give their consent to carry on that debate, notwithstanding the fact that they and other Canadians were expressing concern that this was such an important issue and that it should be brought before the House and debate fully as quickly as possible. I, for one, am dismayed that we were not able to carry on in that fashion with the continuing debate.
Another concern that has been expressed-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Kings-way on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I do hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I know that he would want the record to be set straight. When he suggested that opposition members on Monday were not prepared to continue the debate, I know he would want the record to show that, in fact, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party were both fully prepared to continue that debate, however, it was an Independent member of the House who apparently was not prepared at that time to do so.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member's intervention. Whoever it was that was not prepared to continue the debate, it was someone in the opposition benches of the House.
Another aspect that Canadians and members of the House have expressed concern about has to do with the
fact that there is no United Nations flag flying over the forces in the Persian Gulf. The forces are not wearing blue berets and there is no specifically designated United Nations commander. I, for one, hope that all of those things will happen and happen as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, you recall and I recall and I am sure other members of this House are too young to recall the Korean war. We recall that those things did not happen immediately in the Korean war either. They took a little bit of time to get into place and, hopefully, we can get them back into place more quickly than occurred in the Korean war. Hopefully, we will be able to put in place a mechanism so that those things happen more automatically in the days ahead but this is an evolving process and I think all of us should bear that in mind.
Another concern that has been expressed, particularly by some of my constituents who are Canadians of the Muslim faith, is a concern about the whole situation as it relates to the Middle Eastern situation and their roles. Some of these constituents of mine have their origin in the Middle East from a variety of Arab states and there is, just as there is in the Middle East itself, some differences of opinion within those Arab states. Those same differences of opinion are expressed here in Canada as well. I think it is important for all of us to recognize that these are Canadians who originate from countries in that part of the world, Canadians who have legitimate concerns about their families and friends, their origins and their roots which are not always the same perspective that many other Canadians may have. It is important to bear those in mind because we are talking about the concerns of Canadians.
I have suggested to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that what we need is a consultative group, perhaps something like we had in relation to the difficulties a short time ago in China. In that case we had a consultative group of Canadians of Chinese origin who were able to express the concerns of Canadians to the government and to the Secretary of State. They were able to hear the reasoning, the rationale and the position of the government and were able to act as a two-way line of communication between Canadians of Chinese origin, in that case, and the government and Canadians generally-

I think it is important thing that we should be establishing here too with respect to Canadians of Arab origin, Canadians of Muslim origin and the government in a situation like this when there are substantial differences of opinion, concerns, concepts, ideas, and information which have to be communicated back and forth so that everybody fully understands what is going on and why it is going on.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated to me that he is favourably inclined toward that sort of thing. I would like to take this occasion to urge him to proceed as quickly as possible with the creation of such an organization. I can tell him that among Canadians of the Muslim faith now a nation-wide organization has been created and is still in the evolving state which would fit in perfectly with that idea. I truly believe that it would be extremely valuable in this situation to have such a consultative body.
Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that my time is up. I would just like to close by indicating once again that I believe we are in an evolving state as far as the United Nations is concerned. In my view this is a tremendous step toward being able to deal with aggression in a collective form, in a form of collective security with an international mandate. It is even more important and is setting a significant precedent. Every time we do something like this, it is very difficult the next time to do something different. Having taken a collective international approach to this under the United Nations, it is going to be harder the next time we are faced with a crisis like this not to do the same.
I commend that to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to you, Mr. Speaker. This is something that will be helpful to all Canadians and to everyone around the world.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague and I thank him and the NDP for putting on the record that it certainly was not any member of the Official Opposition in this House who objected to extended hours on this debate on Monday evening.
However, I find it surprising that my colleague across the floor appears to be defending his government which in my opinion acted against both precedent and principle in the way it has handled the Middle East crisis;
Government Orders
precedent in terms of not recalling Parliament when this nation was faced with one of the greatest crisis of the last decade, and the principle of this country in always trying to follow UN precedent when becoming involved in any international action.
Is my colleague across the floor suggesting that it was acceptable that this House was not reconvened and that the government sent Canadian Armed Forces into the arena two weeks before a UN resolution to support such action was brought forth and gained approval?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I gather that the hon. member was not listening to my remarks because I addressed both of the issues that she has referred to. I certainly welcome the opportunity to reiterate the positions that I put.
As I indicated quite clearly, as far as the recall of Parliament is concerned, the provisions of the National Defence Act and the provisions of Canadian convention and practice with respect to the recalling of Parliament in a situation of this sort have been followed and in fact at the earliest possible opportunity when the House met on Monday. As the hon. member is aware, there was the opportunity right off the bat to discuss and debate all aspects of this issue.
The Canadian Forces are still not fully in place in accordance with the expectations of where they will be. Hon. members of the opposition have the opportunity to express a feeling that perhaps they should be recalled and brought back to Canada, if that is what the hon. member is saying. Perhaps I have missed it, but I have not heard any member of the House, to the best of my knowledge, indicate that he or she feels that we should be recalling our forces.
I suspect the great concern here is about the opportunity for the House to be called and to have a debate. Of course that is what we are having now and it will continue, I take it, as long as Your Honour feels it is appropriate. The debate can go on and on and on. The hon. member and other members of the opposition, as will other members of the government, will have the opportunity to express themselves.
If the hon. member truly feels that the Canadian forces should be recalled and should not be there, I think it is important that she and other members of the House

Government Orders
who have similar feelings should stand up and tell us so that that will be clear.
On the other issue that the hon. member raised, again I thought that I had addressed that fully in my comments. I believe I did, but I do not mind trying again to explain it, perhaps in a different way, or adding a few more facts or whatever.
In that case the hon. member asked a question relating to the United Nations authorization and acting before there was full and complete authorization by the United Nations.
Again I repeat the fact that all these circumstances took place in the context of very rapid, unexpected, unprovoked aggression by Iraq into Kuwait, and with the prospect of rolling on into Saudi Arabia and perhaps rolling on into other middle eastern countries as well. In light of that it was necessary, in my view, for other United Nations governments to take some action there in order to head that off at the pass.
It would have been very nice if we had had a process in place at the United Nations where all we had to do was call one meeting, and snap: everything would role into place. We would have a United Nations peacekeeping force that was already organized and could be called upon at the drop of a hat to move into place to deal with those sorts of things.
Unfortunately the United Nations, which was founded at the end of the Second World War as the hon. member is aware, has been a world institution for which we have all had great hopes. We have all had great faith in it, but it has not frankly been very effective in dealing with issues of this sort. One of the reasons why is that there has been a great power struggle between East and West in this world, which only now seems to be coming to some sort of an end.
Now we have had for the first time both the United States and the USSR acting together in a common front in dealing with a problem of this sort. It is an evolving process. It is one that I think we should all applaud. Hopefully we will be able to bring it to a stage where the United Nations can react very quickly, but in the meantime surely we should be acting and then getting the approval as quickly as we can after the fact.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question
with respect to the point he made concerning the current siting of the three Canadian vessels. Originally it was the intention of the Canadian Armed Forces to locate these vessels in the Gulf of Oman, as the hon minister is no doubt aware. At some point that decision was changed and it was decided to send the three vessels into the heart of the possible conflict zone, through the Straits of Hormuz and into the Persian Gulf.
I want to ask the minister whether he agrees with the suggestion that I have made and that I understand is supported by the Official Opposition as well, that in fact the ships we have sent should not be brought back to Canada as the member indicated but should pull back to the Gulf of Oman where they would be in a position to enforce resolution 665, the resolution that results in the enforcement of sanctions which were imposed under 661. At the same time they would not be at risk in the event of a possible offensive military strike by the United States.
At this point there is no United Nations command. There is always a risk that that kind of first strike might in fact take place by the United States and that the men and women from CF-18 squadron and the ships could have their lives put at risk.
Is the minister prepared to recommend to his colleagues in cabinet that our ships pull back to the Gulf of Oman? They perform an important role in terms of enforcement of the United Nations resolution, but the lives of Canadian men and women must not be put at risk by the possibility of a unilateral American strike not under the auspices of the United Nations?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. minister has a couple of minutes to answer that question.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has expressed concern about the command structure of the United Nations forces in the gulf area. That in itself should lead the hon. member to conclude that there has to be some co-operation, some discussion, and some interaction among all of the forces there, Canadian and other forces. Obviously that is what has been going on and why there may be changes. There may be further changes in the way in which our forces are located or stationed in that area.
If the hon. member is suggesting that we station our forces in one particular place-I am not sure whether or not that is in his motion-that will be most interesting. I
September 27, 1990

do not claim to be a military expert or one who knows anything about the formalities of strategy or tactics, but common sense leads me to believe that when one is in an area in which there could be some sort of conflict or some sort of action, there has to be a good deal of flexibility. That has to be left to the military commanders to be able to make judgments and make decisions not restricted surely by politicians. I think they tried in ancient Rome to have politicians run armies, but I do not think they were too successful.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to make it clear that this member has misinterpreted words and put words into my mouth. I have not in this House or anywhere for one instance suggested that our Canadian Armed Forces should be withdrawn from the region. I just wanted to make that clear for the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell-Government advertising; and the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands-The environment.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, barely a month ago more than 900 young men and women sailed out of Halifax harbour on three ships. This is not an event that is unusual in the history of Halifax.
The city of Halifax is over 241 years old. It was founded as a garrison town. It has been a naval base for all those 240 years. It is known, at least in literary circles, as the warden of the north. It is the closest port to Europe. Its citizens are well aware of the responsibilities and the meaning of the word war.
In World War II ships were sunk off the mouth of Halifax Harbour. Indeed, one Christmas early in the war the corvette Clayoquoit went down within sight of shore and within sight of many Haligonians. During that war as well the population of Halifax doubled with the numbers of servicemen and their families moving into the city which was known in many parts of North America as the only city on the continent that really was at war.
Government Orders
Haligonians became very familiar with the sight of merchant men and navy ships limping back into harbour suffering the ravages of war in the North Atlantic. They became very familiar with waving good-bye to young men who went down to the sea in ships and never returned. They understand what it means and they understand what the defence of freedom is all about. Halagonians, as well as all Canadians, have always been prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to defend freedom and to stop aggression at home or abroad. In Halifax we are proud of our services. We are proud of our navy, in particular. Our navy is small but for over 75 years it has sailed with pride, eliciting admiration from allies and grudging admiration from enemies.
Mr. Speaker, we are also proud of our shipyard workers who were called on at the beginning of the gulf crisis and who readied the three ships in less than two weeks. Again, when Halagonians are called on they answer and they come forward.
The last war-and I used that term in quotation marks-Canadians were exposed to on a personal basis was that which was known as the police action in Korea. But since the early 1950s Canada's Armed Forces have been the premier peacekeepers of our global village. Canadians accept that role with pride and, indeed, it is the role that they have come to expect from their armed forces. Make no mistake, Canadians, Halagonians in particular, were appalled by the actions of Saddam Hussein and were prepared to play their role in maintaining peace and security, both in the Middle East and world-wide. Again I reiterate, never have Canadians been called and found wanting in situations of this nature.
That last very sunny Friday in August, I stood on a Halifax pier with some of my colleagues from this House with feelings of pride and trepidation. These feelings, I know, were shared by the vast majority of my constituents. I am sure that they were shared to a degree by the vast majority of Canadians. But I think I have to use perhaps a little special pleading in this case, that because of the things I have said, because of our unique geography, because Halifax is the largest naval base in the country, there is perhaps in the citizens of Halifax and Dartmouth a bit more awareness, a bit more experience in areas of this nature. This is not to denigrate other

