1990-05-31

[Stage Direction]


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 several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the report of the all-party delegation which attended the Interparliamentary Conference on Global Environment held in Washington April 29 to May 2.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-third report of the Striking Committee.



BILL S-10-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill S-10, an act respecting the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, with amendments.



BILL C-26-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), as amended, known as the at and east legislation. In doing so, I would especially like to thank members on all sides who served on this committee for the interest and co-operation they showed, and especially to Mrs. Sir-paul, the clerk, and her capable staff.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CROWN CORPORATIONS DISSOLUTION OR TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-73, an act to provide for the dissolution or transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.

May 31, 1990
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, indeed an honour, to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 on three different topics.
The first topic deals with the goods and services tax. The petitioners from Kamloops and Chase, British Columbia are totally distressed with the government's continued determination to proceed with this 7 per cent goods and services tax and are calling upon the Liberals in the Senate to stop it.


Mr. Milliken:: That is not what the petition states.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Actually, it is not what the petition says, Mr. Speaker, but it is what they are thinking. If I can be so bold to presume what the petitioners are actually hoping for, it is that the Liberal senators who dominate the Senate will vote it down this afternoon and end this threat.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another issue, petitioners from Kamloops are calling upon the government to re-invest in passenger rail service. They have looked around the world and they see that most countries our size have a first-rate passenger rail service.
They are asking the Canadian government to do what everybody else is doing: investing in passenger rail service as opposed to reducing commitments and investments in passenger rail service.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, petitioners from Kamloops, British Columbia point out their concern regarding increasing child poverty in Canada and the increasing number of children living in poverty.
They are asking the government to consider supporting a comprehensive bill of rights for children as a way of eliminating poverty among young people in our country.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present here in this House a petition that was presented to me at a public meeting in Shediac attended by several hundred people, mainly from the fishing industry. They came from every community, from Baie-Sainte-Anne, Escuminac, all the fishing communities of Kent County, from Westmorland County, even as far as Cape Tormentine.
The petitioners humbly state that the present crisis in the fishing industry requires every one of us to help all the fishermen and all the working people in this industry which is vital for our economic survival.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners humbly ask the government to present a recovery plan for this industry in co-operation with all concerned.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table a petition that follows the example of several thousand Canadians who are protesting strongly against the Conservative government's proposal to impose upon Canadians a further tax on the goods and services that they purchase starting January 1.
These Canadians-and there are hundreds of signatures in this petition-would like to state without a doubt their strong objection to the imposition of this unprecedented tax. The petitioners would also like to state that in their opinion it is an unjustified grab from the pockets of Canadians which will hit them not only with a higher tax load but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.
The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, I am pleased to table a petition signed by many, many Canadians who are also opposed to the government's
May 31, 1990

proposal to introduce a goods and services tax and impose it on Canadians.
The petitioners indicate that they are concerned this tax will be hidden from Canadians and applied to virtually everything that Canadians purchase. It will create an onerous burden on small businesses across Canada. They are appalled, frankly, that the government would even consider such a tax, particularly after its ducking the issue during the last campaign and refusing to disclose the details of the tax before the campaign was launched.
They call upon Parliament to reject this unfair and inequitable tax.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, lest the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue believe that they are somehow slipping from the acme of the attentions and concerns of the citizens of Edmonton and indeed Alberta, I would like to present today a petition signed by 1,221 people, mostly Edmontonians, which notes that the Minister of Finance's proposed goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay. It notes as well that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place.
The petitioners call upon-and this is an interesting point-Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax. As we all know Parliament includes the Senate, so I interpret this to mean that the petitioners as well wish the Liberal majority in the Senate to kill the bill. In fact they want the Liberals to put their Senate majority where their mouth is.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to rise, in accordance with Standing Order 36, to present a petition with 570 signatures.
In the last eight months I have presented 15,000 signatures from my riding, and I am still getting them in. I have run out of my own, so I am using some from our deputy Whip, the iron, member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
This petition contains 570 signatures. It notes that Canadian families with incomes of around $15,000 spend 92 per cent of their income on current consumption,
Routine Proceedings
while families earning $50,000 or more spend only 50 per cent on consumption. More than anybody else, they are concerned about the extra 7 per cent that they are going to have to pay if this bill goes to its finality.
They are very concerned about the effect it will have on them and on small businesses with that kind of income range. They humbly beg and pray, as my hon. friend says, for Parliament to cease and desist and not to pass this bill.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions today from Legionnaires, both men and women, in Portland, Merrickville, Lans-downe, Rockport, Elgin, Toledo, Athens, Jasper and other communities in Leeds and Grenville, objecting to the cuts that the government has proposed to veterans services, particularly in the way of housekeeping costs for vets and additional charges for long-term care.
These vets are calling upon the government to reverse these budget cuts. They would like the government to remember them in a more positive way, instead of in the negative, twisted way which this government is seemingly determined to do.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that has been forwarded to me from residents of the constituency of Etobicoke Centre, and some 581 people have signed this petition.
The undersigned petitioners are opposed to the closing of the Canada postal outlet previously located at the Grenview Home Hardware at 2918 Bloor Street West in the city of Etobicoke. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact a law opening a postal outlet in the vicinity of Bloor Street West, east of Montgomery Road and west of Prince Edward Drive.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to present petitions under Standing Order 36.
The first of these petitions calls upon the Government of Canada to support Canada's aboriginal people in the traditional use of their lands. It calls on Canada to seek new initiatives for peace through common security and

May 31, 1990
Routine Proceedings
disarmament, rather than NATO-NORAD participation in deep strike attack capability building.
It calls on Canada to redirect NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and livelihood.
The petitioners call on Parliament to oppose the establishment of a proposed tactical fighter and weapons training base at Goose Bay. I am sure they are happy that the base will not be built. Nevertheless, they would like to see the end of all low-level flight training.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of La Ronge, Saskatchewan, calling on Parliament, and particularly the Minister of Finance, to reject the report of the task force on northern tax benefits, which eliminated 85 per cent of the communities in Canada from enjoying the benefits available to them under northern tax benefits, to recognize the high cost of living in northern and isolated communities, and to develop a fair and equitable tax benefits program for the north to enable those people to enjoy an adequate standard of living and develop their community.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, the third petition which I have the honour of presenting was signed by people from Shellbrook, Leask, and surrounding communities. It is particularly appropriate today when a report is out today saying that illiteracy remains a serious problem in our country.
The petitioners call on the government, particularly Parliament, not to consider, through the goods and services tax, the taxing of books, the printed word. In fact they say that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, culture and education and that this would be negatively affected by the GST.
Therefore they call on the Liberal Senate to reject the GST and certainly to reject any tax on reading materials.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am today tabling a petition from Chibougamau, in the riding of Roberval, further to the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
The signers of this petition reject the conclusions of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas and ask that Chibougamau be recognized as an isolated area under the present tax benefit regime.


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. 244, 280, and 284.


Mr. Taylor: For each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, for programs providing economic development assistance to Indian people (a) what amount of money was paid out (i) in total (ii) in Saskatchewan (b) was any part of the total paid out for projects originating in and operating on reserves and, if so (i) in total (ii) in Saskatchewan, what part?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am
informed as follows:
Insofar as Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is concerned:
Following is the report showing expenditures relating to projects that are identified as originating in or operating on reserves based on the legal status of the applicant. ACOA's records do not identify the aboriginal status of applicants as individual and therefore there are no projects identified as being with Indians apart from Band Councils.
May 31, 1990

Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
CALENDAR YEAR	NO. PROJECTS	ASSISTANCE AMOUNT1989	1	14,000Total for Indian Band Council	1	14,000
Insofar as the Department of Employment and Immigration is concerned: a) Expenditures through the Canadian Jobs Strategy were estimated to be:
i) In total ($ millions)
1986-87	1987-88	1988-89	1989-90$145.5	$127.1	$120.7	$137.8ii) In Saskatchewan ($ millions)	1986-87	1987-88	1988-89	1989-90$18.7	$19.1	$15.8	$20.9
b) When capturing date on CJS projects and activities, EIC does not track activities occurring on, or coordinated from, Indian Reserves.
Insofar as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned:
Total expenditures (including salaries and overhead) to provide economic development assistance to Indians, Inuit and Innu is as follows:
(a) FISCAL YEAR
(i) TOTAL
1985-	86
1986-	87
1987-	88
1988-	89
1989-	90 *
[Stage Direction]
* Budget rather than expenditures.
(ii) SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
b) (i) and (ii)
Departmental records do not indicate wether the projects originated in and operated on-reserve or off-reserve.
Insofar as the Department of Industry, Science and Technology is concerned:
(a) & (b)
(a) FISCAL YEAR
1986-	87
1987-	88
1988-	89
1989-	90
All programs administered by DIST, regardless of their focus on Aboriginal People, do not discriminate between Status Indians, Metis or Inuit. The programs can also include assistance to non-aboriginal persons provided the benefits flow to aboriginal people. Other programs administered by DIST could also contribute economic assistance to status Indians but data in these cases are not available.
(i) TOTAL
(ii) SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
NOTE: The figures provided above are for Aboriginal People only.
[Stage Direction]
May 31, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Insofar as the Department of Western Economic Diversification is concerned:
The department does not have the information requested.
The Western Diversification Program is open to ail western Canadian business enterprises and viable commercial projects. The four western provinces are treated as a single geographic region, with the same guidelines applying equally throughout the area. Consequently, the department does not have information which explicitly sets out what portion of its funds have been accessed in the manner requested.
Mr. Gardiner: In the summer of 1989, did officials of Forestry Canada state that there were administrative problems in paying contractors for tree planting, and, if so, have any steps been taken taken to correct these problems and, if so, what steps?


The Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: During the summer of 1989, the British Columbia Employment Standards Branch (Prince George office) received a number of complaints from tree planters. These complaints reflected an abnormal occurrence, due to the dissolution of a company in June 1989.
In 1989, Forestry Canada officials (Pacific and Yukon Region) investigated issues regarding tree planting administration under the Canada-British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement (FRDA).
It would be very difficult to relate the complaints generated by the dissolution of a company directly to administrative practices under the Canada-British Columbia FRDA. It was determined that administrative problems did not exist under the BC FRDA and, therefore, no changes were made to the administrative process.
Although the implementation of cost-shared programs under the FRDA and their adherence to the employment standards is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, the federal government has advocated that the working and safety conditions of silviculture workers be improved.
The FRDA created much employment for silviculture workers in 1989, generating an estimated 14,000 person-days of employment to plant some 19 million seedlings on 7,000 hectares in the Prince George Region. However, with the exception of the one company which failed, the proportion of complaints to the Employment Standards Branch does not appear to be unusual.
CF ESTABLISHMENT/STRENGTII


Mr. Manley: As of December 31, 1989, for each rank from private to general (including naval equivalents), what is (a) the establishment (b) the actual strength of the Canadian Armed Forces?


The Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: See attached documents.



MILITARY STRENGTH BY RANK


[Stage Direction]
RANK	ACTUAL * ESTABLISHMENT NOTE
GEN	1	1LGEN	7	8MGEN	32	32BGEN	82	84COL	366	361LCOL	1,123	1,159MAJ	3,537	3,833SUB-TOTAL	5,148	5,478CAPT	6,942	6,622CAPT/LT	2,813LT	1,460	65SUB-TOTAL	8,402	9,5002LT	167	OCDT	214	SUB-TOTAL	381	OFFICER-TOTAL	13,931	14,978BASIC TRAINING LIST	2,258SUBSIDIZED UNIVERSITY TRAINING LIST	2,226CWO	921	895MWO	2,480	2,450WO	4,979	5,038SGT	10,277	10,739MCPL	11,933	12,677SUB-TOTAL	30,590	31,799CPL	20,032	10,098CPL/PTE	22,953PTE	11,528	SUB-TOTAL	31,560	33,051NCM-TOTAL	62,150	64,850BASIC TRAINING LIST	6,145SUBSIDIZED UNIVERSITY TRAINING LIST	6
May 31, 1990
[Stage Direction]
NOTE 1: These established positions require either one of two ranks.
NOTE 2: There are no positions that specify this rank.
* The "actual" figures do not include those members who are on retirement leave or on the medical patient holding list. The members in these categories do not normally return to active service. Also excluded are those on basic and university training.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.