Government Orders
Canadians who feel very strongly. It is just a fact of life and it is very much a fact of life in Halifax-Dartmouth.
I watched Protecteur, Terra Nova and Athabaskan as they sailed out of Halifax harbour. I wished for three things. First and foremost, that these young men and women would return safely to our port, unharmed and unscarred by any battle. Second, I wished that this operation was securely under United Nations auspices. Third, I wished that the duly elected representatives of the people of this country from all parties had been given the chance to make their views known before the ships were sent.
Mr. Speaker, I was out of the country shortly after the crisis arose in the Middle East. I noticed, watching both CNN, the American news network, and I believe it is called Skyline, the European news network. I noticed


An hon. member:: Skyway.


Mary Catherine Clancy: -Skyway, whatever; at any rate, the European English news network. I noticed that every single night representatives of our allies were on television talking to their citizenry about what was happening. George Bush, whether it was from the golf course or fishing boat, was speaking to the American people every night. Margaret Thatcher, from various locations was speaking to her people every night.
Mr. Speaker, Great Britain's Parliament was recalled. VAssemblee nationale de France was recalled. President Bush consulted widely with members of Congress and with members of the Senate of both political parties in the United States. Again, the people in these countries were constantly made aware by their leaders of what was going on, of what was developing. At least the sight of their leaders on their nation's television networks gave some form of reassurance.
Sadly, no such developments took place in Canada. Our government acted without the broad consultation that Canadians expected. Our Prime Minister did not come before the Canadian people to inform and reassure them. Indeed, on that sunny day when the ships sailed out of our historic port, he did not even come to Halifax to show his support for our forces going east. It was noticed and his absence will be long remembered.
The families of our forces in Halifax are uneasy. It is not that they are unwilling to sacrifice. It is not that they
do not know what it means when their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers enlist in our armed forces. They know what it means, but they are uneasy.
The question of who is in charge has never been fully resolved. It has never been fully answered to the satisfaction of my constituents in the city of Halifax.
The citizens of Halifax are always prepared to defend freedom and preserve the peace. But they and all Canadians deserve to be informed. They deserve to be informed of policy and they deserve to be represented in the decision-making process.
It really is not fair. The stress of having a family member in a war zone is enough. It should not have been exacerbated by a government that hid from its people.
In war and peace Canadians have always shouldered the burden of duty and performed gloriously. But since the days of Lester B. Pearson, the man whom we all delighted to honour here yesterday, our emphasis has been UN related and peace oriented. Indeed, our peacekeepers shared in the Nobel Prize just a few short years ago. I might add that Nobel Prize was in the grand tradition of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
Earlier today the hon. parliamentary secretary referred to Canadian blood spilled in the past. I know full well that he agrees with me that we all wish to avoid bloody conflict, but that Canadians have never shirked when their duty was clear.
The tragedy here is that we are veering from our long-established process. The government by veering from our long-established process has created a form of uncertainty and unease among the populous. Part of that uncertainty and unease arises from the fact that Canadians, who have always done their duty, are almost afraid to come out and say that unease is there. They are almost afraid because they do not want to be thought to be unsupportive of our people who are going to the Persian Gulf. I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not support our personnel in the Persian Gulf, but equally I think that the majority of Canadians need to be reassured that we are under UN auspices. We need to have the UN in charge of this operation and we need to see that Canadians are acting in the interests of peace and stability.
September 27, 1990

My party condemns outright the doings of Iraq and Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait. We condemn Hussein's use of Canadians and other foreign nationals as human shields. We condemn him and all his works and pomps, but we remind this government, as it so desperately needs to be reminded, that Canada is an independent country with long-standing ties to the United Nations and its processes. Canada is not a colonial choreboy for the United States. We are not here to save the American oil patch.
The recall of Parliament in the summer of 1987 is something even those of us who were not so fortunate as to be in the Chamber at the time remember well. Again, it is something the Haligonians and Nova Scotians remember very well. I believe it was 157 cold, tired, and wet Tamils who were literally thrown off a freighter in Clark's Harbour, Shelburne County, Nova Scotia. They straggled ashore, to be met-


Mr. Weiner:: Sikhs in Nova Scotia, Tamils in Newfoundland.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Sorry. Neither the number nor the nationality is important. I think my friends in the government and my friends in the NDP both get the point. The point is that these poor refugees straggled ashore in Clark's Harbour and the denizens of Shelburne County went down and fed them peanut butter sandwiches on the beach-they did not know where these people came from as, clearly, the member from Halifax was not too sure either-so that they did not infringe on any of their dietary laws. That is why they brought them peanut butter sandwiches.
But because of these harmless people on our shores in Nova Scotia, we had to recall Parliament. However, we did not recall Parliament when we sent nearly 1,000 young people to a war zone. It goes beyond belief. If the people of Clark's Harbour, Shelburne County, Nova Scotia, were not afraid of the refugees, I find it unusual that Parliament had to act, especially in light of the fact, and I understand and I am sure that my learned colleagues will correct me, that it took well over a year to get the bill for which Parliament was recalled passed. There seems to be an emphasis in the wrong direction somewhere.
It is sad that we did not use our considerable influence in the United Nations to ensure that this was an UN-directed operation before our people went. Instead,
Government Orders
with its usual desire to follow the United States, the government bypassed our traditions and, most important, the government bypassed our premier, democratic institution, the House of Commons. There has been a lot of talk about democracy in the last few days. The word has been bandied about in a manner that a lot of us find disagreeable.
To send young Canadians into a war zone without the debate and the approval of Parliament I think is an attack on democracy of the first order. Our forces will do the job they are asked to do and they will do it well. And never for one instance should their families and their friends be allowed to think that they do not have our full support and our proud admiration, that is a given. But it is sad, no it goes beyond sad, it is tragic that in hurrying off to defend freedom, in hurrying off to ensure that Canada was following the dictates of the United States, in haring off not, I suspect most sadly, because of the threats but more because of the request of our neighbour to the south, we have seen our own democratic traditions and our own duly-elected democratic representatives in Parliament bypassed and denigrated by the Canadian government.
I started out by talking about the city of Halifax because, of course, for the people of Halifax and Dartmouth this is more than just a national issue, it is a very personal story. On that Friday afternoon when I and some of my colleagues from this House and other people stood on the wharf, we watched the ships go and we watched three old ships. We know that those old ships with their young personnel will do the job. But we never ever stop worrying. We never ever stop praying that the Government of Canada will see the light, return to our traditions, and use its considerable influence before the United Nations now, even after the fact, to ensure that this operation is United Nations driven and United Nations sponsored.
This is what Canadians deserve and expect. It is what those young men and women in the gulf deserve and expect. It is the very least that parliamentarians such as ourselves should demand.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the role of the United Nations. First, however, I would like to say that I was listening carefully to the hon. member's speech and I had expected her to

Government Orders
comment on the absence of the Prime Minister. I fully expected her to do that.
She mentioned earlier that the Prime Minister did not speak to the nation. I think he made it quite clear at various press conferences what the reasons were and what principles were at stake. He was always ready to explain. But since you mentioned that the Prime Minister was not around, I would like to ask where her leader was. Her leader was in Italy on vacation and he did not come rushing back. Why didn't you mention that both ministers of National Defence were there? No, you wanted to show the Prime Minister was not around. Do you know where he was?
I also wanted to talk about the United Nations.


Mr. Duhamel:: We want to know where he was.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Just call 992-4211 and you will find out. Find out, instead of accusing people! And I suggest you ask where Chretien was. He was away on holiday in Italy.
As for the United Nations, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat here in the House a fact that mentioned several times in the media, especially in the American press. Of course, when a Canadian does something right, he doesn't get much coverage in the Canadian press. However, Ambassador Fortier in New York has been absolutely extraordinary. He did his job. He fulfilled his mission. Canada is a member of the Security Council and, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would do well to stress the leadership role we played in this area by achieving a consensus in what must have been record time at the United Nations, when we realize that customarily, it takes a long time to reach a consensus at that level. Our action was successful. And if you read the Washington Post or the New York Times, you will realize how much the work done by Ambassador Fortier, Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, was appreciated.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to answer my hon. colleague from Beauhar-nois-Salaberry.
Perhaps he is suggesting that I should make phone calls to find out the answers to questions, some phone calls it is not necessary for me to make. I know for a fact that Mr. Chretien was not invited to the farewell on the
wharf, and I know for an equal fact that the Right Hon. Prime Minister was invited.
As to where my leader was at the time, my leader was well represented by the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Dartmouth.
I certainly stated that there were other colleagues in the House. If the hon. member wishes me to put it on the record, the Minister of National Defence was there and the Associate Minister of National Defence was there. But the Prime Minister was not there. The Prime Minister called one press conference. It was very short and he answered very few questions.
I referred to President Bush and Mrs. Thatcher. Neither political leader, I might add, do I often refer to in an admiring manner, either in the House or anywhere else. But, as leaders of their countries, my hon. friend should know, they came on television every night during the early days of this crisis and informed their people. Where was our Prime Minister, the leader of this country? Where was he? If you know, fine. I did not know and I doubt that many Canadians knew. I also doubt that a phone call would have told us, because there were many of families in Halifax-Dartmouth who gladly would have expended the quarter to find out where the Prime Minister was.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax on an excellent speech. I certainly share the concerns that she raised during her speech regarding her many constituents from Halifax. Her colleague from Dartmouth also spoke very eloquently during the debate on Monday from that perspective as well, as a representative of a riding with many men and women who are families of those who have gone into this very, very difficult mission. We pay tribute to those who have undertaken this measure.
Does the hon. member for Halifax agree with the suggestion that I have made and that others have made that the original tasking of these ships should be maintained? That is, the original destination which was the Gulf of Oman, outside the possible range of Iraqi missiles, would have been a more appropriate place for these ships to perform their functions because they would, as well, be under the auspices of Resolution 665 of the United Nations, instead of going through the Straits of Hormuz into the zone of conflict or directly into the Persian Gulf. Does she agree that they should be sited in the Gulf of Oman at least until such time as the forces in that region come under a unified United