STARRED QUESTION

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 253?
Because of the length of the response I would ask that this question be made an Order for Return and this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Starred Question No. 253 be made for Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



MEECH LAKE ACCORD

Mr. Edmonston: Since July 1, 1987, have any Ministers of the Crown made speeches promoting the Meech Lake Accord and, if so, in each case (a) which Minister (b) on what date (c) before which audience?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel) moved:: That this Chamber, recognizing the historical events taking place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, regretting the lack of clear policy by the government in defining a new Canadian role in response to these events, noting the failure to address the serious issues of trade, commercial relations, Arctic security and agriculture agreements, and the confusion between the Minister of National Defence and Secretary of State on NATO, calls upon the government through open parliamentary consultations to develop independent, effective policy initiatives in foreign policy and trade to meet these new conditions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today the Official Opposition takes this opportunity to present a motion of censure because we regret it has now become common practice to develop Canada's foreign policy on the sly, often without any public consultation, a policy that also seems more inclined to take its cue from our neighbours to the south, reflecting American interests instead of representing a genuinely Canadian position.
I may remind hon. members of the first meeting in Quebec City between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Mulroney, when our Prime Minister launched the initiative for negotiations on the free trade agreement with the United States, without prior consultation with the Canadian public. Worse, Canadians were constantly kept in the dark about developments in the course of these negotiations with the Americans, allegedly because we could not reveal our strategy and objectives to our economic partners.
The Americans knew exactly where they were going and had no qualms about saying so publicly, even tabling their action plan in the U.S. Congress. In fact, they were very successful, since they got us to abolish the Foreign Investment Review Agency, for their sake. We passed legislation that was favourable to their big drug companies. They obtained the deregulation of the transportation industry, which we now realize is heavily weighted in favour of American truckers and American railway companies. They obtained a guarantee from Canada that the U.S. could always count on access to our natural resources. Finally, they obtained the gradual phasing-

May 31, 1990
Supply
out of all subsidy programs for Canadian companies and farmers. That is what they wanted and that is what they got. Unfortunately, we cannot say the picture is as rosy on our side. According to the Prime Minister, our main goal was to have guaranteed access to the U.S. market.
That was not achieved since we are still subject to retaliatory measures by the U.S. Congress. Now there is talk about a United States-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, and it seems that negotiations will be starting very soon between the Americans and the Mexicans, our government also wants to get involved. Here again, there were no prior consultations, not even with our parliamentary committee, and certainly not with the Canadian public. In any case, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will expand on this question later on in the debate today, when he will also mention other negative aspects of Canada's international trade policies.
I may recall, Mr. Speaker, that our Prime Minister decided that Canada would become a member of the Organization of American States, following his first meeting with President Bush. This decision took everybody by surprise. No one expected it, not even officials at the Department of External Affairs, who did not see this as a priority and who were not and still are not ready to tackle this new priority since they lack the budgets and staff to deal with the new responsibilities tossed their way by the Prime Minister, en route to Costa Rica.
What the Liberal Party of Canada said at the time is unfortunately, still true today. The Liberal Party feels that Canada's membership should have been subject to the following conditions: First, membership should not be a substitute for a valid policy in the region. The Mulroney government should make a formal commitment, through concrete action, to enhancing Canada's presence in Latin America and the Caribbean, both in the form of financial and human resources. Second, the government should start by formulating a set of priorities and principles to guide the activities of Canadian representatives at the OAS and in the region. For example, strongly promote respect for human rights and closely monitor situations that might lead to violations of these rights; provide effective aid, taking account of respect for human rights and the environment; increase efforts to solve the debt crisis, especially by restoring to their former level contributions to the Inter-American Development Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank; clearly state Canada's point of view on the settlement of
conflicts in the region and promote the democratization of institutions and governments.
I must say that the government has not done much so far to meet these conditions.
Finally, the Minister of External Affairs, in a speech he gave at Humber College in Toronto on the weekend, just set forth Canada's new policy on Europe. Again, Mr. Speaker, there was no public consultation and the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade was not consulted either.
That is quite insulting, because since last September, the members of this committee have been dealing with the new situation in Europe following the political events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and especially with the emergence of the single market in Europe in 1992. We held hundreds of meetings and heard dozens of witnesses representing the opinions of Canadian and foreign experts on this subject. We have returned from a trip to observe and study the Soviet Union and East and West Germany and we are preparing to publish the results of our work in the coming days.
Now the minister, before this report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade is made public, tells us his new policy and rejects outright all these suggestions that may have been useful to him. I understand his not wanting the ideas and opinions of opposition members, but I remind him that over half a dozen members of his own party worked with us on these recommendations; they are being treated quite cavalierly and incorrectly by the minister.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I read the minister's speech and that I find it incredibly trite in some respects.
Having reminded us that, at Montreal's McGill University on February 5, he announced his intention to re-examine our European policy with a view to defining Canada's interests in that part of the world and implementing a strategy to serve these interests, he now states solemnly that, since trade accounts for 30 per cent of our GNP, the unification of the Western European market is of the utmost importance for Canadian employment and prosperity and that the huge untapped markets of Eastern Europe may also prove to be veiy promising in the long term.
Mr. Speaker, he did not really have to wait nearly four months to say that. Besides, I would suggest that his conclusions concerning NATO are unduly conservative.
May 31, 1990

Acknowledging as he does, that it is only natural that NATO should play a more political role which would mirror Europe's new reality and its declining military mission, and that NATO must seek security through arms control with as much energy as it sought security through military deployment, the minister concludes by saying that a strong military mandate for NATO is still valid and that the presence of Canadian and American troops in Europe remains essential.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, our commitment towards Europe does not necessarily call for our military presence over there and, in that respect, the government will have to take a much more enlightened approach.
Speaking objectively, I must say the minister's proposals for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe are interesting and certainly deserve to be vigorously promoted by Canada.
However, the minister also made a vague reference to a CSCE assembly of parliamentarians. I would have preferred to hear more about the European Council. I wish the minister would announce that Canada will apply for membership in the European Council and I that he will work on making the European Council the parliamentary wing of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The minister also said solemnly: "Our interests in Europe are real, contemporary and imperative". Well said, but I may remind him there is a lack of resources. His department has been asked to scale down, and the Minister of Finance is putting tremendous pressure on his department to reduce spending. I think he may be biting off more than he can chew. How can the minister expect his diplomats to be everywhere at once? After all, they are only human.
The minister has just given us a major action plan for ensuring our future presence in Europe. I am afraid those objectives will not be met if we treat Europe the same way we treated the fourteen bilateral agreements signed by Mr. Mulroney in Moscow last November.
I think it is clear their operations are on hold, and I deplore the government's total lack of initiative and failure to do any follow-up on these issues. The Liberal Party of Canada issued a press release on the occasion of
Supply
President Gorbachev's visit to Ottawa, and I would like to quote a few paragraphs:
The Liberals feel that Canada can be of invaluable assistance in supporting President Gorbachev's efforts to reorganize the Soviet economy, provide for a more democratic political system and revitalize Soviet society.
Our diplomatic presence in that country is a tangible symbol of Canada's commitment in this respect. However, this presence is not equal to the task. We are sorry to see that the Government of Canada has yet to open a new consulate in Kiev, and we deplore the fact that there is no consulate in Leningrad.
We want to ask the Conservative Government to provide for a significant increase in the number of diplomats posted to Moscow. The present staff of fewer than 20 is not adequate, considering the very demanding aspects of Canadian-Soviet relations, and the impression is given that Canadian-Soviet relations are not a priority with the Conservative Govement.
The Liberals feel this is an intolerable situation that should be corrected as soon as possible.
In 1984, the previous Liberal government, under the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, signed an unprecedented agreement for scientific co-operation in the Arctic with the Soviet Union. The Liberals are happy to see that further agreements on co-operation in the Arctic were signed when the Prime Minister visited Moscow last November.
As we said earlier, however, we are disappointed because implementation of these agreements is lagging, and we urge the minister to take steps to advance this dossier. We also regret that the Mulroney government is reluctant to engage in serious talks with the Soviet Union on security in the Arctic and arms limitation.
Since 1988, we have proposed a multilateral arms limitation system for the Arctic, and as Liberals, we once again ask the Mulroney government to respond to Soviet indications of interest in arms limitation in the Arctic.
Liberal Parliamentarians who recently visited the USSR were quite concerned when they learned that that country was planning to re-locate its nuclear test field in the Arctic as of 1995.
We strongly urge President Gorbachev to publically refute entertaiming such a notion which we feel would jeopardize the Arctic's already fragile environment and which is certainly not consistent with the statements he has made himself on the opportunity to demilitarize the Arctic and to sign a general nuclear test ban treaty.
I suggest this is one of the main items in our relations with the USSR and I ask the Minister to make every effort to convince Soviet leaders to change their mind.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I say that our foreign policy as usual is an after-the-fact policy. We react to US iniatives or of necessity to major political changes. Our foreign policy is totally unimaginative. Canada is no longer at the forefront of the international political

May 31, 1990
Supply
scene. We no longer influence the events; we simply react to them.
What is true of our foreign policy is also true in the areas of national defence and international development.
I need not tell you that we no longer have a defence policy. The White Paper tabled by the Minister of Defence is no longer relevant. It is just a pile of paper which the government has simply thrown into the waste basket. But it has done nothing to develop a new defence policy for Canada.
It is also true of the White Paper on international development which has never been implemented by this Tory government. Our international commitments to the Third World are nothing to be proud of and fall short of the proverbial generosity of Canadians.
In a little while, my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland will discuss in greater detail how this government has sold out the various groups of Canadians operating in under-developed countries and how two-faced the Tories have been in connection with the most blatant violations of human rights by several governments which are recipients of Canadian foreign aid.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a member of the UN Security Council. Regretfully, it uses its position on the council with extreme caution. So much so that we can rightfully wonder if the government realizes that we have a major role to play and that we have the responsibility to present the Security Council with original, independent and somewhat liberal initiatives. That is what this government should do and is not doing.
That is why we have moved today this motion blaming the government.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss foreign policy in the House, although I confess to some puzzlement of both the timing and the content of the motion and indeed, some of the references of my good friend, the spokesman for the Liberal party.
The motion was about Europe. He spent a good part of his time talking about the United States. My colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore suggested perhaps we
should send him a map. Obviously, relations with the United States are important, but I want to make a point to my good friend. The world is larger than the United States. This government has focused our foreign policy on the recognition that, as important as our relationship might be with our neighbour, we have a larger world in which we have to work. That has been a motive of our policy.
This motion alleges a lack of "effective policy initiatives in foreign policy". Yet, in just the last seven days, Canada has welcomed the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who came specifically to express his appreciation of Canada's contribution to that most central of the world's organizations. The vice-president of the European communities was here as part of a deliberate process of high level meetings between the Community and Canada, initiated by the government. Also we hosted the first visit to Canada in 19 years by a leader of the Soviet Union.
The world is changing dramatically-in the Soviet Union, in Europe, in South Africa, in Central America, in Cambodia, in Mexico, in Latin America at large-and Canada is pursuing an active, effective and distinctively Canadian foreign policy on each of those fronts. We will welcome suggestions from other parties as to other initiatives we should consider, but we do that against the background of a foreign policy which I am proud to defend anywhere in Canada, or the world.
Let me deal briefly with the reference to parliamentary consultations. I think governments traditionally make too little use of members of Parliament in foreign policy, and we have tried to change that practice. We will consider any serious proposals members might make as to how the role can be enlarged. I have just received my invitation from the standing committee to go before it to discuss the results of its deliberations. I actually look forward to doing that.
I have to note, Mr. Speaker, last week when I went before the committee, the hon. member was asking me why I was late in announcing my policy. Today, he asks me why I announced it so early. Also, I want to indicate an area in which he and I are solidly in agreement. He tells me that the diplomats in my department are overworked. They are overworked, but they are hardy

May 31, 1990

people with great imagination, ingenuity and dedication to the country.
We believe, even in this period of limited resources, we have the capacities to be effective on a wide variety of fronts. If the hon. member is suggesting that the Liberal party has a list of issues from which Canada should back away, I would be prepared to look at that list but not, I must say, with a great deal of sympathy.
It was in the spirit of consultation with parliamentarians that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I met this morning with colleagues who had just returned from a visit to AECL facilities in Romania. As I said, I have accepted enthusiastically to meet members of the standing committee to discuss their recent trip to the Soviet Union. I can report to the House that last week the standing committee asked me if there could be increased contact between Canadian and Soviet parliamentarians to discuss Arctic matters.
I made that proposal to Mr. Shevardnadze on Tuesday, and he agreed immediately. This will augment the very active co-operation that is already in place including, in part as a result of discussions in the standing committee, a discussion of the implications, environmental and otherwise, of the shifting of a greater degree of Soviet nuclear testing into Arctic regions. I am prepared to act with similar dispatch on other practical proposals that colleagues might make.
Five central issues were discussed in the meetings by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and myself with President Gorbachev, Mr. Shevardnadze and the Soviet Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Maslukov.
First, was the high priority both countries assigned to enlarging our co-operation as neighbours and as nations sharing a widening range of common interests. The mutual priority is demonstrated by the fact that in the last seven months the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev have held two sets of long, personal, face-to-face discussions. Mr. Shevardnadze has visited Canada for consultations twice in this period; in February and again in May. I have accepted his invitation to return to Moscow this fall to maintain that momentum.
Second, Canada affirmed our strong support of the profound economic and political reforms in the Soviet Union and discussed practical ways in which Canada can
Supply
help in changing COCOM rules, in helping boost Soviet integration into the world economic system by more joint ventures to add to the 35 that have already been signed between Canadians and Soviets, by attractive arrangements to encourage immediate delivery of Canadian agricultural products and by the discussion of new agreements regarding fisheries, tourism, health and potentially, educational exchanges.
Third, we made the case that it contributes to stability throughout Europe to have a united Germany that is actively involved in institutions like NATO and the European Community. But we heard and we understand the case, that the Soviets need to see evidence of changes in NATO before they will believe that institution is adapting to the new realities of Europe. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, Canada will work to ensure that Article 2 of NATO, the political article originally proposed by Canada, becomes much more central to NATO.
Fourth, we discussed in detail measures which Canada and the Soviet Union agree to strengthen the process and the relevance of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Our two nations are on the outer ends of Europe. We have a special interest and we have a common interest in developing strong institutions that define and unite a large Europe from Vladivostok to Vancouver Island.
Finally, the Prime Minister and I both raised the serious situation in the Baltic states, and repeated our expectation that there would not be a crackdown, and that the issues whose sensitivity everyone acknowledges, will be resolved by negotiation. I welcomed Mr. Shevardnadze's assurance that the Soviet Union intends to seek political solutions to disagreements, whether those relate to matters they consider to be internal or external.
['.Translation\
Mr. Speaker, 1989 was a year of revolution in Europe, and 1990 marks the beginning of reconstruction. New societies and new institutions must be built now, and that is just starting.
The 1989 revolution produced fundamental repercussions on all of the European continent and North America as well. Indeed, by its language, family and historical ties, our continent is a reflection of Europe

May 31, 1990
Supply
across the Atlantic. That is why our government has undertaken a review of our policy concerning Europe.
Canada's interest for Europe is not motivated solely by historical reasons, nostalgia or the desire to be charitable. What is at stake is not only the prosperity of Europe, but ours as well.
However, our ways of pursuing those interests must change radically in order to reflect the new security environment which is emerging, the ever-increasing authority and unity of Western Europe as well as Canada's unique assets.
The link between us and Europe has been our contribution to the North Atlantic Alliance. That contribution involved stationing in Germany thousands of Canadian servicemen and women who have risk their lives daily in the name of freedom.
Our military contribution is bound to decrease.
The organization whose primary role has been to protect us against potential agression has to re-examine its role when such an agression becomes less likely. Under those circumstances, it is only natural for NATO to take on a more political role reflecting the new realities of Europe and a waning military one.
Canada fully supports such a change. It serves Canadian interests.

NATO must review urgently and comprehensively all aspects of its nuclear and conventional strategy. It makes little sense to retain those short-range nuclear weapons based in Europe whose only target can be our new friends in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, and in East Germany. It makes little sense to maintain a military strategy which is based on a scenario of a surprise attack across a front which no longer exists and where surprise is no longer possible. It makes little sense to continue to retain in Europe the largest peacetime deployment of military force in the history of the world.
This is not to deny the continuing requirement for prudence and for military stability at this time of historic change. The possibility of instability is there and Soviet military capacities remain substantial. Therefore, a strong military mandate for NATO continues to be valid and the North American commitment to Europe, represented by the presence of Canadian and American
troops there is crucial as we strive for strategic stability at significantly lower levels of military force.
It is important that NATO become even more actively engaged in the dynamic new security dialogue.
In the field of arms controls and disarmament, NATO should develop an enhanced capacity and role in confidence-building and verification activities. Dedicated multinational forces on the ground might be deployed for this purpose. NATO should also look to the establishment of a verification centre to co-ordinate those activities.
In addition, NATO should move away from a rigid forward defence to a much more flexible approach involving mobile units, possibly including forces of a multinational nature.
NATO is of enduring value. But it has its limitations, a function of its mandate and its membership. There are other institutions whose role must be enhanced and transformed.
Central among those is the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Its membership is comprehensive, encompassing the nations of Europe, North America and the Soviet Union. Its mandate extends across the board.
The role of the CSCE must now be expanded so that it becomes the drawing-board for the new European architecture. As a complement to NATO, the CSCE can become a true instrument of co-operative security, one which would supplement deterrence with reassurance.
Until now, the CSCE has lacked the institutional framework now required for effective and ongoing cooperation and confidence-building.
Canada believes that continuing political direction from the highest level is required. Canada proposes that the CSCE should meet annually at the level of Foreign Ministers and every two years at the level of heads of government. This political body could serve as the beginnings of a council for European co-operation, a future permanent forum for dialogue on pan-European questions.
The CSCE should develop a forum to reflect the increasingly democratic character of its membership. Therefore, we also proposed the establishment of a CSCE assembly where parliamentary delegations from
May 31, 1990

member states would meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of common concern.
In the security area, the CSCE will have a role in mandating a further round of conventional forces reduction talks. These talks should be conducted among all 35 members of the CSCE, rather than solely the members of NATO and the Warsaw treaty organizations.
The CSCE should also increase its role in verification and confidence-building, and in crisis prevention and conflict resolution. This could involve the creation of a mechanism to facilitate dialogue, to conduct fact-finding investigations if required and to recommend a strategy to resolve crises, whether it be mediation, arbitration or even peacekeeping. If the crisis develops into conflict, the CSCE should initiate mediation activities. These activities could be supported by a permanent institute for the peaceful settlement of disputes which could provide very valuable expertise.
Beyond the security field, the CSCE should build upon the other principles contained in the Helsinki Agreements. The essential structures of democracy should become a common commitment of CSCE members, including the right to free elections and the rule of law. Pluralism should also be legitimized throughout the CSCE process, as should the rights of minorities, freedom of religion and a prohibition on hate propaganda.
In the economic dimension, the CSCE may also have a valuable role in the future, building on the tremendous success of the recent Bonn Economic Conference. It was a success, by the way, because of the participation of a wide range of Canadians, including prominently those from the private sector, who made an important contribution. It should not duplicate existing and effective economic institutions. But there is room for growth in encouraging co-operation and dialogue. I believe a permanent CSCE forum for economic dialogue, supplementing the emerging work in the OECD, is worth very serious consideration.
NATO and the CSCE are complementary institutions in building the new Europe. But there is another institution, the European Community, which is central to Europe's future identity and prosperity.
Supply
The European Community is now a welcome and fundamental pillar of the international system. A uniting Europe is an engine of prosperity and a trigger to enhanced trade. Increasing co-operation in the political field and, eventually, the security fields will ensure European consensus and co-ordination in ways which can only enhance international stability.
But, Mr. Speaker, a wall dividing Europe cannot be supplanted by a wall around Europe. Two impermeable blocs cannot be replaced by one new bloc which, whether in trade or security or political matters, is less open to dialogue and co-operation than it is today. The new Europe must be an open Europe, open to the west and open to the east.
Of course, Canada is not a member of the European Community. But we are a trading nation. We have a profound interest in the questions of foreign policy which are increasingly the subject of European political co-operation.
It is for this reason that Canada is now proposing a new, more intense relationship between Canada and the European Community. We are proposing regular meetings between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the European Council. These should be supplemented by regular in-depth discussions between the Canadian Foreign Minister and the Foreign Minister of each incoming presidency. There should also be regular meetings between experts on issues of common concern. In addition, we propose that there be an exchange of priorities at the beginning of each presidency which would set the agenda for the upcoming period.
Finally, I was very attracted by the proposal made by West German Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher for an EEC-North American declaration which would confirm shared principles and interests in openness and enhanced co-operation. Mr. Genscher made that proposal when he was recently here in Ottawa. Certainly, a broad reaffirmation of the trans-Atlantic relationship would, in our judgment, be useful.
In trade, the challenge for Canada is acute. The government has already announced its Europe 1992 strategy to help Canadian industry prepare for the opportunity and the demands which the single European

May 31, 1990
Supply
market will present to all traders. However, I also believe there may be virtue at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in examining the desirability of a formalized, open trading agreement between Canada and the European Community, perhaps including the United States-or indeed other members of the OECD. We think that would be something worth considering at the end of the Uruguay Round.
A new direction for NATO, an expanded role for the CSCE and an intensified relationship with the European Economic Community-those are the institutional pillars of our new policy toward Europe.
But our policy toward Europe hinges, as does the future of the new Europe itself, on the continued success of the reforms now under way in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe. Those reforms have a long way to go before promise becomes reality.
That, Sir, if I may say, is part of the reason that it was so important that the public reaction that was evident in the streets of this capital city when Mr. Gorbachev was here sent a message of encouragement and support from the ordinary people of Canada to a man who is undertaking extraordinary and extraordinarily difficult reforms.
When you think of it, the task of simultaneously constructing democracy and an open-market economy, and doing it from the ground up is unprecedented. The west has an abiding interest in seeing the east succeed. That is why Canada has actively supported Soviet integration into the western economic system. That is why the Prime Minister has proposed and other leaders have accepted that the chairman of each Summit meeting will debrief Mr. Gorbachev. That is why we have helped them achieve observer status in the GATT, and why we are looking at other ways in which they can become part of the international economic system. That is why Mr. Shevardnadze thanked me yesterday for Canada's support for Soviet membership in the new European Bank and our support for their observer status in the GATT. That is why, last year, we established a program to assist Poland and Hungary in their efforts at economic reform.
It is time for the international effort, focusing in the first instance on Poland and Hungary, to expand to include the other new democracies emerging from the
European revolution of 1989. In the weeks ahead, the 24 countries which co-ordinated the program for Hungary and Poland will meet to broaden that effort to include these other countries. Canada will support that initiative. We will announce our own expanded national program in the short term. Canada is also participating fully in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Finally, we have established a Task Force on Central and Eastern Europe which will elaborate the details of our expanded assistance program, administer that program and co-ordinate private and public sector activities. This task force has begun an intensive series of consultations with Canadian groups and individuals, encouraging them to participate financially and in practical, concrete ways-and asking them for their advice on initiatives we might undertake.
Assistance to eastern Europe is not a matter of dumping large amounts of money into the hands of these new governments. What is more important and more effective is the provision of expertise, the training of managers, the training of decision-makers, the teaching of the tools of democracy and the encouragement of private sector investment in specific projects and enterprises.
In this task Canada has an asset available to no other nation. We have our multicultural community. One in ten Canadians is of Soviet or eastern European ancestry. They are a business asset. They are a trading asset for Canada. They know the customs. They know the decision-makers. They know the systems. They know the languages.
We want these Canadians to exercise their natural advantages, to tell us how we can help and how we can do what we do better-and to pursue this opportunity of a lifetime.
The policy I have outlined today addresses a Europe in transition. The policy itself must also evolve with the region it addresses. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss with members of the standing committee their specific proposals as to how that evolution should occur.
Europe is not static, and neither will Canadian policy be static.
May 31, 1990