Nations command? We are speaking here of all forces, including the American forces, under a United Nations command and the hon. member has spoken very eloquently of the need for that. To avoid the risk to the men and women on those ships and in that CF-18 squadron, does she agree that it would be far more appropriate to site them in the Gulf of Oman?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway. Perhaps, if I may be allowed to instruct un peu, they are still under Resolution 665 even though they have gone into the Straits of Hormuz. They are in a more dangerous position but they are still covered at this point by Resolution 665. That is not strictly the answer to the question, I realize, but I have no qualms as long as they are under the UN resolution. I have no qualms in the procedural sense, if you will, other than the qualms I clearly stated before.
Second, clearly, as the member for Halifax and as the representative for those families, those children and those parents, I do not want any of my constituents or their families in the range of Iraqi missiles. But I guess you have to do what you sign up to do.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary question.
The member will know that in fact our troops in the region have two tasks. One is under United Nations Resolution 665, but the other is as part of the American-led mandate to deter possible aggression. Of course, it is that second element of the mandate which places our troops at risk. The possibility of a unilateral offensive, a possible American-led offensive, would place our troops at far greater risk if they are in the heart of the Persian Gulf under that part of the mandate than if they were in the Gulf of Oman. I trust that the hon. member recognizes that even though they would be under Resolution 665 wherever they are enforcing the sanctions, it is that second element of their mandate which poses the risk.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway and I are in agreement on what is actually taking place, in the sense of what comes behind the theories, sadly, of both our government and the American government. However, while they are
Government Orders
under 665, both the opposition parties have called for UN auspices. Resolution 665 is the UN auspices. The second part of the mandate, if you will, is unfortunately still something we can only surmise. Our surmise may be indeed extremely logical, accurate, and true but it is still something we can only surmise. While 665 holds, I do not have a problem with 665.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. You have one minute.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, in the one minute I would like to make a couple of things clear.
First, as the public watches this debate, the question of 665 or 661 is an issue, but the real issue is where the ships are stationed. As much as I would like to get into the stationing of ships, as a politician, I am afraid my present capacity does not allow me. I have not got the military picture in the Middle East. I do not know what is going on. My reaction as a planner, as a retired military man and as a retired admiral, was: "My God, what a thing to do!" But I must say, in reflection, and having been given a secret briefing, the stationing of military forces is really the prerogative of the military commander on the scene at the time.
I think it is very dangerous. As much as we would want to have the ships in a safer haven, the balance for that is inside the gulf itself. They are operating with other forces. I do not know the exact disposition, but I know the American forces are there. They have mutual support and they have air cover. So, while they are within the range of the Exocet missile and the Mirage aircraft, which is perhaps the biggest threat to our ships, in fact they can be under the same threat if these Mirages refuel which they can do. In effect, while they may be under a greater threat, it is my assessment in my present position, and not being on the scene at the time, that perhaps they have better mutual support. They may be as well off, or perhaps even better off, in the Persian Gulf.
The point is that it is very dangerous for us, as politicians, to debate where military forces should be stationed as much as we would like to do. This surely is the prerogative of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
military commander at the scene, Commodore Summers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow a 30-second rebut, but I see no reason for it. The hon. member for Halifax.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague from the sovereign province of Newfoundland and I want to say that I agree with him 100 per cent.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on a matter of public concern, a matter of both national and international importance. My purpose in speaking today is principally twofold. First, I would like to explain to the House the significance of the events in the Persian Gulf as they relate to Canada's energy situation and, second, I would like to explain the actions that the Government of Canada is taking to respond to those events.
Members of the House, as this debate also indicates, have followed with great interest the impact of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent events that have followed in international oil markets. I want to assure the House and all Canadians that the government remains well informed on the rapidly changing events in the gulf. The situation in the Middle East is both volatile and highly unpredictable. It is true that crude oil prices have risen and remain unstable, but that is to be expected in a situation where the markets remain jittery and the price of a barrel of oil has almost doubled in the last two months.
Despite these uncertainties, our refiners are currently having no difficulty obtaining crude oil supplies. The result of the present embargo of oil shipments from Iraq and Kuwait is the loss to the international oil market of approximately 4.1 million barrels per day. Fortunately, in response to this, there have been some production increases from other OPEC and non-OPEC countries, particularly from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. This additional production is now reaching significant levels and part of the shortfall in world production is also being made up by drawing down commercial stocks and from somewhat lower oil product demand. This combination of higher production in non-affected areas, stock draw,
and demand reduction should be sufficient to avoid a serious tightening of the world oil market for some time. The situation remains manageable.
But there are, as I think members of the House have indicated in this debate, many uncertainties inherent in the present situation. The oil market is likely to become increasingly tighter during the winter months when oil demand is seasonally highest and as the capacity for significant additional supplies gradually diminishes. The situation could also be affected by any unexpected occurrences such as a colder than normal winter or problems with transportation and refining facilities. Over the next several months oil prices are likely to remain volatile as markets respond to a number of factors, including underlying supply-demand pressures, rumours and short-term competitive pressures. So, obviously, the situation bears close watching.
Notwithstanding the inability of governments, industry and the International Energy Agency, the IEA, to precisely quantify the magnitude of any possible future oil supply problem, there is consensus that the global oil markets will tighten and Canadian markets will be similarly affected.
The recent increases in motor gasoline prices in Canada, for example, are evidence that our country cannot be insulated from world oil uncertainties. Canada's response to the Persian Gulf situation has been within the framework of our existing policies on security of supply and emergency preparedness.
The point of departure for present Canadian policy is that energy markets must be allowed to respond effectively and efficiently to changes in supply-demand conditions, both internationally and in the domestic market. Canada's economy is part of that world market.
Efforts of previous governments to insulate us from world energy economy through regulation of prices and trade simply did not work. These tactics only delayed the day of reckoning, and the Canadian economy had to adjust to higher prices which ultimately gave rise to further problems. The tactics prevented or muted the adjustments to higher efficiency of energy use, which is the normal reaction to price rises.
September 27, 1990

The objective of present policy is to ensure that Canadian energy producers and consumers are free to respond to the pressures and opportunities presented by world markets. We have deregulated oil and natural gas prices. We have sharply reduced oil and natural gas market restrictions, eliminated discriminatory and interventionist tax and incentive measures and reduced the intrusive hand of government in the oil economy. Working more closely with the provinces has helped us create a more stable framework for industry investment. This policy has paid high dividends in terms of industry confidence and improved federal-provincial relations.
The government has no intention of returning to greater industry regulation in the current circumstances. The past has demonstrated that this is not the right approach in dealing with oil market uncertainty.
In normal times our policies lay the basis for both expansion of our resource sector and competitive pricing for consumers. We have intervened primarily to act as a catalyst and investor in certain large energy projects where the national regional economic benefits to be derived are significant and where the costs and risks are so substantial that private investors could not easily cope with them alone.
Our policy has recognized, of course, that we do not always live in normal times. As recent events demonstrate, the world remains vulnerable to oil supply disruptions due to a variety of political and military events that cannot be predicted or controlled.
In November 1974, in response to the oil crisis of the time, 21 of the world's principal industrialized countries signed an agreement on an international energy plan and the International Energy Agency, the IEA, was created. The basic task of the IEA is to reduce the industrialized countries excessive demand on oil in meeting energy requirements and to bring about a better mix of energy supply and demand over the near and long term. These objectives are pursued by setting in place co-operative programs and sound, compatible energy policies.
In times of oil crises, IEA member states have agreed to implement plans to reduce consumption, draw down emergency oil reserves maintained for the purpose and share available oil supplies. The objective is to balance
Government Orders
demand with supply among the member states in order to equitably share the burden of supply losses and minimize adverse economic impacts. In the case of an incipient oil supply crisis, the International Energy Agency governing board can implement co-ordinated emergency response measures which can be taken in creeping crises conditions that remain below the International Energy Agency's emergency trigger level of a 7 per cent reduction of normal supply.
The Coordinated Emergency Response Measures involve voluntary actions that can be taken by member states in a pre-crisis situation. These measures may include use of surge production, stock draw, fuel switching and oil demand restraint. In Canada's case, there are few opportunities for fuel switching and surge production, and Canada is exempt from the IEA's stock holding obligation because of our position as a net oil exporter. Consequently, any action by Canada under this program would have to take the form of demand restraint.
The invoking of the oil sharing system has never been necessary in the past. Other means have been found to deal with oil supply disruptions. If needed, oil sharing would give expression to our collective commitment to security. It is premature, however, to speculate on whether such a system will in fact be needed.
Canada has long had in place an effective emergency planning system. In 1974, the Energy Supplies Allocation Board was set up by the Energy Supplies Emergency Act. The act gave the Energy Supplies Allocation Board the responsibility for preparing and, if necessary, implementing contingency plans during an oil crisis.
The government has not waited to see the results of unfolding events in the Middle East to get its house in order. We have begun acting to prepare for any necessary response should the supply situation deteriorate. Included in the actins we have taken are the following.
We have reviewed the measures that Canada could take in terms of demand restraint, and we have updated the readiness of existing emergency plans under the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board. If there is an oil crisis in Canada, Canada has the power to allocate crude oil and petroleum products. There is also a provision for gasoline and diesel fuel rationing at the retail level, but it