Engagement with the new Europe is not a luxury for Canada; it is a necessity for Canada. Canada will be there, as we must, for our own sake, for our own security and for our own prosperity.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has realized by now that we wanted to give him an opportunity to make the same speech here in the Elouse of Commons that he made on the weekend at Humber College in Toronto. I am pleased to see that he took advantage of today's debate to go over the main component of the policy Canada is developing on the new situation in Europe. I believe it is absolutely essential to put this document before a public forum across this country. I also want to thank the minister for agreeing to continue the dialogue with members of the parliamentary committee who have been discussing what Canada's future policy should be vis-avis the new Europe.
I would like to ask a short question about the conversations the Secretary of State for External Affairs had with his Soviet counterpart, Mr. Shevardnadze. Did the minister raise the issue of current severe shortage of medical supplies in Lithuania? And could the minister tell us whether the Soviet authorities are prepared to let Canada ship drugs, hypodermics and all kinds of medical equipment that seem to be in very short supply at the present time?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I raised this matter with Mr. Shevardnadze. I said we had reports here in Canada that there was a problem about Canada being able to end medical supplies. I aked Mr. Shevardnadze to give some indication whether Canadians who want to send medical supplies to hospital in the Soviet Union, in Lithuania or elsewhere, would be free to do so. There will, of course, be the usual limitation such as tariffs and things like that, but there will be no unusual obtacles.
Interestingly, Mr. Shevardnadze added there might be other instances where Canadians might wish to send certain items to help certain groups in the Soviet community. He said that if there was a problem, he hoped we could discuss these directly, and he gave me
Supply
his word that he would be willing to deal with such problems. I think Mr. Shevardnadze's answer was very encouraging, and I believe this is an indication of their determination to have an open and mutually beneficial relationhip between Canada and the Soviet Union.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: I have a question on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
The minister repeated the assertion that he has received from Mr. Shevardnadze on a number of occasions that there will be no crackdown.
The point I would like to have the minister respond to is: At what point does a blockade become just another form of a crackdown? It is one thing not to hit people over the head or employ military force, but if at some point they cannot heat their homes, refrigerate their food; if diabetics cannot get insulin; if people who need operations cannot have them, particularly if they are life-saving operations; and if there is a threat of infection, indeed even of epidemic proportion, then this surely must be called a crackdown of a different sort.
I would encourage the government to be as forceful as possible in saying that we, as a country, are not accepting the view that just because there is no military crackdown nothing unacceptable has happened.
I know that the government has protested the blockade, et cetera. I am just saying that it does become a bit strange after a while to be accepting their assurances about a crackdown while, at the same time, knowing what is going on.
I have been in communication with the Minister of Health in Lithuania and with another Lithuanian official from the health department who was here this week. The situation is becoming critical. No one has died yet as a result of these shortages, but this will happen if the blockade is not lifted or if it is not selectively lifted.
If the Soviets want to impress upon the Lithuanians their dependence on Soviet oil, that is one thing, but to create a situation in which diabetics cannot even get proper medication, proper needles, et cetera, is another thing altogether. It is bringing into disrepute the Soviet position with respect to its not wanting to do anything unacceptable in Lithuania.

May 31, 1990
Supply


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I know the hon. member in phrasing it, is concerned both to encourage satisfactory development in Lithuania and allow the Soviet Union to maintain the process of reform, something which he so actively supports.
I would make three comments. I agree absolutely that what we are seeking are undertakings of substance, not of semantics.
I cannot answer the question he poses as to when a crackdown becomes a crackdown, but the comments that I made were in the spirit of his question in the House.
Second, I regard it as quite significant that when I raised with Mr. Shevardnadze the concern that had been expressed to me about medical supplies, he said, quite clearly, that there would be no problem with Canadians sending to hospitals, anywhere in the Soviet Union medical supplies where needed. Naturally, I intend to follow that.
As I said to my colleague for Papineau-Saint-Michel, I was also encouraged by the fact that he then went a step further. He said that in the nature of a problem of this kind between the Soviet Union and Lithuania there are going to be other concerns that arise in a country like ours. He gave me his undertaking that he would work personally with me, when those matters were drawn to our attention, first, to see if we could agree that they are serious and, second, if they were, to try to resolve those kinds of obstacles.
Finally, the third point I would like to make on this issue is simply an impression that I have received. It is an impression that I think also reflects some of the public comments of Prime Minister Prunskiene after her meetings with Mr. Gorbachev. I think there is a profound agreement between the leaders of Lithuania and of the Soviet Union on the importance of the reforms the Gorbachev regime has undertaken. Mrs. Prunskiene is among their most active supporters. There is a recognition of a very real dilemma.
My impression-and I can only give it as an impression from the comments I had from the discussions the Prime Minister had with Mr. Gorbachev-is that the Soviets are looking here for some time in which this can be
resolved. I found it interesting that yesterday at the airport Mr. Gorbachev made reference to the situation in Caledonia and the fact that that was a situation which evolved over a decade, that it did not evolve in 40 minutes or in a day. I think it is important that we seek further assurances that that is indeed the perspective in which they are approaching the evolution of Lithuania, but if it is, I think that is a far more hopeful sign than others we thought we had seen in recent days.
I hope that we can all maintain as close a co-operation on this issue as we have.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs for stating his policy in a clear and concise manner in the House.
I would just like to ask what transpired in the discussions over the last few days with our friends from the Soviet Union with respect to grain sales and the grain contracts that will be forthcoming in July, I think it is, of this year. They are so important to the area the minister represents. They are so important to the St. Lawrence Seaway which is a vital transportation link in this country, and they are so important to the ports of Thunder Bay which are perennial winners in these contracts with our friends from the Soviet Union.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and I and a number of officials had the opportunity yesterday for about two hours to hold very extensive discussions with Mr. Shevardnadze and with Mr. Maslukov, who is the Soviet Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and intimately involved in their new economic programs, to discuss what they are trying to achieve, what obstacles they see, and how we might help.
As it would not surprise the hon. member, the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture, raised very vigorously the possibility of Canada looking at reasonable credit terms that could stretch over time that would allow the immediate sale of not simply Canadian wheat but potentially Canadian flour and Canadian vegetable oils that could be delivered more quickly to the Soviet Union, particularly to take account of some of the problems they are encountering as a result of the immediate public reaction to reforms that they have introduced.
May 31, 1990

Senior officials of the Soviet Department of Agriculture are being sent from Moscow and Washington to Ottawa to carry on those discussions under the direction of the Canadian Minister of Agriculture.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak to this particular motion. It gives us a rare opportunity to talk at length about Canadian foreign policy in the House. In that respect I would like to begin by commenting on some of the claims made about consultation with members of Parliament or the lack thereof when it comes to the making of foreign policy.
I feel that the minister himself has had an intention, only partially realized, to bring members of Parliament more into the debate on foreign policy and also to take the House more seriously than some previous ministers of foreign policy we have known who tended not to make statements in the House in the way this minister has.
The fact remains that the external affairs committee, and Parliament in general, were seriously and justly aggrieved by the way in which the policy with respect to joining the OAS was arrived at, basically by executive decision with no parliamentary consultation whatsoever. I think what complaints we have as parliamentarians and as an external affairs committee come largely out of that experience and the knowledge that we are confronting a government which has the capacity simply to make a major foreign policy decision just like that, without ever even coming to ask us what we think about it at all. That remains an outstanding grievance.
The member for Papineau-Saint-Michel spoke in his earlier comments about the free trade agreement and other things that are not particularly relevant to the motion. I cannot resist reminding him that the preliminary discussions about the free trade agreement with the American ambassador at the time took place under the auspices of a Liberal government and that one of the main consultative processes with respect to the Canadian economy was headed up by a royal commission appointed by the Liberal government. The person who headed that up was a very prominent Liberal who ignored all the advice that the Liberal party came later to accept, allegedly, and recommended a free trade agreement with the United States. The culpability of the Official
Supply
Opposition in what it now laments should not go unremarked.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Utter gibberish.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I touched a nerve there, Mr. Speaker.
The part of the motion that I would like to address myself to first, has to do with a confusion in government policy that I think I have been a part of and may even be partly responsible for in terms of the questions I have asked in the House. That has to do with the confusion between what the Secretary of State for External Affairs appears to be saying about certain kinds of nuclear weapons in Europe and what the Minister of National Defence has said to me in the House just recently about the same matter.
Going from memory with respect to the minister's speech last Saturday, and he repeated it again today, he said: "Does it make much sense any more to have these short-range nuclear weapons which can only be aimed at the peoples of the new democracies in eastern Europe?"
This is a claim and a question shared by a lot of parliamentarians, including myself and many Canadians. It seems to me that when that kind of question is raised in the House we would be much more confident that what the Secretary of State for External Affairs says reflects government policy if the Minister of National Defence did not pour cold water on the idea and instead said something like "Yes, this is something that we see the logic of and we are considering" and so on, instead of giving us the standard NATO line about the mix of weapons that has kept the peace for 45 years, et cetera. You know the lines as well as anyone else.
What we are trying to establish here is whether this is now something that the government is seriously considering? It seems to me that the government, in doing so, could address some of the concerns that the minister has raised here today and some of the concerns that the Prime Minister raised in his speech yesterday in the presence of Mr. Gorbachev, when he spoke about the Soviet Union's security concerns and particularly the nature of and the future of NATO.
One of the ways in which the west, in this case, with some Canadian leadership could demonstrate to the Soviet Union that NATO is on its way either to becoming something else or on its way out, whatever the case may be, would be to make a decision, in this case a Canadian