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
would only be implemented in a situation of extreme shortages.
Additionally, federal officials have met with their provincial counterparts to brief them on the International Energy Agency and international oil market developments and to explore what actions could be taken to reduce demands on petroleum supplies.
We are meeting regularly with industry associations and oil company representatives to apprise them of our plans and to facilitate our monitoring of the state of oil product markets within our country.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and I, as minister, will be stepping up our efforts over the coming period to reduce oil demand and to work with the provinces on other measures that will have a national impact. An initial meeting with provincial government officials has already been held to discuss a national co-operative initiative that would emphasize increased energy conservation and encourage voluntary restraint of energy demand. These measures will become even more germane as we approach the colder months of late fall and winter.
I am also pleased to report to the House that we have had successful and co-operative sessions with the provinces, including a day-and-a-half meeting in early September to update provincial representatives on developments within the International Energy Agency and on issues concerning international and domestic oil markets. Like the world-wide community itself, the provinces know all too well that this is a global energy problem we have on our hands, not a regional energy problem. It is a problem that goes well beyond provincial boundaries.
I would also like to report to the House that our government is maintaining ongoing contact with the industry throughout this period of oil market uncertainty. We have also had close liaison and information exchanges with our partners in the International Energy Agency. So our lines of communication both domestically and internationally are open at all times. I might mention parenthetically that International Energy Agency countries are meeting tomorrow in Paris to consider measures that may be required to deal with the present situation.
In the meantime, we expect Canadian oil companies not to take advantage of the situation. Companies are already co-operating by providing information on oil
supply and prices. We expect that they will take all measures necessary to ensure continuity of supply and the integrity of the Canadian supply system. We also expect the industry will follow responsible pricing and marketing practices. My officials will be monitoring the situation closely, along with the provinces.
We must recognize, however, that as the situation evolves, prices have and will rise. I give the House this example. In the first quarter of 1989, the average price of oil in Canada was $15 West Texas Intermediate or WTI, before the invasion of Kuwait. That average price had moved by the end of 1989 from $15 to approximately $20 WTI, U.S. At the meetings prior to August 2, the day of the invasion, the meetings of OPEC had brought the price of oil in the order of $21 to $23 WTI. It is that pricing, that increase from the first quarter of 1989, to the pricing prior to the situation in the Middle East that is being reflected in energy price increases today.
Anyone who speculates that the pricing today is already including the effects of the August 2 period and the post-August 2 period is simply not being accurate in terms of analysing the market and the accounting for oil which we have in Canada as distinct from the accounting for oil that the United States uses. I think it is important that we in the House understand that accounting system.
We cannot predict precisely how prices will move in the future. Short of a major supply crisis, price movements are the logical and most effective way balance supply and demand. It is, of course, important that the full competitive forces of the market remain free to operate. Remedies are available under existing competition legislation in the event of demonstrated anti-competitive behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, the present situation is not one that requires drastic or precipitous action. Through our international partners and our own market analysis, we are staying well informed regarding the evolution of the oil market, the likelihood of general or specific shortages and the movement of prices.
It is important, that Canadians realize that the risk of a disruptive situation arising could be reduced and made more manageable if we all were to exercise some extra prudence in our use of energy over the coming months. By using energy more efficiently, deferring uses that are not necessary and conserving available supplies, we can
September 27, 1990

all demonstrate good citizenship and possibly reduce the necessity for more stringent measures later on.
The department will be working closely with the provinces and territories to collaborate on voluntary petroleum demand restraint measures, to co-ordinate plans, particularly in the transportation area and to demonstrate leadership by example. Through the regular meetings of the Interprovincial Advisory Committee on Energy, we will ensure good communications between both levels of government.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by stating that the situation in the Persian Gulf should remind all of us that we live in a world dominated by uncertainty. What we take for granted today can become tomorrow's great dilemma.
The Government of Canada has responded to these events in the only ways that make sense, through collective action with our international partners, through effective emergency planning and through the continuation of general energy policies that promote the flexibility and growth of the Canadian energy sector.
I think that all Canadians realize and recognize that we face a wide-ranging problem. Isolationism just does not work in this kind of oil crises. In these days of uncertainty, Canada shares a world-wide problem and we have to learn to work and think at a world-wide level. I am confident we can do it, but we must be prepared to accept co-operative and creative measures that will help to entrench a unique kind of common solidarity with the international community.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Dartmouth.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. minister opposite. I found very helpful some of the information he put forward today, particularly as it relates to the energy sector in Canada.
However, I would submit to him-and I do not just want to be taking a cheap shot-that perhaps this is some of the information we could have had a bit earlier if his government opposite had done the right thing when this crisis first jumped on the scene and perhaps had an earlier recall of Parliament.
Government Orders
Some of the issues the hon. minister is talking about now are going to have to be debated much further in the very near future. I have some concerns, and I want to ask the minister what specific plans he and his colleagues and the department have to put in place, if we do indeed find out that there is some unfair pricing because of the current crisis in the gulf.
Everybody knows that in the international energy industry, particularly the oil industry, a multilevel pricing takes place. Then we get sort of a blended price as to what exactly is a fair price, given a particular circumstance at a particular point in time.
Most Canadians do not know whether or not they are paying a fair price, but when they see the price going up at the pumps they have a tendency to believe that somebody is digging a bit too deep into their pockets.
I want the minister, if he is able, to give me, members of the House, and Canadians generally some idea-a glimpse perhaps-of the plans that he and his colleagues in other departments like Consumer and Corporate Affairs have to ensure that they are not just monitoring. I would like to make sure that they have the capability to monitor, but if they are going to be monitoring and if some unfair pricing is taking place, at what point do they put in place a plan of action? How do they roll back the prices? What pressure can they put on those national and international companies that are in the oil industry in Canada?
In particular I look at Atlantic Canada which is susceptible to changing prices at the international level. In Atlantic Canada, but for the announcement the other day and the bill that we now have before this place, there is no oil production. In a few years hence we will have oil production from the Hibernia field, we hope, but at the current time we are basically hostage to energy, to oil from another place.
I have a second question for the minister, because I can only get the floor once and I am interested. I would like to know if the current situation which has threatened our security of supply of oil, of energy in Canada, leads the minister to review the position that his government seems to have abandoned, that is of pursuing a policy of energy self-sufficiency in Canada.
In particular, will the minister do everything he possibly can now that we all know how volatile the Middle East situation is today, and perhaps for years to come,

September 27, 1990
Government Orders
and the effect it can have on our national oil supplies? Will he give some type of commitment today to review, to promote, and to do everything he can to try to get this government to approve the proposal put forward by the Synfuels consortium to take Cape Breton high sulphur coal and, through some fairly unique proven processes, turn it into a synthetic oil product? Can he give us some of those assurances here today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions there. I am not going to eat into the 10 minutes of members opposite unduly.
Let me make a few points, first of all in respect to pricing. The hon. member recognizes in his own question that the matter of pricing and blended price or a world reference price, as it is referred to, is very difficult to determine. Quite frankly-and I have looked very carefully at the fluctuations of oil prices and pump prices- when prices go down we as consumers accept that, as it is time that the market is responding to the needs as we perceive them as consumers. In reverse, when the prices go up there is an easy charge made or a very quick charge made that prices are too high.
I think that also applies, for example, when one takes a look at the price differential between Canadian gasoline and American gasoline. When one takes a look at the present situation, one will find that there is still a price differential even if one takes into account exchange rates and volumes. That primarily and almost totally is the difference in federal and provincial taxes.
Having said that, we will continue monitoring if there is an uncompetitive position. As the hon. member knows, that would have to be done under anti-combines investigations and would have to be done with a legitimate due process which has been passed into law by this House.
Second, in terms of Atlantic Canada, the hon. member makes a very valid point. At the present time-and I take one area of departure from him-the Government of Canada has not abandoned self-sufficiency in oil and in energy. In fact quite the opposite. The whole basis of our energy policy at the present time is just to stay with oil and oil products.
Canada exported in the last quarter, on average, approximately 275,000 barrels a day in crude and in oil products. It is for that reason I mentioned that we as an exporter were not subject to the strategic oil reserves of the International Energy Agency to which other countries like the United States, for example, are subject.
Having said that, on the east coast we are importing about 550,000 barrels a day, about 350,000 from the North Sea. That is why I parted company with a number of my colleagues yesterday when they said, for example, that if the oil from the Hibernia oil fields were to go to the United States, why should it not go to Canadian refineries?
On the surface it is a very easy question, and the answer seems to be even as straightforward as the question. The fact of the matter is that because of our distribution system on the east coast through Portland, Maine, we need those 550,000 barrels from offshore as the hon. member put forward. In terms of energy self-sufficiency, that is why we are doing Hibernia.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I wanted a clarification from the minister. I have been getting a number of calls and letters-and I am sure he has as well-with regard to the increased prices at the gas pumps. If I have understood his remarks correctly, he is saying that whatever has happened just recently at the gas pumps is in fact not related to the Kuwait crisis.
Certainly those constituents of mine with whom I have spoken believe that what is happening is that the reserves that were accumulated are still being sold. They do not understand that the prices should increase. Perhaps he can just inform me a bit so I can talk with my constituents.
The other questions are two very brief ones. Normally before we enter a conflict such as this one-and it might have been a more appropriate question for the Minister of National Defence-there are briefings given to the ministers and to cabinet. One question that would normally be asked is: What is the probability of conflict when we send a force to such a situation? Obviously some estimates are given. Of course, if there were a conflict, do we have a sense of the estimates of possible law of supply?
September 27, 1990

Is the minister at all in a position to inform me and this House of those particular questions? I would appreciate that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the last question, I am not in a position to answer that one.
In terms of briefings, I have offered briefings to critics opposite. A number of them have taken up that offer. I understand that will be done next week.
Specifically with reference to the member's question- and this gets into what is known as oil accounting-I will try to be as succinct as I can be. I mentioned to the hon. member that over approximately the last year and a half the price of oil on a reference of West Texas Intermediate, WTI, we have seen an increase of about $15 to $20 to approximately slightly higher prior to the August 2 invasion.
There is a time lag between when that crude has been bought and is sold at the gasoline pump, which varies somewhat from region to region in Canada depending on refinery capacity and storage capacity. Generally speaking, we can look at somewhere between 60 days and 75 days. That will vary from region to region slightly. Having said that, oil that was purchased has come through the system and we are seeing the reflection of that higher energy price at the pumps now. What we have not yet seen at the pumps are the possible increases because of the crisis in the Persian Gulf.
That is why I mentioned the August 2 date very specifically as being the next reference point and, if present prices continue, consumers will see an increase in prices beyond the present level.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I understand in Washington the joke on the Persian Gulf crisis goes: "Why did we go in there? Oh, we went in there on principle. Do you spell it p-a-1 or 1-e? And the answer is you spell it o-i-1, oil". This is an oil war in many ways.
I am glad the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has spoken on this matter. I just want to tell him that what Canadians are concerned about is that the prices have not gone up as a result of the Persian Gulf. We think in Vancouver they have. Canadians are concerned that if the world price goes down it takes a long time to work its way through the system to the pump, but
Government Orders
when it goes up it seems like overnight the prices go up. We are concerned about whether there is any regulation to that.
The competition bureau is a toothless tiger. What the government should be doing is putting in place-and I ask it to consider this-a better mechanism to look at the increase in prices so that there will not be windfall profits if there are actually further difficulties with oil prices as a result of the more serious difficulties, if that is possible, in the Persian Gulf.
I think the minister should consider looking at that matter. The other thing I want to ask the minister just briefly is: Has he considered that maybe the Conservative government should reverse its policy on energy? We were moving toward energy self-sufficiency, to Canadian control. Now we have sold our oil and gas to the Americans in this big free market, with the United States in this free trade deal. Does the Persian Gulf situation not show us that we now are at risk? I do not think we were at risk. I think if we had developed our own energy resources through Petro-Canada and through Canadian companies, not through Mobil and Hibernia or by ignoring the other development, then we could have been protected from this crisis.
We have this energy in Canada. We have the oil and gas. Why are we still dependent on the Persian Gulf and have put ourselves in that position? Have the government's policies not led to this dependency?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to make plain to the hon. member, In fact quite the opposite has happened. We are a net exporter of oil. We are energy self-sufficient in almost every form. In fact, in many areas we are world leaders and world suppliers. One that he does not much appreciate is uranium. We are also energy self-sufficient; we now have our gas bubble. Our problem is one of transportation systems. Our problem is one of infrastructure to bring more to the market.
With respect to oil and oil products, we are at a net value today per day, exporting 275,000 barrels per day more than, for example, we need for our own production. On the question of self-sufficiency, the issue is different from the one he raises about Canadianization.
I want to give him a reference, and I will be very brief. I took a look at what the National Energy Program was projecting the price of oil would be this week, and I just

September 27, 1990
Private Members' Business
happen to have the figure here. The price was to be $116.63 a barrel.