May 31, 1990
Supply
decision, not to be a part of testing these particular kinds of weapons.
We are talking here not only of the kinds of testing that has gone on so far, cruise missile testing and advanced cruise testing, but also the question of requests that may come in the future if NATO does not change its nature. I am referring now to the tactical air to surface missile and other potentially modernized nuclear weapons that may come into force to replace the ground-based missiles, both the Lance and its successor, which have been cancelled.
By doing that the minister could not only remove a thorn in his side with respect to public opinion and do something for which a lot of people would praise him. Ele could also give the appropriate signal to the Soviet Union. He could deal both with Canadian public opinion, which is not going to sustain support for NATO if there are not important signals about how NATO is changing its role, and also send an important signal also to the Soviet Union.
I say this also with respect to the question of forward defence which the minister also mentioned, because forward defence, as I understand it, is wrapped up in the whole question of low-level flight training in Labrador. We are at the point where we are no longer debating the location of a new NATO training base in Goose Bay, but the fact remains that all kinds of low-level flights will continue through the existing contracts with various NATO countries to do their low-level flight training there.
A lot of the training that goes on there has to do with the forward defence strategy of NATO. If this is a strategy that the government thinks ought to be phased out or abandoned as a result of the need for changes in NATO's posture, then it could also, it seems to me, show some leadership on this and not just wait until NATO says that they do not want to do this anymore. Canada should be in a position to say that this is something that we do not want to be a part of anymore because we have made the decision that the appropriate signals need to be sent to the Soviet Union and we want the low-level flight training that exists in Labrador over Innu territory to stop now.
Also, Mr. Speaker, with respect to NATO I would like to address the question of Germany in NATO. I listened
carefully to what the minister had to say and it seems to me again that the signal that needs to be sent with respect to NATO is that NATO, to the extent that it continues to exist, exists in transition. That is why I was concerned when the minister said that NATO is of enduring value. I do not think any institution is of enduring value, except the church. Nothing else is of enduring value this side of the eschaton. So we should talk about NATO to the extent to which it ought to endure for particular purposes until such time as it can be absorbed into the new security architecture of Europe of which the minister spoke.
In that respect I do not accept the analysis that the CSCE and NATO are complementary institutions. I would have preferred to have heard the minister talking about the CSCE being one of the fora in which we will discover or create or agree upon the new architecture into which NATO will finally be absorbed and eventually disappear as we now know it.
It is a mistake to keep talking about NATO as a complementary or enduring institution without setting it in the context of a process by which you see it evolving into something else or evolving out of existence, because we do not even have the Warsaw Pact anymore, for all intents and purposes.
I would like to refer back to Germany, Mr. Speaker. As I have said before in the House, I think it is a mistake to discuss Germany by asking whether it should be neutral or whether it should it be part of NATO, because both of these ways of speaking about Germany assume a divided Europe. They are both captive to cold war language and cold war thinking in the sense that neutrality means being neutral between some opposite poles. This is what the language of neutrality assumes.
I think this is something that the Soviets have to think about too. It assumes the continuation of some form of polarization in Europe for a long time to come. To talk about Germany in NATO also assumes that same bipolarity. So both these ways of speaking are captive to post-war language. We are looking for post post-war language.
This, again, raises the whole debate about NATO, and about having a Germany in NATO. I accept the argument that it is in everyone's interest not to have a Germany sort of freelancing it economically and politically in Europe. We need to talk about the
May 31, 1990

institutionalization of the new Germany within a wider European context. I do not think that can be done within NATO itself unless we are talking about a radically different NATO, or a NATO that is on its way to becoming something altogether different, a NATO that is on its way to being absorbed into some other common security structure for Europe, whether it is Vaclav Havel's European peace order or Gorbachev's common European home from the Urals to the Atlantic or, as the minister has now said, from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
I think this is the way we need to be thinking about the future of security arrangements in Europe. I hope that this is what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have in mind and had in mind yesterday when they were reputed to be trying to find a way to satisfy the Soviet Union's security concerns vis-a-vis a Germany in NATO. That can only happen if the NATO we are talking about is fundamentally different in its military and political posture than it is now.
One of the ways in which that posture could be changed significantly would be to accept the recommendations that I have just made with respect to short range nuclear weapons and with respect to forward defence, recommendations which are not out of sync with what the minister appears to be thinking himself. I would hope that at some point the government would be able to make that kind of decision.
The Soviet Union's security concerns are deeply rooted in the psyche in the Soviet people. One of the things that I think struck all members of the External Affairs Committee-and I heard the Prime Minister refer yesterday in his speech to the way it affected him-was when we visited a cemetery in Leningrad where 600,000 people are buried, just in one cemetery. This is only a fraction of the people who were killed in the siege of Leningrad and these people are buried in mass graves of 50 to a grave.
One of the first things the young couples who have just been married in the Soviet Union do is to come to the monument and place flowers. That is not something you notice Canadian couples doing at the cenotaphs across the nation. One can pick up how rooted in the whole Soviet consciousness is the reality of war and the fear of war. I take them seriously when they say they do not
Supply
want war because I think they know a lot about it. It is not something that we always appreciate here in Canada.
I just have one final comment on this whole NATO issue. We are now looking for a win-win situation in Europe. We do not want a situation in which there is an expanded NATO that keeps its aggressive political and military posture. We do not want an eastern and central Europe that is in a political security vacuum, so to speak, or incorporated in some way into the western community, with an isolated Soviet Union feeling that it has lost its buffer zone between the Soviet Union and Europe. That would result in a situation in which the Soviets lose not only what they won in the war, but become isolated politically, militarily and economically in the sense that the economic reforms are very difficult and will continue to be very difficult. They will be even more difficult if the west, particularly Europe, takes the wrong attitude toward the Soviet Union and simply says that now that there is a united Germany and Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and everybody is coming back into fold, to hell with the Soviets, let them stew in their own juices.
This is an attitude which we noted some people had when we were in Europe. It is a very dangerous attitude to say that we should let a country which has tens of thousands of nuclear weapons stew in its own juices. I do not want to see a country with that kind of military hardware in chaos, whether that chaos is provoked by economic adversity, ethnic rivalry or whatever the case may be. I do not think that would be in anyone's interest.
On the other hand, I think we need to see some of the events in the Soviet Union in a more positive way than they are sometimes portrayed in the media. For instance, just the other day when Boris Yeltsin was elected as head of the Russian Federation the news said that Mr. Gorbachev's "enemy" had been elected. This is Mr. Gorbachev's political opponent. If we are going to accept that we increasingly have democractization and political pluralism in the Soviet Union, we need to begin to speak of political events in the Soviet Union in a way that is much more comparable to the way we speak of events here, and not overly dramatize the fact that people in the Soviet Union do not agree with each other. In case anybody has not noticed, Canadians have not had a particularly great time agreeing with each other either in

Supply
the last little while. So again, there is a need to change the way we perceive events in the Soviet Union.
I would like to say a word about the Arctic. We were all concerned to hear when we were there that nuclear testing was being shifted from Kazakhstan to a place called, I think, Severnaya Zemlya in the Arctic. We were even more disturbed to learn, after having looked into it, that tests have gone on there before, for something like 15 years until 1963, and most of them atmospheric tests.
This raises the whole question of a comprehensive test ban and the need for Canada to get much more on board than it has been with the nations of the world that are trying to get a conference together through the auspices of the partial test ban treaty to get a comprehensive test ban treaty. Without that, people will be testing to the north of us and testing to the south of us. We will be party to the accumulation of radioactivity on the planet for no good reason, as far as I am concerned,
I would urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to use this new knowledge of what is going on in the Arctic to urge the Americans as well as the Soviets, because the Americans did not respond to the Soviet moratorium on testing when it was in place, to reconsider their views with respect to testing.
Also, naval arms control is an element of the arms race which so far has been neglected. It has not been completely left out of speeches but it has been neglected as far as any real political and international effort is concerned. I met with someone from Greenpeace just yesterday and I know that this is going to become more and more a focus of the peace movement in Canada, and rightfully so. I think that the minister can properly respond to this by using every opportunity that he gets to get naval arms control on to the arms control agenda. If we succeed in doing everything else and have the ocean teeming with submarines which are hard to verify and hard to detect but full of multiple nuclear warheads, we have not exactly increased the safety of the planet.
I see you making funny movements, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The funny movement is that your time has more than expired. I will have to ask for unanimous consent to allow the hon. member extra time. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I will just wrap things up, and you know how quickly I wrap things up, Mr. Speaker, right to the point.
The question of the peace dividend has been addressed by many people. We have to seize the opportunity in Europe and elsewhere to turn this new era for international co-operation and common security into a way of diverting massive resources which have been consumed for decades now in the building up of arms to the cause of saving the environment and to the cause of bringing the Third World out of the debt ridden and other negative economic circumstances in which it finds itself.
We need to liberate those resources which have so far been captive to the arms race, not because it is a luxury, to use the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but because it is a necessity. It is the only way that, as the human community, we are going to climb out of this hole that we have dug ourselves into over the last 40 years through the arms race, through environmental degradation, and through a global economic system that continues to disadvantage the Third World. We can either climb out of this hole or it can become our grave.
Governments, and particularly Secretaries of State for External Affairs, have tremendous responsibilities, but Canadian Secretaries of State for External Affairs have even more responsibility. Because of the reputation that Canada has in the world and because of the stature we have, we need not to just be peacekeepers, but peacemakers in the final analysis.
I think this new time in which we find ourself in history is an opportunity for Canada to really break out of the mould we have been in, to seize some elements of our tradition that are worthy in terms of external affairs, and to really get about the business of saying the things that need to be said about the way the world has to be changed and of helping those things to happen to the fullest extent possible. If that means being at odds with our friends or with anyone else in the world, then so be it, that is something we do for the sake of the future.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will make three very brief comments if I might. First, on the comprehensive test ban, I agree with the aspirations of the hon. member. Our disagreement with respect to the conference is whether or not that conference would be productive or counterproductive. But despite our reservation about that, we will be present at the conference and our representatives, and our ambassador will be there with
May 31, 1990

instructions to do everything Canada can to make it constructive.
Second, I want to assure the member and the House that not only is the government considering the evolution of SNF policy to which I referred, but so is NATO as a whole. It was discussed at the recent meetings at Kananaskis in Canada. It was discussed at the meetings my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, attended in Brussels last week and it will be on the agenda in Turnberry, Scotland, for a NATO meeting on Wednesday of next week.
We will take part in those discussions, not by removing Canada from the alliance consensus, but rather by trying to shape and affect that alliance consensus. I repeat that I understand precisely what the hon. member is saying about Soviet attitudes. He said it eloquently and effectively. They need to have proof that the changes we are talking about in NATO are happening in fact. I think an opportunity for that to occur is the summit of NATO leaders that has been scheduled for early July in London. Certainly, the Prime Minister and our government are looking to that summit to try to give evidence of some of those kinds of changes.
Finally, on the question of the future of NATO, we believe very strongly and we talk deliberately about the two institutions being complementary. We think that NATO will be necessary and important for as far ahead as we can see. I do not want to get into discussions with a theologian about what is enduring and what is not. I would be interested and look forward to the opportunity to carry on discussions with the hon. member about that issue.
The point I would make is that obviously institutions can force and shape events, but it is very important that institutions not get so far ahead of events that they lose their effectiveness or that actions which are taken designed to be constructive have the opposite effect.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, just to expand on the point I was trying to make about NATO's behaviour and posture, I think the minister in his remarks reflected that for the longest time we were wondering in the west whether
Supply
the changes in the Soviet Union were real. I think everyone has come to accept that they are real. I think that the Soviet Union is in a similar position, only they are not quite at the point where they can believe that the changes in the attitude of the west toward them is real. I am suggesting to the minister ways in which we can convince them of this.
The minister uses the familiar argument that Canada wants to shape policy, et cetera, and not act on its own. The point that I would make in return is, why can the government not at least go so far as to say that it thinks that the testing and deployment of these particular weapons would be wrong and it is the Canadian goal to persuade our NATO partners that it is. Other NATO countries have done this over the years. They have taken positions. They may not win the argument, but they have made it clear to their own public what their position is. The public is much more ready to understand failure to persuade others than failure to take a position.
I say this with respect to the need for a continuing Canadian role in Europe. I accept the minister's analysis on that in so far as it is a claim that Canada cannot afford not to be related to Europe. I have this concern as a result of the increasing Americanization of Canada's relationships through the OAS, through the free trade agreement, et cetera.
I would like to see Canada maintain a relationship with Europe in order to balance some of the other foreign policy measures that the government itself has taken. But leaving that aside for a minute, continuing Canadian public support for a Canadian role in the new Europe is only going to exist to the extent that the Canadian public feels that that involvement in Europe is different from and goes beyond the old involvement. Right now I am sure that if you took a poll on whether we should take Canadian troops out of Europe and on policies such as those, they would get a lot of support.
If the minister is looking for continued public support for a Canadian role in Europe, he has to demonstrate to the Canadian public that our role is fundamentally different than what it has been up to this point. I do not think he has done that yet.

May 31, 1990


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and friend from the New Democratic Party raised an extremely important point concerning the future role, indeed the very existence, of NATO. If we follow the line of reasoning used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it seems obvious to me that NATO existed and had a military rationale when we faced an enemy; if, to use the minister's own terms, the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and East Germans are now our friends and no longer a threat to us, the fundamental question we must now ask is whether we should continue to pretend or think that the Russians are still our enemies. In light of the Conservative government's initiatives, of the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union, of the signing of 14 agreements, of President Gorbachev's visit here, I think that we should not consider the Soviets to be our enemies.
The basic issue is what NATO's present and future role should be. I know that the members of NATO insist that all alliance members act together in a co-ordinated fashion. The minister's reply to the question and comments of my New Democratic colleague was that the Canadian government did not want to isolate itself from its NATO partners. Again, I think that is a very conservative position. The government should have the courage to stand out and break new ground very clearly. I make these comments in light of Mr. Gorbachev's statements yesterday when he made a stern warning about a unified Germany. President Gorbachev warned the western allies that excessive pressure to bring a reunified Germany into NATO could compromise the new East-West relationship. NATO is certainly a major military and psychological barrier to the new friendly relations between East and West.
I would like the hon. member to say what he thinks the Canadian government's new attitude should be to these new developments in Eastern Europe in particular.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think in many respects I answered that question throughout the course of my speech. The Canadian position should be one of seizing new opportunities to have an independent policy within
the limits that the government sees for itself in terms of its own policy obviously.
I do not accept the view that it can be a matter of policy never to disagree or never to take an independent position. The government might take independent positions that I do not even agree with, but I do not think it can be a policy not to have an independent position and to always only take the positions that when one takes totally in concert with others and totally behind closed doors, so to speak.
I think the minister has moved in that direction with the speech he gave on Saturday. I hope this is a sign of things to come. In the meantime, he has a problem with the Minister of National Defence, who does not seem to have cottoned on to this way of thinking. I would hope that very soon we will hear the government speaking with one voice and that one voice will be speaking in the new direction of the new thinking of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and not the standard old NATO routine that we still get from the Minister of Defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Marie Gibeau:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to pay tribute to our colleague, the hon. member for Outremont, who was presented this morning with the 1990 Annual Merit Award of the Professional Corporation of Psychologists of Quebec for his "outstanding contribution to the development of psychology''.

To mark the outstanding leadership of the member for Outremont in the field of industrial organizational psychology in the province of Quebec, as well as his numerous initiatives and accomplishments, which have contributed to the emulation of his colleagues' vocation
May 31, 1990

and just as his dissemination has added prestige to the profession and enhanced the image of the psychologist, the administrators of the Corporation of Professional Psychologists of Quebec adopted to award him the 1990 annual merit prize.
[Translation]	.
Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House are proud of our colleague and congratulate him on this well-deserved award. You are a credit to our profession as parliamentarians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


WORLD NO-TOBACCO DAY
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulflslands):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate World No-Tobacco Day. Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable disease in the world today. The World Health Organization estimates that if present tobacco use trends continue, 150 million children alive today will eventually die of tobacco induced diseases.
The theme of World No-Tobacco Day this year is "Growing Up Without Tobacco". It is essential that our children be protected from the detrimental effects of tobacco on their health. The vast majority of smokers in Canada started smoking in their teens. If we can prevent young people from starting to smoke, then one day we can eliminate tobacco from our society altogether.
The tobacco industry is attempting to encourage smoking by young people by packaging cigarettes in smaller and cheaper "kiddy packs", and most recently by developing a new type of do-it-yourself cigarette that, through a federal tax loophole, is taxed at a lower rate.
I urge the federal government to protect our young people by prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors and by introducing measures to control vending machines which give children easy access to this deadly drug.
Our children's health and lives are more important than the profits of the tobacco industry.



Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization has designated May 31 as World Wide Day Without Tobacco. This year WHO is focusing on the threat to the health of children and youth and has chosen "Growing Up Without Tobacco" as the slogan for the day.
A quote from Travel Through the Interior Parts of North America in 1789 is indeed appropriate:
They are seldom or ever found without a pipe in their mouths, a habit which they acquire in their very infancy. I was very much surprised upon going into one of their houses, in which there was a large family, mostly boys, to find that from the youngest up to the father, they all smoked; nay, one of three years old had a pipe in his mouth.
We have come a long way since 1789 in terms of health care and health promotion, but we still battle the health effects of tobacco smoking, even in 1990.
According to a U.S. study,"over 25 per cent of high school seniors, whoever smoked, had their first cigarette by Grade 6, over 57 per cent had their first cigarette by Grade 8 and 94 per cent had their first cigarette by Grade 11".
In 1988, "more than 35,000 Canadians died prematurely from diseases caused by tobacco". I would hope that the No-Tobacco Day will help raise the consciousness of our young people as it is much easier to not start smoking than it is to quit smoking.


MUSEUMS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Parrsboro and Cumberland County I want to recognize the efforts of the minister for culture, the Minister of Communications, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works who have arrived at a cost-sharing formula to provide the federal portion of funding for the fossil museum project in Parrsboro, Nova Scotia.
In conjunction with ACOA these three federal departments will provide federal funding to allow the project to proceed which, in turn, will be the foundation of a tourist industry. It will eliminate the need to send our unique fossils to the United States for research and it will provide employment in an area of limited opportunity. In

May 31, 1990
my view, this will be the best investment the federal government ever made.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the Canadian tourism industry and about the effect this government's policies, especially the pending goods and services tax, are having on the industry.
On May 28, in the consumer and corporate affairs committee a representative of the tourism industry of Canada said the industry will be heavily damaged by the implementation of the GST. Prices for hotels, restaurants, entertainment and sporting activities as well as tour packages will be forced up, causing fewer international travellers to choose Canada as a destination and pushing Canadians who want to travel on their holidays into the lower-priced U.S. tourism market.
He also said the industry was estimating a reduction of more than 25,000 tourism related jobs by 1993 because of the GST.
Mr. Speaker, since tourism means so much to the future of Canadian regional economies, like the one I represent in northwest Saskatchewan, I call on the government to scrap immediately the GST and provide the leadership and the support requested by those in this vital and potentially vibrant industry.


CANADIAN FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, drawing a line to determine eligibility is always difficult, but in the case of Canadian firefighters the disqualification of those who retired before August 29, 1985, from receiving the Exemplary Service Medal seems particularly unfair.
Creation of this medal was highly appropriate yet efforts to "grandfather" those who retired before 1985 has so far met no positive response from Government House. As a result some firefighters refuse to wear their medals, others have even returned theirs.
For this reason I have just tabled a motion, seconded by 20 other Progressive Conservative MPs and supported
by many more, seeking the opinion of this House that the Governor General amend the regulations so firefighters with exemplary service who retired before 1985 may also be awarded such decorations.


BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order for Bell Northern Research. BNR recently completed a $30 million optoelectronics laboratory. This is one of the most advanced in the world and largest in Canada.
Construction of a $100 million laboratory expansion at Bell Northern Research's world headquarters in Nepean begins this summer. The facility will bring together some 4,400 BNR staff and will create a critical mass of research and development expertise unparalleled in the corporation's history.
BNR is already the world leader in several different areas, including the design and development of advanced telecommunications systems, microelectronics, photonics, digital systems and software. Four of the main product lines of the parent company, Northern Telecom, are number one world-wide and others are rising fast.
I am proud to say that BNR is located in Nepean and I am sure all Canadians are doubly proud of BNR's commitment to continued global product leadership through cost-efficient, market-focused research and development.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, on May 28, the Prime Minister signed, on behalf of the Government of Canada, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in the presence of the UN Secretary General.
This convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 20, 1989 after 10 years of preparation. It represents major progress in the protection of children's rights since it contains a number of general essential provisions which guarantee that their basic needs and interests will be addressed. It also
May 31, 1990

provides for the protection of children in particularly difficult circumstances.
By signing the convention after actively participating in its development, Canada is confirming its support for this global cause.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister of Canada as well as the provinces and territories for supporting the ratification of this Convention by Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, residents of Canada's smallest province would like to add their voices to those of the 72 per cent of Canadians who oppose this government's high interest rate policy.
Even at the best of times when interest rates are low, the Prince Edward Island economy is not all that strong and annual growth is unsteady. If you take away a major employer, like CFB Summerside, the economy really gets hurt. Add high interest rates and the situation could very well become critical. Farmers, fishermen, small business people and all Islanders, in one way or another, are affected by the hefty increase in the price of money which this government has allowed to take place.
I urge the government, on behalf of all Islanders who oppose this high interest rate policy, to see the financial and human toll its actions are taking and to finally act in this country's national interest.


WORLD NO-TOBACCO DAY
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today is World No-Tobacco Day, a day organized by the World Health Organization to promote the idea of a world free from tobacco use.
Canada has been exceptionally active in instituting and implementing a national strategy to reduce tobacco use. As a result of this program, which includes increased taxes and implementation of two significant pieces of legislation, the Tobacco Products Control Act and the Non-Smokers' Health Act, tobacco consumption in
Canada has declined by 6.8 per cent in 1989 and by over 20 per cent during the first third of 1990.
The former Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Jake Epp, is to be awarded the Award of Excellence for exceptional leadership in creating a tobacco-free Canada by the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health.
On World No-Tobacco Day, Canada can rightfully claim its place as a world leader in the control of tobacco use.


CORE AREA INITIATIVES PROGRAMS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the member for Portage-Interlake. He condemned the Core Area Initiatives Programs without really knowing a great deal about them. If he had stopped to study them, he would realize that there are programs there to improve the educational and career aspects of natives, multicultural and multiracial groups, young children, senior and elementary students with literacy problems. These programs will be cut unless this initiative is renewed. This is going to be cut during the International Year of Literacy which I find completely appalling.

How very hypocritical, cutting programs this year! And the attack against the weakest and most destitute Canadians goes on. These programs should be re-instated immediately.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the corporate welfare bum of the week features this week a two-time nominee, Alcan Aluminum Limited. Alcan paid only $39 million in federal taxes in 1987 after profits of $433 million and received a $6 million tax credit on $270 million in profits in 1986.
The second nominee is Goodyear Canada which got a tax credit of $1.4 million on $11 million in 1988.
The third nominee is Fletcher Challenge Finance which paid no tax in 1988 on profits of $24 million.

May 31, 1990
Oral Questions
Now, for the winner. The envelope, please. And the winner is Alcan Aluminum. Alcan chief executive officer, David Culver, who led the corporate sector to fight for the free trade deal, made $1.4 million in 1988. Alcan found plenty of money to get the trade deal and to pay Mr. Culver, but not to pay its fair share of federal taxes. This makes Alcan the corporate welfare bum of the week.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest Gallup poll, 54 per cent of Canadians are willing to pay a $100 income tax surcharge to help protect the environment.
This is good news for it indicates that there is a high level of public concern. The bad news is that the government might try to exploit the public's concern by levying an unnecessary green tax.
If the government had considered the environment in the tax reform process, there would be no need even to contemplate an environmental surcharge. Instead of the regressive GST, Canada should have a progressive tax system to encourage green consumption and production and to cut pollution.
It is not easy to be green, but so far the government has not even tried. When will the Minister of Finance see the green light?