An hon. member:: How much?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It was to be $116.63, the international reference price in Montreal because that is where we have our international oil coming in. We were asking Canadians to pay $78.73 under the national energy plan. The $40 difference was going to be made up by taxes. Can we imagine what the price of energy would be with their program?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CRIMINAL CODE FIREARMS ACQUISITION CERTIFICATE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should initiate amendments to Part III of the Criminal Code (Firearms) to provide:
1)	That a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" be required for the purchase of ammunition;
2)	That there be a mandatory two-week delay between the application for a "Firearms acquisition Certificate" and the actual granting of the "Certificate".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is part of a two-track approach to tighten gun laws in Canada. This particular motion would amend the Criminal Code to provide that a firearms acquisition certificate must be used in order to obtain ammunition as well as a new firearm, and I will explain the reason for that. The motion also proposes that there be a mandatory two-week waiting period between the application for a firearms acquisition certificate and the actual granting of that certificate.
I said that this motion is part of a two-track approach. I also have on the Order Paper a private member's bill, Bill C-283, which I introduced on February 2, 1990. That
bill also demands that the firearms acquisition certificate be necessary for the purchase of ammunition and provides for the two-week delay in obtaining a firearms acquisition certificate. But in addition, the bill requires that the application for the firearms acquisition certificate be accompanied by the signatures of two citizens attesting to the responsibility of the applicant. It also provides that the firearms acquisition certificate be only good for two years rather than five years, so that the police have an opportunity to investigate the applicant on a more regular basis.
I should point out that in the horrible massacre of the 16 women in Montreal in 1989, the killer had a firearms acquisition certificate. However, it was an old one that he had had for several years and his degenerated state of mind had not been subject to examination or to scrutiny over that period of time. I have also proposed, and it is not in this motion, that such weapons as the STRUM semi-automatic rifle, which was used in the Ecole polytechnique massacre, should be placed on the restricted weapon list.
I repeat that this motion, and my bill which is on the Order Paper, were presented to the House of Commons in the aftermath of the December 6, 1989 massacre at the Ecole polytechnique. However, I go on to advise the House that I have been a long-standing proponent of tough gun laws. I have had bills and motions on the Order Paper and debated in this House for more than 20 years. When I was Solicitor General I took steps to tighten our gun laws and that was done while I was a minister in government.
I must say that while advances were made at that time, I was never completely satisfied and incidents since that time have shown that my gut feelings with respect to what was done was correct. The incident at the University of Montreal, the Ecole polytechnique, demonstrated that the laws that we now have, while much tougher than those the United States, are still not adequate.
I would like to briefly describe the present regime for gun controls in Canada. We have three classifications of guns. First of all we have prohibited weapons, which are not permitted to ordinary citizens under any circumstances. These are fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns which can only be used for criminal purposes. Well, prohibited weapons are
September 27, 1990

not allowed for sale to the public but may only be used by the armed forces and by the police.
The next category is restricted weapons. Restricted weapons are hand guns, revolvers and so on and semiautomatic weapons. A person may obtain a restricted weapon for one of five reasons. I will not go into the reasons now but these reasons are set down in the law. You apply for the use of a restricted weapon such as a hand gun, for example, if you are a private detective. That is one of the reasons you may get a permit and obtain a restricted weapon.
Finally, we have what I call regulated weapons. These are ordinary long guns such as rifles and shotguns which are used for hunting and other sporting purposes. These are permitted for sale to the public as long as you have a firearms acquisition certificate when you purchase them. For a long time these guns were subject to no regulation whatsoever.
As a matter of fact, when I first came to Parliament, I can recall a very well-known incident where a young man went to a sporting goods store here on Sparks Street. He was very disturbed, went in and bought a shotgun and took the shotgun to his high school, opened the door and started firing on the class, killing several students and the teacher. This young man was able to buy that shotgun without any questions asked, as if he were buying a package of bubblegum.
It was in the aftermath of that incident that we brought in the firearms acquisition certificate. Now, in order to purchase a long gun, an ordinary rifle or shotgun you need a firearms acquisition certificate and there is a certain investigation before you can get it.
However, there are still many inadequacies and shortcomings in the law. For example, although we have the firearms acquisition certificate, in the present law there is no mandatory delay between the application and the granting of the certificate.
We had an incident in Montreal where a woman, in an extremely emotional situation because she found her husband was fooling around with another woman, went to a sporting goods store to buy a shotgun. When she was told she needed the firearms acquisition certificate, she went to the police and applied in the morning and got the certificate in the afternoon.
Private Members' Business
The present law says that there should be an investigation by the police, but there is no mandatory delay. She applied in the morning, got the gun in the afternoon and went to her husband's place of business and shot him. That sort of incident demonstrated that a mandatory delay is a reasonable proposal, a reasonable addition, to these laws.
Since I tabled this motion and since I tabled Bill C-283, the government has come forward with legislation. I congratulate the government for Bill C-80 because it does deal with some of the proposals that I have been pushing for many years. For example, it provides for a mandatory delay of 28 days and I think that is a very good measure.
It also provides for one of the other provisions that I have in my bill. I propose that every applicant for a firearms acquisition certificate must have the countersignatures of two citizens in his or her community attesting to the responsibility of the applicant. We do that, by the way, with passport applications. You have to get your passport countersigned by one of a list of people who will certify that you are the person you claim to be.
The minister has stated in Bill C-80 that every applicant will require two references. He or she will also need a photograph to go along with the application which will be on the firearms acquisition certificate. That is not the case now. I think this is an additional protection.
Mr. Speaker, the bill does not go far enough. If we are going to amend Canadian gun laws, I believe we should do it right once and for all. For example, one major gap in the law at the present time is that the firearms acquisition certificate is only required for the purchase of new weapons, it does not apply to all those long guns that have been hanging around in the homes of families on the shelves for years and years.
To cover that situation I have proposed that the firearms acquisition certificate should be required whenever an individual purchases ammunition. I do not see any great problem with that. If you already have a firearms acquisition certificate, you would simply show it when you went to purchase ammunition. This means that you would throw an obstacle in the way of those people who might wish to use a weapon under severe emotional circumstances, a weapon that they might borrow, a weapon that they might have had in the family for a long

Private Members' Business
time. I think that would be a good measure and would not cause too much inconvenience to the law-abiding citizen who wants to go hunting or participate in sport shooting.
By the way, the other thing that should go into the government bill is a shorter renewal period. I refer again to the massacre at the Ecole polytechnique. It is possible that someone at the age of 18 might apply for a firearms acquisition certificate and have a good reputation in the community at that time and have no blemish on his or her record. But if you wait for five years for a renewal, a lot of things can happen.
For example, we have to renew our automobile licences every one or two years. If your record declines considerably in that period of time then you are refused your licence. As a matter of fact you can lose your licence with demerit marks even during the period that you hold the licence.
While I congratulate the government for what is in Bill C-80, I would hope that it would consider the amendments which are contained in my motion before the House and in my bill which is also before the House.
Why do we propose these kinds of laws? There is a very large lobby in Canada opposed to any type of gun law. They have the feeling that we are trying to prevent the law-abiding citizen from having guns which they would use for legitimate purposes such as hunting and sport shooting. Well, that is not the case at all. I have used the analogy over and over again with other activities that we take part in, in life.
No one would think for a moment that because we required the licensing of automobiles and the licensing of chauffeurs and drivers of automobiles that we are trying to restrict legitimate use of automobiles. Not at all. What we are trying to do when we require the testing of people who apply for an automobile licence is to make sure that those who get those licences are responsible people who drive their cars properly and know the rules of the road.
Surely, a gun which was designed and manufactured to kill, whether it be killing an animal in hunting or to kill in war or for the police to protect communities, the purpose of the gun is to kill. If we have licences and registration for automobiles, then surely we should have them for guns. I think this country has accepted that principle for a long time. We have accepted the principle
and now it is simply a question of tightening up, of closing the loopholes, closing the gaps so that we make it more complete. But we do not. I have never had any intention of keeping guns away from law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. Canada has had a great record in Olympic sport shooting and international competitions. That is not our goal.
The opponents of stricter gun laws say that if you ban guns, and of course we are not proposing that we ban guns, only criminals will have guns. You see that slogan on bumper stickers and on posters and so on. I must point out that two-thirds of the homicides in Canada are committed under severe emotional circumstances, usually by family members and acquaintances. Most homicides in Canada are not committed by the so-called professional killers. The people who attempt to get guns under severe circumstances are people that usually have never committed a crime before in their lives. It is at those people that we direct our gun laws.
I know that we will never stop homicide altogether. We will have a very difficult time keeping guns out of the hands of the professional criminal, the so-called gangster. They will always find a way to get guns. But two-thirds of our murders are not committed by gangsters or professional killers. They are committed by husband against wife, or by a group of friends who get in an argument over one thing or another, usually with alcohol or drugs involved. Mr. Speaker, it is those people, if you look at the statistics and the records, who look for a gun when they get extremely angry and upset. It is toward them that we formulate these laws.
Again, the opponents of these laws say that we should not put in restrictive measures-what I would call preventive measures-but let us rely on tougher penalties. We know that, while tougher penalties may be one way of approaching the problem, it is not the best way. It is applying the tough penalty after the crime has been committed, the murder has been done. Is it not better to prevent the crime from taking place?
If we had prevented that young man from getting that gun last year at the Ecole polytechnique, those 16 women might still be alive today. There was the case that took place in Ottawa several years ago. If that young man had not got that shotgun that day, those murders may not have taken place. That is why the mandatory delay, which is in my motion and in the government bill, is a
September 27, 1990

Private Members' Business
good thing. Very often the emotional crisis that the individual is undergoing could very well disappear after a week, 15 days, or two weeks. Lots of things could happen to cool the person down. Even though the individual might have applied for a firearm's acquisition certificate in the hope of getting a gun, first, the police might turn down the application, but second, the circumstances might very well have changed after 28 days.
The gangster or the professional criminal will always get guns. But if we can reduce the number of murders committed with guns by those who are not professional criminals, and that is the large number in Canada, if we can even reduce them by 50 or 100 a year, we will be accomplishing something. I suggest that the House might very well do that.
I want to point out that after we tightened the gun laws in 1978 there was a considerable decline in the rate of crime with guns in the country. The facts are on the record. For the countries of the world with strict gun laws, the rate of crime with guns is much lower than those countries with loose gun laws.
The most flagrant example is the United States where the gun laws for the most part are state laws because the criminal law in the United States is a state responsibility rather than national. The rate of crime with guns in the United States is considerably higher than in Canada and considerably higher than in those countries that have strict gun laws. The most recent statistic is that in the United States 60 per cent of homicides are committed with guns where in Canada only one-third of homicides are committed with guns.
Mr. Speaker, you indicate to me that I have only one minute left. I will just deal in that one minute with another slogan that is put forward by those that lobby against stricter gun laws. The slogan goes that people kill, not guns. Well, of course, people kill and the guns do not kill all by themselves, but it has been demonstrated that guns have been five times more effective in killing than any other weapon, for example, a knife. That is obvious to anyone that knows anything about guns. A gun is an effective way of killing and surely we should do something to keep guns out of the hands of those who are irresponsible, who have a record of alcoholism, mental instability, family violence and so on. These are the people at whom we aim our tougher guns laws.
While I congratulate the government for Bill C-80, I would hope that the ideas that are put forward in this debate will provide it with some thought and perhaps will lead to some amendment of Bill C-80 when we approach that bill later on so that it can be made even a more effective bill.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in response to the motion of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace in which the government is asked to initiate the following amendments to Part III of the Criminal Code: first, require a firearms acquisition certificate at the time of purchase of munitions; and second, impose a mandatory two-week delay between the application for a firearms acquisition certificate and the actual granting of the certificate.
Before I go any further, however, I would like to say the hon. member is to be commended for his sustained interest in this aspect of the law. The House will recall that the hon. member played a major role in the proceedings leading up to the passage of the gun control provisions now in effect.
According to certain studies, the percentage of deaths related to the use of firearms is so much lower in Canada than in the United States because of the strict gun control provisions we have in the Criminal Code today. For instance, perhaps I may draw your attention to the special article that appeared on November 1988, in the New England Journal of Medicine, on the impact of handgun regulations in two cities that are very similar, namely Seattle and Vancouver.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians must never forget the date of December 6, 1989, when Marc Lepine, a young man in his early twenties, entered the Ecole polytechnique of the University of Montreal around 5:20 p.m., carrying a semi-automatic .223 caliber Ruger Mini-14, and killed fourteen young women before turning his weapon on himself and taking his own life.
This, the worst killing in Canada's history, caused considerable consternation among the people of Quebec and Canadians in general.

Private Members' Business
Subsequently, it was found that in this particular case, the application for a firearms acquisition certificate had been made on September 5,1989, and that the certificate was granted several days later.
Apparently, there was nothing unusual about the way the Quebec authorities processed the application. A routine investigation failed to produce a police record or any other information that would justify rejecting the application. Lepine purchased the firearm on November 21, 1989, with 100 bullets and two secondhand magazines.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Thriff in consequence thereof, was tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Justice on June 26, 1990.
This bill contains several provisions that reflect the public's growing concern about violence related to the use of firearms. The government's tabling of Bill C-80 would seem appropriate at this time, to deal with the problem of gun control in Canada. I regret, however that I cannot support the hon. member's motion as such, although I appreciate his motives.
Canadian firearms legislation has always tried to strike a balance between the rights of bona fide, legitimate users and the safety of the Canadian public. This also applies to the proposals tabled in the House.
The amendments proposed in Bill C-80 are the result of long consultation with sports and firearms associations, police corps, public interest groups and provincial authorities.
Hunters, target shooters and collectors have for many years been allowed to own and use firearms, and the proposed legislation is not intended to prevent them from doing so.
Furthermore, regarding the waiting period suggested by the hon. member in his motion, I may point out that the period provided in the bill is twice as long.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments are intended to give the public better protection by improving the screening procedure for applications for firearms acquisition certificates. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice has announced the government's intention to proclaim the coming into effect of a provision of the Criminal Code enacted in 1977, under which persons applying for a firearms acquisition certificate would have to establish that they have either finished a course or passed a test on
the safe handling and use of firearms, before obtaining the certificate. Both course and test must be approved by the Attorney General of the province concerned. However, the provinces have yet to ratify the coming into effect of this provision.
Course content will be established in consultation with the provincial authorities and with the assistance of the Canadian advisory council on firearms. The government, working together with the provinces, will set up a national training program to encourage safe handling and use of firearms. The minister has also announced that the firearms acquisition certificate will be revised to include the owner's photograph.
The requirement that the certificate must be produced when ammunition is purchased would substantially alter the original purpose of the certificate, which was to ensure that individuals who acquire firearms are not a danger to society. The hon. member's proposal would, to a certain extent, have the effect of making the certificate of acquisition a certificate of ownership. I think this is one aspect of the question that could appropriately be considered when Bill C-80 is referred to a legislative committee after second reading.
I am looking forward to further discussion at second reading of the amendments proposed in the bill, in the not too distant future.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this is a very controversial issue and I think that perhaps the parliamentary secretary found a solution: he spoke in French, but with the interpretation it was easy to understand his argument.

I am just saying that this is a very controversial area and I congratulate my friend, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, for his thorough dealing with the situation and I commend my friend from Edmonton for his fine speech, totally in French.
I support in principle reasonable and workable gun control laws in Canada. My friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace made reference to the tragic situation at the Ecole polytechnique at the University of Montreal on December 6, 1989, when a crazed person massacred 16 women. Again it made us look seriously at our gun control legislation in Canada. I should point out at the time of that happening my colleague, the member for


September 27, 1990

Saanich-Gulf Islands, said in the House and I will quote from her comments on December 11. She said:
Mr. Speaker, today in Montreal thousands of women are mourning the deaths of 14 women at the hands of a gun-toting madman. He was able to buy his semi-automatic rifle because he had met all legal requirements.
On Saturday, the Prime Minister said the ease with which Marc Lepine obtained his instrument of mass murder was "serious and unacceptable". He is quoted as saying his government would deal with the problem if necessary.
The fact that a man with serious psychological problems was able to legally obtain a powerful rifle and kill and wound more than two dozen innocent people should make it obvious even to the Prime Minister that action is necessary.
The member went on to call for legislation and legislation has been brought forward by the government in the form of Bill C-80. The parliamentary secretary was making reference to this matter.
I would like to deal with the motion. As the hon. member said, the present situation is that everyone who wants to obtain a non-restricted firearm in Canada needs to have a firearm acquisition certificate. Of course, that does not apply to people before 1978. It is an important matter to remember.
Non-restricted weapons, FACs as they are called, are rather simple to obtain. Depending on the province and where you live, you can obtain one within a few hours, or a few weeks if it involves the mail. The body responsible in the province for granting the FAC does a check of criminal records involving violent crime and mental illness involving violence. Although it is rarely an indepth investigation, there is no problem, the FAC is granted.
It is more difficult to obtain restricted weapons, as you might expect. As I said, individuals who obtained weapons before 1978 and have not obtained a weapon since do not need to have FACs.
I will deal first with part two of the motion. The motion calls for a mandatory two-week delay between the application of an FAC and a granting of the licence. The idea, I gather, is to ensure a cooling off period to stop individuals from buying guns on impulse, as the hon.
Private Members' Business
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace outlined a few cases about this, and the individuals using the gun.
I noticed the member proposed in his motion two weeks. The government bill, Bill C-80, asked for a delay of 28 days. That would make his motion less onerous than the government bill. He says the government bill is better. We will get to consider that I believe in Bill C-80 in committee, and that is one matter we should look at.
Part one of this motion today is the more controversial element of the motion. As it states, it would require that individuals have an FAC to obtain ammunition. This would have several important effects. On the positive side, it would ensure that those who had obtained a weapon illegally would have difficulty getting ammunition without an FAC. On the other hand, we might as well acknowledge this, it would not in fact affect those people who have had a gun before 1978 and do not need to have an FAC. So in a sense, it is retroactive legislation, although indirect if you like retroactive legislation, but it has a retroactive effect nevertheless. That is something that this committee has to consider and consider veiy carefully because it potentially applies to hundreds of thousands of people in the country. I want to deal with that controversial matter.
I have just become justice critic for my party. I have looked at my mail and I see many letters. Here is a letter from a Mr. Jarvis in North Vancouver who writes to me and says he thinks Bill C-80 is unfair because it really does not succeed in hitting those people who misuse guns and it hits the people, the hunters, and others who are law-abiding citizens. You get that view expressed widely. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace dealt with that in his speech.
Here is another view from one of my constituents, Miss Elizabeth Thunstrom. Her view is the opposite. She points out that she is very much is favour of more restriction when it comes to firearms, so you have a divided public on this matter. I personally think that the people of Canada are in favour of gun control, accept gun control and want workable gun control.
I am told that there is a difference between people who live in rural areas and those who live in urban areas. For example, trappers, guides and outfitters use guns as tools. If an outfitter goes on a canoe trip, drops his gun, drops his ammunition and has to get more, the question

September 27, 1990
Private Members' Business
is: does he have to wait two weeks or 28 days or so on in order to get another check or another firearms acquisition certificate? These are real issues for a group of people and we have to find a way that we can make this thing workable.
I personally feel that it is in the long-term interest of those who legally possess guns in Canada, hunters, trappers, gun collectors and people who have a legitimate interest in guns, to have proper gun control as well. I believe that with some thought, in committee we can bridge the gap here. It may be that we have to work out a system in our country where the municipalities could have some control so, for instance, in metropolitan Toronto it would be very difficult to get a permit for guns or ammunition whereas in the municipality of Prince Rupert it might be a lot easier, in the sense that there are more people who are trapping and hunting for a living in Prince Rupert. That is just a thought and that will have to be considered at the committee.
Again, I support the motion in principle. I believe that we can deal with some of these matters in detail when the legislation hits the legislative committee.
Finally, I would like to say that we should compare our situation in Canada with that of the United States. In Canada, we consistently have had stronger gun laws than the Americans. I think the result of this is partly responsible for the fact that we have less violence in our society. In general, each time we strengthen gun laws we do succeed in limiting the illegal use of firearms in Canada. I believe tougher gun control laws are overwhelmingly supported by Canadians, especially when we contrast them with the American situation, with the one caveat that we try to find a less onerous and bureaucratic way for those people who are in rural areas or who use guns in the course of their work, as is the case for trappers and guides.
As the Ecole polytechnique tragedy shows, we cannot become complacent. As we have suggested before and after the tragedy, our laws can and must be strengthened and made to work better. I look forward to seeing Bill C-80 in committee and look forward to finding ways that we can make this legislation workable and that we can continue, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said, to in fact make Canada a safer society and
that we can focus our gun laws so that we are looking at that group of people which he said committed the two-thirds of homicides that were not committed by professional killers but by people in trouble; in family situations often times, disturbed people, the Lepines of this world.