COMMENTS BY MEMBER
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, the statements made recently by the member for Saint-Maurice regarding the premier and the people of Newfoundland were unfortunate. I will not repeat the words here. It would serve no useful purpose.
Indeed, there is no place for that kind of language in a great national debate. The words were spoken with emotion and with anger. I want to say that the member for Saint-Maurice has demonstrated today the courage and decency required to apologize to the premier and the people of Newfoundland for those remarks.
I have known the member as a colleague on the transport committee for six years. I know the remarks he
made were out of character for him, and I accept his apology.
With the national debate that will be ongoing in the days ahead, it is understanding and sensitivity that we must demonstrate for each other and to each other, not emotion and anger.
I hope the quick apology by the member for Saint-Maurice and the quickly accepted apology by the premier and I believe the people of Newfoundland for those words are an example to the nation and in particular the first ministers as they begin their important deliberations this weekend and in the days ahead.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Today, the Minister of National Revenue unveiled a totally new proposal for collecting the GST from certain small businesses. In doing so the minister in effect admitted that the government's original proposal was an administrative nightmare for small business. In fact it was totally unworkable, but this proposal today does not really change any of that.
Under this plan the government wants to collect GST of up to 1.75 per cent from some grocery and convenience stores on all their sales. How can the government continue to say it is not taxing food when it wants to collect from some grocery and convenience stores a flat rate GST on all their sales including basic groceries?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition should read carefully the documents that were presented this morning by the Minister of National Revenue.
There is no way that food will be taxed, as the hon. member said. The fact of the matter is that some stores have only a proportion, from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, of food. We worked very hard to bring together figures and data to make sure we can help 800,000 small businesses to work in a better way with the GST. I think it
May 31, 1990

is good news for small businesses. We have consulted those businesses and they are onside with us.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of National Revenue said outside the House and what the minister just said in the House is still not good news for consumers, because you will notice the minister did not say categorically that food would not be taxed. There is nothing in the proposal today to prevent any retailer covered by it from marking up all the inventory on his shelves by an amount equal to the GST that will be collected.

Mr. Speaker, the government now tells us it intends to tax all goods sold in certain grocery and convenience stores, including foodstuffs.
So I am asking the minister whether he is prepared to admit that this new project is tantamount to slapping a tax on food?


Pierre Blais: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
This is nothing more than a simplified process which has long been known to apply to stores whose sales do not exceed $500,000-


Mr. Fontana:: What a bunch of bull! How can you believe what you say?


Pierre Blais: I wish my colleague would let me conclude my remarks. I was saying they will be able-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Stop throwing bull and we might listen to you.


Pierre Blais: Because the government did listen to small businesses from coast to coast. We listened to small businesses telling us they had to have a simpler process to calculate the tax. Mr. Speaker, this simplified process will apply to stores where a given percentage of goods are subject to the 7 per cent tax.
In light of the surveys we made and the figures we have, we know it is possible to make it easier for these businesses to pay the taxes they collect to the government.
Oral Questions
I might add that my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, is meeting with the Retail Council of Canada in Toronto. They are quite satisfied and approve of this measure taken by the government, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, again the minister has failed to even mention the Canadian consumer.

The proposal of the Minister of National Revenue today will not make the GST any easier for Canadians generally. They will still have to pay 7 per cent more on just about everything they buy.
What is worse is that businesses opting for the new scheme are being told by the Minister of National Revenue that they will not have to show the GST on their sales receipts or anywhere.
What happened to the government's commitment to visibility? Why is the government even ceasing to try to have the tax visible? Why is the government proposing a band-aid solution for an unfair tax that even major surgery cannot save? Why will the government not scrap this tax and go back to the drawing-board?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, what is particularly visible right now is the hypocrisy of the opposition parties who refuse to admit that the 13.5 per cent tax which has been levied for years was invisible.
Canadians are now beginning to appreciate this government measure which has rallied the support of the Retail Council of Canada and the Consumers' Association of Canada, Mr. Speaker. The consumer can see that the government is acting in the interest of all Canadians and that the opposition parties are behaving like hypocrites.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Minister of National Revenue has just admitted today that the GST is an administrative nightmare and that the government will be unable to collect it. How will convenience stores decide which GST rate is to apply to basic foodstuffs whether it is 1.75 per cent or 1 per cent?

May 31, 1990
Oral Questions
Why does the government continue to make life difficult for the people who are creating most jobs in Canada?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the measure which the government announced this morning was developed following consultations with small businesses across Canada. Far from being a nightmare, it is a dream. If my hon. friend took the time the check the documents which were distributed to all hon. members and which are now in his office, he would realize that it is meant to make computation a lot simpler. Mr. Speaker, it had been understood since last August that, following these consultations, we would take into account the representations made by the retail industry, and this is exactly what we are doing now.
By filing a simplified form, small businesses will find it a lot easier to submit a report every three months on the tax collected and send the money to the government.
It is a very simple process which the hon. member should be able to grasp.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance announced the GST he said that it was very important that the new tax be simple.
If the GST is a simple tax, why did the Minister of National Revenue today announce a flat tax rate method to remit the GST? Why does the government not listen to John Bulloch, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who said: "Scrap the GST"?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some figures. It will be very easy for small businesses with sales less than $500,000. If they have more than 50 per cent of their sales-


Alfonso Gagliano: Who will calculate the 50 per cent?


Pierre Blais: If the member would allow me to answer, it is Very-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: When questions are asked, answers are expected and answers have to be allowed. The hon. minister.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I realize that for a government which never knew how to administer public finances, the difference between 25 per cent and 50 per cent in food sales may be difficult to understand. These people never knew the very basics of government administration. They find it difficult to understand. To conclude, may I say that small businesses told us what they wanted. We have responded today, and the Retail Council of Canada agrees and is most satisfied with the measure taken today.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On March 19, the Prime Minister said in a speech to Commonwealth Caribbean leaders that he was keenly interested in the possibility of establishing a textile outward processing facility.
According to press reports today the Prime Minister continues to take a personal interest in giving away Canadian jobs in our textile industry-these are women's jobs, immigrant women's jobs-to other countries.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister today reassure these women that their jobs will not be given away, will not be sacrificed on the altar of the Prime Minister's trade agenda?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we can make that commitment. I might say that the recent report of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal which came down on tariffs on textiles in fact has helped the garment industry or will help the garment industry as those tariffs are brought down to a lower level. That was one of the major considerations taken into that report.
May 31, 1990

The answer is: yes, we will assure that the garment industry remains viable in Canada and that those much needed jobs are there.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the minister's response leaves me rather confused because it was only on March 19 that the Prime Minister made these remarks.
Many of these women are very proud of their jobs, and the Prime Minister does seem willing to give them away to other countries. If the Prime Minister has his way the alternative will be lower paying jobs, less satisfying jobs, or no jobs at all for these very vulnerable women.
How can the minister profess to be working for the best interests of immigrant women and yet, they are the first ones on the first line of attack when this government wants to give jobs away out of the Canadian market into the foreign market?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member is basing her question on a newspaper article which I read today which does not name any federal official or say where the report is coming from, so to comment on something on like that would be foolish.
The Prime Minister of this country, in 1984, promised jobs, jobs, jobs. There have been 1,600,000 new jobs created in this country in that period of time, 60 per cent of which went to women, and 85 per cent of which are full time. That is performance.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister denying that the federal government is now preparing terms of reference for a formal study into a system similar to the controversial U.S. system of shipping parts for assembly plants in the Maquiladora related to the garment industry? Is the minister denying that such a study is being prepared by this government?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am personally not aware of any study of this sort, no.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it may very well be true that the hon. minister is not aware of it, but surely somebody in the government
Oral Questions
can give us an answer, and perhaps I can direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Can he confirm that the government, on the instructions of the Prime Minister, is preparing a reference to the International Trade Tribunal that would recommend a form of Maquiladora system which would in effect shift the jobs in the garment industry to the low wage jobs in the Caribbean specifically in the sewing area, but keeping the cutting jobs for males in that industry here in Canada.
Can we get some verification, some establishment of what is the government's position and what it intends to do about this problem. Let us get some answers on the table.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if such a paper is being prepared, it would be referred to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal which would hold public hearings and give Canadians input into any discussions that were going on, if that was being undertaken at this time. Canadians from all walks of life, including the garment industry, would have ample opportunity to make representation on it, like they did when they studied the tariff schedules on textiles here in Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say to the minister that he does not understand. This kind of proposal is creating enormous uncertainty for 120,000 workers in the garment industry in Canada, in particular when one considers that there is a real gender split between those women, mainly immigrant women, who work in the sewing part of the business, and those who work in the cutting part of business.
We simply want to know to end the uncertainty. Is the government proposing that kind of deal to set up a Maquiladora system in the Caribbean? If so, is it going to consult with the unions and the workers involved to give them some assurance that their jobs will not be lost and that they will not be thrown on the scrap heap like the government has thrown so many other workers under the FTA.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we know the hon. member is still fighting the FTA. He lost that battle, but is still fighting that one.

May 31, 1990
Oral Questions
Let me answer him directly by saying, yes. All those people would be given an opportunity to comment and make representation if such a proposal came forward. Absolutely, they would be given the opportunity.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, President Gorbachev warned the Western Allies that excessive pressure to have a reunified Germany join NATO could seriously jeopardize the new East-West relations. I suggest that Canada should be sensitive to the Soviet position and try to present a new and original Western counter-proposal. The minister is certainly aware that Messrs. Genscher and Mitterand have both drawn different scenarios.
Could the minister tell the House what he thinks of them and whether he is now convinced of the need to develop a new compromise which is not exactly what the West has been proposing since the discussions started concerning a reunified Germany?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no question that there is very evident concern on the part of the Soviet Union, the people and the Government of the Soviet Union, with regard to some of the external implications of the unification of Germany.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday in his remarks at the luncheon with Mr. Gorbachev, it is important that those sensitivities be understood and be responded to.
It is our considered view, that an important step toward resolving that question would be for NATO to take actions that demonstrated that the reform in NATO that we have been talking about is in fact being achieved. That path is being pursued and was pursued by colleague the Minister of National Defence and his colleagues during recent meetings both in Kananaskis in Canada and in Brussels. They were discussed yesterday by Mr. Gorbachev and the Prime Minister. They were discussed today in the debate provoked by the hon. member's motion.
We believe that those kind of actions, if they are reflected in the summit meeting on NATO in early July in London, can make it more possible for the concerns of the Soviet Union, which we understand, to be met.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister on another aspect of the discussions between President Gorbachev and the Prime Minister of Canada. It concerns Lithuania.
Yesterday, President Gorbachev said that the USSR would solve the Lithuanian crisis in its own way, which did not exclude the strictest measures. Does this mean that the Canadian government asked the Soviets to lift the economic blockade which, as we know, was decreed over a month ago? Might the President have rejected this suggestion?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are two comments that I can make that may be helpful on this question.
Both the Prime Minister and I raised very directly the question of the approach of the Soviet Union to Lithuania and indeed to the Baltic States.
Mr. Shevardnadze said to me, as I reported earlier to the House, that it was the intention of the Soviet Union to resolve all disagreements by political means, whether those were disagreements concerning matters they regarded as internal or external. That was a comment made in the context of the discussion of Lithuania.
I raised with Mr. Shevardnadze the question as to whether or not there was a blockade particularly of medical supplies. He said he thought there was no blockade but he gave me the understanding that if Canadians wanted to send medical supplies to any hospital anywhere in the Soviet Union, including in Lithuania, there would be no unusual obstacles put in the path.
He went on to say, and I appreciated it particularly, that if other concerns of this kind regarding commodities other than medical supplies arose that he thought the quickest way to deal with them would be for himself and myself to establish an arrangement by which I would
May 31. 1990

bring those concerns directly to his attention and he would try to have them resolved.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Toronto Better Business Bureau, supported by the Vancouver Better Business Bureau, have said that the Government of Canada is using radio advertising to hawk its GST which they describe as false and misleading and of a kind that would not be tolerated in private enterprise.
When is this government going to stop behaving like a snake-oil salesman, withdraw these ads and be honest with the Canadian people?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I read Mr. Paul Tuz's letter and accusations with great interest. It is obvious, after reading what he has written, that he does not understand the manufacturers' sales tax that we have in this country today, how it operates, and how people in the service industry are paying that tax and passing it on to the consumer. There is a manufacturers' sales tax in the service industry.
What we are saying in our newspaper advertising and our radio advertising, which is not misleading, is that we are replacing the manufacturers' sales tax with a federal sales tax. We are replacing one with the other. It is not a new tax.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, this minister is no more likely to fool me than the rest of Canada when he says that there is no new tax, no additional tax.
I want to know who would buy a used car from a government that says a new tax is not a new tax, that new revenues are not new revenues, that new taxables are not new taxables? When is the government going to come clean and give the true story to the Canadian people, at least not try to fool them?
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party will never nationalize the auto industry, so they will not have to buy used cars from us. They would from the NDP though, that is for sure.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago we rose in the House and we asked the government to withdraw its misleading radio advertisements on the GST.
My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Today, the Better Business Bureaus in Toronto and Vancouver, are also asking that the government withdraw these ads, calling these ads offensive and inaccurate. They have now sent a letter to the CRTC asking that they take action to have an extremely misleading advertisement removed from the Canadian airwaves.
Will the minister take action and withdraw these offensive and inaccurate ads?