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


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
I think it is of maximum importance to the people of Canada and perhaps most particularly to the women of Canada that such an amendment to the gun control legislation be brought forward. I refer particularly to my colleague's recommendation that there be a mandatory two-week delay between the application for a firearms acquisition certificate and the actual granting of a certificate.
I do not think anyone who lived in Canada will forget that night of December 6, 1989. I recall it very clearly. Indeed, it was the night of a celebration in our caucus. It was the night of a Christmas party, a night when a number of members of Parliament were getting together before we would all return to our ridings. Late in the evening, we were joined by our colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. When he entered the room, I could tell that something terrible had happened. He told us of the appalling events, the massacre of the 16 young women at the Ecole polytechnique. I remember the comment of another colleague at that point who said: "Things like that do not happen in Canada".
I recall again the next day when all of us on all sides of this House were united in sorrow and in mourning for the death of these young women. We all felt that way, that things like this do not happen in Canada. Indeed, we used to enjoy that belief and that certainty that things like this did not happen in Canada. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.
I certainly have no wish to denigrate in any way the appalling tragedy of the Ecole polytechnique, but violence
September 27, 1990

has become a common thing in our country, most particularly in our cities. I am sorry to say, in my own city of Halifax where violent crime was practically non-existent when I was growing up, the incidents of murder by guns has increased substantially and, with that, an increase in death by firearms.
There comes, whether we really are aware of it on the surface or not, a hardening of attitude. Along with that are the rapid changes in our culture. I refer particularly to the kinds of television and film that we are exposed to. What is happening is that we are becoming desensitized to the issue of guns. We are becoming desensitized to the sight of people being killed or maimed by firearms.
Now I am not, by any means, suggesting that Canadians are not moved and are not disturbed greatly by this change in our own attitude. I am not suggesting that Canadians are totally insensitive or even past, if you will, the 50 per cent line of sensitivity on the issue of gun control and access to guns. What I am saying is that we are farther down the road than we were even half a generation ago. I want to make very clear that, as my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace said earlier, I am not attempting to prevent hunters or sports shooters in this country from access to their use of firearms in a well trained, law-abiding manner.
I have spoken to lobby groups in my own riding. I have spoken to national lobby groups as well. I am not particularly keen on firearms at all. I will be perfectly honest. They make me nervous. However, I know there are lots of people, women and men in this country, who are expert in the use of firearms and in whose possession they will be used for their correct purpose. These are not the situations we need worry about.
When I think of Marc Lepine, when I think of those young women in Montreal, when I think that tonight in every major city in Canada many women and children will be menaced by firearms, because it is happening on a daily basis, when I think that our gradual desensitization to the whole issue of violence is becoming more and more the norm and less and less the exception, and when I remember those young women who died and I know that every day in this country women are dying from violent crime, then I say we cannot merely do the adequate. We must push beyond that to the ultimate and ensure that our gun control legislation is the finest in the
Private Members' Business
world, that our gun control legislation offers the kind of protection that Canadians deserve.
I have heard frequently from people who oppose gun control the rather nauseating phrase that suggests that people who are in favour of gun control are a bit dull, that guns do not kill people; people kill people. Certainly that is a truism: people do kill people, but it makes it a whole lot easier if a gun is put in the hands of those people.


Mr. Boudria:: Too easy.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Much too easy. It also is another example of the difference between this country and our neighbour to the south. In their constitution they have the right to bear arms. That is their constitution and that is fine. It is not in our Constitution.
I recall, when I was teaching at the University of British Columbia some 15 years ago, giving a seminar to Customs officers. They told me at the time that one of their big problems is Americans who drive through British Columbia on their way to Alaska and have firearms in their cars. It is the practice of our Canadian Customs officers to dismantle the guns. They are wrapped up some way and sealed, and then when they reach the Canada-Alaska border the seals are broken and they are given back. The same process applies on the way back.
One Customs officer said that his worst problem was the abuse he took from American citizens saying: "We have the right to bear arms". He would say: "Yes, you may well have the right to bear arms, but you don't have the right to bear arms in my country".


Don Boudria: Not here you don't.


Mary Catherine Clancy: That is something I think we have always been proud of in Canada. We do not have the right to bear arms because we do not need the right to bear arms.


Don Boudria: And we don't want it.


Mary Catherine Clancy: "And we don't want it", adds my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell adds.
Again, we are not talking about hunters. We are not talking about sport shooters. I am sorry, this is the second time today that I have lost out on remembering a particular Olympic sport and the young woman from British Columbia who won the Olympic Gold Medal.


Mr. Hughes:: Nancy Greene.

Private Members' Business


Mary Catherine Clancy: No, Nancy Greene was the skier. The young woman who was the shooter in the Olympic competition is now a faculty member of St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. It is most remiss of me to forget her name.


Mr. Speaker:: Susan Natras.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Susan Natras. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
At any rate this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the very serious subject of handguns. We are talking about automatic weapons. We are talking about the need to protect Canadians and the need to continue to be in the forefront in the free world for all people to say: "This is the way we live in Canada". This is the kinder and gentler society that other people aspire to but which we have achieved. We will only achieve this kinder and gentler society, thanks to Mr. Bush, if we continue to show the human face on this kind of legislation and make the restrictions fit the kind of Canada we all wish to participate in.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has proposed that the government make certain changes to the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code. He wants to require a firearms acquisition certificate for the purchase of ammunition, and he wants a mandatory two-week delay between the application for an FAC and the time at which it is issued to the applicant.
As most members of this House will be aware, the Minister of Justice has tabled Bill C-80, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof, in this House since the hon. member introduced his motion.
Bill C-80 contains extensive changes to the law of gun control in Canada and is supplemented by a number of non-legislative measures. Canada's gun control law is based on three basic elements. First, it seeks to deter those who would misuse firearms through specific firearms offences and penalties. Second, it seeks to restrict or prohibit access to certain types of firearms believed to be a greater than average threat to public safety. Third, it
seeks to screen out those persons who should not have access to guns and deny them that access.
The firearms acquisition certificate, or FAC, is a key part of the screening process. All Canadians who wish to acquire a gun in any manner, whether by purchase, loan, gift, or even inheritance, must first undergo the necessary screening process and get an FAC.
It is an offence for anyone to give a firearm to any person without proof that the recipient of the gun is a holder of a valid FAC, and it is an offence for any person to obtain a gun unless he or she is the holder of a valid up-to-date FAC.
The legislative and regulatory package recently put forward by the Minister of Justice seeks to improve the FAC in a number of ways. First, it would require those who want an FAC to pass a course or test in firearms safety. Second, it would require them to provide the names of two references who could provide the police firearms officer with additional background information. Third, it would require them to provide an up-to-date photograph that would be attached to the FAC so that unauthorized use would become impossible. Fourth, it would require the applicant wait at least 28 days between the application and receiving his or her FAC. This is double the delay period proposed by my colleague.
As any member of this House who has recently obtained a firearm will be aware, it generally takes at least two weeks for the police to process an application. This delay is not mandatory. It is simply the time required to conduct the necessary check and fill out the forms.
The four-week delay proposed in the minister's bill would significantly lighten the existing wait, and it would ensure a more or less uniform wait as most applications could be dealt with properly in a month. It would also ensure that an FAC was not used in less than a month, even in cases where the paperwork was completed in less time than that.
The Minister of Justice has said that this waiting period is intended to allow firearms officers time to conduct a proper background check, but it seems to me that it will also reduce firearms incidents for another reason. It seems to me that where a person wants to obtain a firearm to commit a crime or perhaps to commit suicide, a one-month delay might well force that person
September 27, 1990

to reconsider. It might in some cases force that person to reflect on the implications of their acts to the point where they decide not to act at all.
For this reason I would support the idea behind this part of the motion. It is a good idea and worthy of support in this House. I am sure that this is why the Minister of Justice has included a similar proposal in her bill, and I am sure the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace will want to support the minister's bill for that reason.
The hon. member has made another proposal in his motion. He has proposed that the same FAC document be required for purchasing ammunition for any firearm. Unfortunately I cannot support this proposal. I believe that it would cause many problems for the police and others involved in the FAC process, and I cannot see any advantages if any exist at all. I am afraid I cannot see any advantage that it would bring in terms of reduced crime, accidents, suicides, or any of the firearms related problems that exist in our country today.
It seems to me that one of the advantages of our present FAC system is that it concentrates on those persons who we think are the greatest risk as firearms owners, those who have just acquired or are about to acquire their guns.
You do not need an FAC to keep a gun. You only need one to acquire a gun. Once you have had the gun for a length of time and have not committed a crime or had an accident with it, I would think that the chances of such an incident ought to drop considerably.
Persons who obtain a gun sometimes do so intending to use it for a crime, and persons who are new gun owners and are not familiar with guns ought to be much more likely to have accidents with them.
I would suggest that this is why the FAC system concentrates its efforts on these people. It concentrates the scarce resources of the police firearms authorities on those situations where we hope they will do the most good.
What then would be the effect of our colleague's proposal? It would force any gun owner who wants to shoot his gun to have an FAC so as to be able to buy ammunition. It would presumably make anyone who sold or even gave ammunition to another person into a criminal unless a valid FAC certificate was presented.
Adjournment Debate
Many Canadians who have owned firearms for years without any problem whatsoever have no FAC. They may have had the guns since before 1978 when an FAC requirement became law, or they may have bought a gun since then using an FAC and not renewed or replaced it.
There is no need to get another FAC to keep a gun you already have. You only need an FAC if you want to get another gun. The hon. member's proposal would change this. He would require the FAC to buy ammunition. He would require those gun owners who have owned their guns without any problems to undergo the FAC screening process regularly.
He would subject them to a more intensive screening process than is contained in the minister's bill. He would force police authorities who must conduct the screening to screen them over and over again, consuming time and resources that could be better used to conduct more effective screening of new gun owners who pose a much greater risk to the public and even to themselves.
I am afraid I cannot support this part of my colleague's motion. I recognize the hon. member's good intentions in putting it forward, but I am afraid that I see it as unworkable and potentially harmful to the existing gun control system and I cannot support it for that reason.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate. I hope that, once and for all, the Conservative govern-

Adjournment Debate
ment will explain why it insists on misleadingly advertising the GST.
Mr. Speaker, I want to sum up the question I asked in the House last June 1. In short, I wanted to know why the government would not withdraw the GST advertising which I described as being misleading. The Minister of National Revenue told me, and I quote: "I simply want to add for the interest of the hon. member and all members in this House that the GST is not a new tax, even in the service sector".

I read further. On that day, the minister answered questions about the false and misleading advertising of his government. He said:
Mr. Speaker, we analyzed these ads very carefully prior to making them public, particularly after the Speaker's ruling some months ago about another ad of which the hon. member is well aware.
What happened is that the government was telling us that the radio ads of the Conservative government were not false and misleading. We are talking now about the radio ads.
These "spots" as they are called in radio language, had been featured across Canada and Mr. Paul Tuz of the Greater Toronto Better Business Bureau had complained about them to the CRTC.
Mr. Speaker, you know me. Sometimes I decide to take up these challenges myself as well, so I decided to write a letter to the Canadian Advertising Foundation.
I said to myself: "In the unlikely event that someone thinks that I am not totally objective about this thing," which probably would not be the case anyway, but in the event that they said that, I said: "I will let an independent arbitrator be the judge."
"The Advertising Standards Council of the Canadian Advertising Foundation sounds to me to be pretty objective, at least more objective than the Minister of National Revenue." Listen to what they had to say. They wrote to me on August 2, 1990. They said:
Dear Mr. Boudria:
The Canadian Advertising Foundation has followed up on your complaint concerning Government of Canada advertising of the Goods and Services Tax.
It said the following in addition:
The Standards Division of the Canadian Advertising Foundation wrote to the Minister of Finance on June 13, 1990 to advise of the complaints received about this advertising and to inform the Department that the complaints and the advertising in question would be the subject to a review by the Advertising Standards Council at a meeting on July 19, 1990.
On that date, the Advertising Standards Council did indeed review the material to determine compliance with the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.
I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary opposite to pay close attention to the following sentence. It reads as follows:
The Council ruled that two of the spots entitled "Future" and "The Consumer" to be in violation of Clause 1 of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.
Clearly, an independent body has ruled that my complaint was right and that the minister's answer on July 1 was wrong.
I invite the parliamentary secretaiy to tell us now whether he thinks the Canadian Advertising Foundation, the Advertising Standards Council and 85 per cent of Canadians are wrong and that his minister was right.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for giving me the opportunity to reply.
The hon. member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has expressed concern about, as he terms it, "the $14 million advertising campaign to promote the dreaded GST". Before addressing the member's concerns, I would like to point out that the cost of radio and newspaper advertising in May and June on the GST was about $3.5 million.
As pointed out in the hon. member's question, Mr. Paul Tuz, President of the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Toronto, asked the CRTC to remove the government's current radio advertisements from the airwaves because one line was felt to be misleading, and I quote: "It" being the GST "is not an additional tax".
The Better Business Bureau argues that services are not currently subject to a federal sales tax but will be taxed under the GST system. The GST is therefore viewed by the Better Business Bureau as an additional tax on services and not a replacement tax.
September 27, 1990

This argument seems relatively simple and complete. It demonstrates, however, a complete lack of knowledge of the current federal sales tax system because services are taxed indirectly today through business inputs. Many service industries purchase manufactured goods such as computer systems, office equipment, cars, trucks, gasoline and alcoholic beverages, all of which have federal sales tax embedded in their price.
The service sector currently pays an 11 per cent federal sales tax on most telecommunications charges. These taxes invariably are not paid by the businesses but are passed on to the consumers. A percentage of the $700 of federal sales tax collected from each Canadian every year is collected indirectly through the service sector. Although the tax base for the GST will be broadened to ensure a more equitable system, the government is expected to raise net revenues of about $18.5 billion. This represents about the same amount the current federal sales tax would have raised had it remained in place.


Don Boudria: It's revenue neutral, right?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I will read that again, Mr. Speaker. Although the tax base for the GST will be broadened to ensure a more equitable system, the government is expected to raise net revenues of about $18.5 billion. This represents about the same amount the current federal sales tax would have raised had it remained in place.
In light of these facts, it is clear that the GST is not an additional tax. It is a replacement tax.
The radio advertisements in May and June were factual and straightforward. They were designed to correct the misconceptions demonstrated by the Better Business Bureau of Toronto and, if I may say, the hon. member.
The government has received 360,000 calls on a toll-free information line.
Mr. Speaker, I see you urging me to complete.
Since the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell has posed his question in the House, this issue of the government's radio ads has received further attention. On August 27, 1990, we responded to the Canadian Advertising Foundation. I am happy, either to lay on the table of the House or to give my hon. colleague a copy of
Adjournment Debate
the statement issued at the time and a letter that accompanied it.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as the newly appointed associate environment critic for my party, responsible for international environment, and a member of the international debt sub-committee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs which tabled the report "Securing Our Global Future-Cana-da's Stake in the Unfinished Business of Third World Debt", I am pleased to be able to expand on a question I posed in the House on June 8.
I want to expand and further expose a major contradiction which I raised in that Question Period on June 8. It is related to the Export Development Corporation. That contradiction is that while the Export Development Corporation, EDC, administers about a billion dollar budget of our tax dollars, it is exempt from environmental assessment.
In my question to the minister of that day, it is clear that this government places economic priorities not only separate from the environment, but economic priorities are given precedence. So much for linking the economy and the environment. So much for the holistic language of the Brundtland commission report on the environment and the economy.
The Export Development Corporation is a federal Crown corporation whose job it is to promote exports by providing subsidies of various kinds to big banks, such as the Bank of Montreal and the Tbronto-Dominion Bank, and to corporations such as Inco and Canadian General Electric. An example of some of the work they do: in Argentina there is the EDC-backed construction of a CANDU nuclear reactor that continually breaks down, creating chaos for the economy, threatening the environment and resulting in millions of dollars in losses to the Canadian taxpayer.
In Mexico there is EDC support for another CANDU to be built by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. This one, never even begun, likewise pushed Mexico further into debt; the connections between international debt crisis, our own deficit and our environmental problems are clear. In Colombia, the EDC backed the Guavio hydroelectric complex which has become synonymous in that country with white elephant. As the leading Colombian news magazine, Semana, their Time magazine, pointed out, the cost overruns alone from this ill-con-

ceived project equalled half the nation's entire budget for social programs.
This is what our report on Third World debt pointed out, that we are contributing to the Third World debt by so-called hand-outs. We are not helping them by giving them money for that sort of thing.
Colombians suffered, obviously, as a result but not Canadian General Electric, which carried out the work. The EDC saw to that. Our tax dollars saw to that.
With our government agencies throwing money at environmentally harmful projects like these in order to promote exports at a loss, is it any wonder that the Canadian taxpayers are suffering or that Third World economy and environment is in such shambles. Having the Export Development Corporation exempt from environmental assessment review process is not good for the environment. It is not good for the people of the developing world, either their economies, their environment or their working methods, and it is not good for the Canadian taxpayer.
There are two ways that the government can approach this. We have got the much touted Green Plan that is coming forth, and I am looking forward to seeing whether there is real meat behind all of the fuzz that we have seen up to now. There is also Bill C-78, the environmental assessment review process. I urge the government to give real teeth to Bill C-78 to include the Export Development Corporation in their environmental review process. I urge the government to put real teeth in that Green Plan to make certain that the kind of investments our taxpayers are putting into international development not only bring benefits to Canada, because that of course is the intent-and I do not think any of us are against that-but that those contributions also flow to the rest of the world.
We are globally interdependent if not interlinked. Our government policies should demonstrate that.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address the House today on a subject which is obviously very important to my friend opposite and I think to all Canadians, the environment. The member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has expressed considerable
dismay that the EDC may not be subject to the federal environmental assessment review process.
Frankly, my hon. colleague is quite justified in her concerns. The current environmental assessment and review process guidelines order was created in 1984 by a previous government that was on its way out the door. That guideline makes the application of environmental assessment process strictly voluntary for Crown corporations such as EDC and the Canadian Commercial Corporation as well. That my hon. colleague should express concern about such an apparent loophole in the environmental assessment process is quite understandable and reasonable. It is because of a multitude of such loopholes and weaknesses that the government is undertaking to replace the outdated guideline with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Bill C-78, which my colleague talked about, was tabled in the House on June 18 and was part of a comprehensive package of environmental assessment reforms designed to do away with a guideline that never did work as effectively as it should have to protect the environment. We will create in its place an effective, efficient, and accessible environmental assessment process, built around the goal of sustainable development, a process that will move Canada into the forefront of environmental protection and keep us there for many years to come.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will ensure that all Schedule 3 Crown corporations are subject to the federal environmental assessment process by means of special regulations. This approach has been taken to protect the competitive nature of such corporations. It must be recognized that the operational requirements of Crown corporations are very different from those of federal departments and agencies. Their special circumstances require greater managerial autonomy and flexibility. This fact has been recognized in a separate financial regime established for them under the Financial Administration Act and will be recognized in a separate assessment regime to be established for them under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The EDC and the CCC represent special cases that are very useful in illustrating the government's commitment to both the economy and the environment, in short, sustainable development.
The granting of commercial credit and the development of Canadian export markets is a highly competitive international business. A significant portion of Canada's economy depends on success in exporting our goods and
September 27, 1990

services. But the hon. member from Saanich-Gulf Islands is quite right. Canadian exports can sometimes contribute to projects which in turn are damaging to the environment. This is just another example of the way in which a lack of environmental stewardship in one country can be visited upon its neighbours and its partners.
Measures taken to address this concern, however, must be implemented in a manner that is both environmentally and economically effective. We must not lose sight of the important role played by Canadian exporters, a role that can only be sustained on a level playing-field where exporters from all countries face a similar set of competitive circumstances.
Our course of action will see a strong Canadian initiative to develop an international consensus among the world's leading export nations on the role that environmental assessment must play in export decisions. In this way a level competitive playing-field can be maintained, the sovereignty of individual nations can be
Adjournment Debate
respected, and the environment can be protected far beyond just the Canadian jurisdiction. This international consensus in turn will provide for a special regulation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to establish an environmental assessment process for the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to take effective action on both the environment and the economy and to integrate both in a way that will move Canada and the world toward sustainable development. Would that our colleagues on the other side of the House were as committed to the environment as to the economy, let alone both.


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 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 28, 1990