John Horton McDermid: Once again the Liberals have been scooped by the NDP. But the answer is no, we will not withdraw those ads because they are accurate, we stand behind them, we are prepared to give accurate information to the Canadian public, and that is what we are doing.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about scoops, but I stood here two weeks ago and asked the same question.
The minister does not listen, the government does not listen to Canadians. Why are Canadians forced to pay millions and millions of dollars for misleading and offensive GST propaganda?


John Horton McDermid: First, it is not misleading. Second, the Canadian people have indicated to us loud and clear that they want information.
We get about 7,000 calls a day on the line asking for information on the GST and we are prepared to give it to them. No, we are not going to withdraw the ads at all. As a matter of fact, we are going to continue to accurately inform the Canadian public on the GST. Somebody has to tell the truth.

May 31, 1990
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, perhaps I could put my question to the Minister of External Affairs, since he had the personnel in Cyprus increased. For the first time, Christian, Moslem and Lebanese religious leaders representing a dozen denominations, Mr. Speaker, are joining together, which is unprecedented, to plead for the refugees. I therefore ask the minister whether it would be possible to reconsider re-establishing the special Lebanese program, which was interrupted in 1987, and to increase the staff at the immigration bureau in Cyprus.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would answer him, though, that Canada is the only country to have taken special measures to help its citizens bring their relatives from Lebanon. We are the only country. Since these measures took effect, more than 18,000 Lebanese have arrived in Canada.
Compared to other countries, Canada provides the most services to meet the needs of Lebanese arriving in Cyprus. Up to March 22, 1990, visa officers in Cyprus had issued 6,041 immigrant visas, 709 visitor visas and 195 ministerial permits.
I think that Immigration Canada has done an excellent job, under the circumstances.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I raised the matter because somewhere, someone is not doing his job. There is a serious problem, and people are starting to protest. That is why we have raised the issue. Religious leaders have also asked the government to stop deporting Lebanese nationals to the United States. I therefore want to ask the minister whether he could respond to a request by religious leaders for a meeting with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to settle this matter, which is merely a question of providing a humanitarian solution.
Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House): Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I will take note of his question and transmit it to the minister. I am sure she will answer the hon. member's question as soon as possible.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I welcome this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Denis Rocan, Speaker of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the Ontario Minister of Culture and Communications, Christine Hart, was forced to resign yesterday because of the influence involved by Cantel Rogers in her campaign for her nomination.
In view of the fact that those same companies have targeted federal Cabinet ministers in their election giving at the last federal election, can the Deputy Prime Minister answer whether or not the government will have an inquiry into the pattern of giving by those companies?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, first of all, that in the preamble to the hon. member's question, his facts do not reflect the situation as reported in the press. There were people representing a number of companies active in the communications industry. Second, I can assure the hon. member that any questions from the industry are first dealt with by the CRTC, and that Unitel's request will be the subject of a broad public debate in this country. I can assure the hon. member that the govern-
May 31, 1990

ment tends to observe the full integrity of the public process initiated by this Parliament.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the government has overruled federal tribunals in the past.


Mr. Andre:: Make a charge!


Rodney Edward Murphy: My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following. Does the government approve of a selective pattern of giving of money to cabinet ministers which-


Some hon. members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not quite sure where the second question of the hon. member is going to lead us. I would ask the hon. member to be very careful that he is not straying into that difficult area of using a preamble in place of a charge. I know the hon. member knows of what I speak. I would ask him to be careful in putting the question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to be careful in asking this question. It is very difficult with the unwarranted heckling from the other side. My question is this, does the government-


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard a lot of heckling on both sides of this place and much of it unwarranted. I thought I had interrupted to assist the hon. member. The hon. member will put his question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee that I did not consider your reaction and response part of the heckling.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to point out what has happened. Rogers, for example, gives one-third of its total giving to the Conservative party directly to the campaigns of cabinet ministers. That is selective giving.
Will the government investigate this pattern of selective giving to people who obviously have a strong influence on government decisions which affect those companies directly?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is close, but I will allow it. The hon. minister will respond.
Oral Questions


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, legislation was passed by this Parliament in both areas. We have the Canada Elections Act and provisions dealing with donations and how Canadians can contribute to the democratic process of this country through their political parties. This Parliament has also passed legislation concerning telecommunications and the conduct of public hearings. If the hon. member has any charges to make in this respect, he should be specific and do so at the appropriate venue.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On Monday, the Minister of the Environment said that there would be a full environmental review of the proposed Point Aconi power station by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review office.
He said that he was doing this because he received the go-ahead from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but the department states that it has not recommended one way or another about this public review to the minister. So, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans could not have given this approval.
Has there been a recommendation? Has there been a request to cariy out this study? Is the government asking for the study? Yes or no.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Acting Minister of the Environment indicated that the EAR process would apply to Point Aconi.
As the hon. member knows, that is a three-step process. First, there is the initial screening which determines whether or not the relevant department would do an initial assessment. Second, the initial assessment having been done, a recommendation is made to the Minister of the Environment.
We are now at a stage, as I think most members in the House know, where the initial assessment is being completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. When that process is completed, there will be a recommendation one way or another to the Minister of the Environment with respect to whether or not the full

May 31, 1990
Oral Questions
independent panel should be struck and public hearings held.
On Monday, the Minister of the Environment made it very clear in his statement that he made no reference whatsoever to the need for a full independent panel and public hearings. What he did indicate and make perfectly clear-although, apparently, not well understood by those who were present-is that the EAR process is currently being applied.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the government cannot even say whether or not it has made a decision. Fisheries and Oceans knows what it wants to do. It has the technology to go ahead with the recommendation.
My supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he not agree that in Cape Breton a project that employs 200 people and safeguards another 1,000 jobs is important? Will he also not agree that this question is time sensitive because the site preparation has already started? Will he not undertake right now, if there are environmental concerns, to call a public review to save time so that we do not lose this very important project?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's comments somewhat interesting. Not too long ago in the House one of his colleagues seemed to be pushing for this process to be applied. Indeed, we went ahead and we have done that.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: You don't even know what you have done.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: If the hon. member will listen carefully, there is a three-step process. We are now nearing the end of the second step in that process. Whether or not the third step is applied will depend upon the recommendation which is made to the Minister of the Environment. That recommendation can not yet be made because the initial assessment has not yet been completed.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Recently, a U.S. beer company launched a trade action claiming Canadian provincial liquor laws are protectionist. We have already lost one GATT dispute over this matter and we are now obligated to remove those interprovincial barriers.
At the meeting with the U.S. trade representative, Carla Hills, the Minister for International Trade said that the company had a "good case against Canada and we should observe our trade obligations".
Will the minister convince Carla Hills to drop this action because the provinces are in the midst of negotiating such an agreement?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, right now we are trying to work with the industry. We will consult with the provinces and the industry.
As a matter of fact, there is a meeting today between my officials and the provincial officials to try to find a way to deal with that issue. Second, a task force official has set out a plan which will address our international obligations. Third, a report on the outcome of the negotiations is expected by the end of June this year.
I think my hon. friend understands that the government wants to work with the provinces to deal with the problem of barriers, particularly in that industry, between the provinces and to do the best to give a better chance to Canadian companies.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister.
Ministry officials met with provincial representatives yesterday and, in fact, tabled a report which the liquor boards and the provincial trade ministries are looking at.
Could the minister table that report today in the House? Second, if the agreement with the provinces is so crucial, why has the government not proposed an adjustment assistance package to cushion the potential loss of thousands of jobs that would follow the removal of these interprovincial barriers?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first, I will not table a report I am unaware of.
Second, my friend proposed that we intervene immediately with labour adjustment programs and so on. There is a dynamic approach between the provinces and the federal government at that level. When we deal with the provinces in a sector of their jurisdiction we have to do so the way we do presently. In particular, we have international obligations under the GATT rules and the prov-
May 31, 1990

inces have to make the decision themselves to abolish the problems in controls they have between themselves.
We prefer that approach and I am sure my friend understands that is the best way to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces.


ROMANIA
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Energy. I understand that, by now, members of cabinet may have had an opportunity to speak with the members of Parliament who went to Romania and concerned themselves with the reactor site in Romania.
Is the government now prepared to announce that it will be initiating an inquiry into the entire history of AECL's involvement at that site and its amazing ability not to notice the terrible things that were going on there?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I had the opportunity to meet with the member for Burnaby-Kingsway and the member for Winnipeg North Centre. We listened to them. We covered a number of the issues that have been in the public domain relating to the history of the project, safety factors, the publicity surrounding a possible EDC application, and, as well, working conditions at the plant.
They gave us a number of suggestions. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I took those recommendations. We will examine them and, when decisions are made, we will announce those later.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, concern has increased in the last 24 hours as a result of the earthquake which occurred in Romania. We have read that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was assured by AECL officials recently that Romania was not in any kind of earthquake zone, and there was nothing to worry about. The fact of the matter is that AECL has been deliberately blind and stupid for years, whatever serves their need to market nuclear reactors, and it is about time we had an inquiry into that particular Crown corporation. The situation in Romania points up
Business of the House
exactly how deliberately blind and stupid they have been for years. We want an inquiry, and we want it now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I met with the two members.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It didn't happen then.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: But did you understand? They were moderate, they gave good points of view. This is an hon. member who is respected in the House but keeps making charges which are unfounded.
First, back in the latter part of the 1970s when an agreement was to be signed between the government of the day and the Romanians, one of the questions that the government of the day put forward through AECL concerned seismic studies and the earthquake zones. There was an earthquake in Romania in 1986 which did not affect Cemavoda. But, the point that also has to be made; is AECL biased and should there be an independent report? In fact, there was an independent report done at that time which also backed the work of the government of the day.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It didn't happen then.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had as many brains as he has heat, he would probably be smart. I am simply saying to him-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister concluded his remarks?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am saying to him that there was an independent pier review done in respect to seismology and with respect to the earthquake situation. The hon. member should go back to what was done in the latter 1970s and not make charges which simply are not true.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is customary on Thursday for the opposition to ask the government the traditional question about the business of the House for the coming week. I wonder if the Leader of the Government could tell us what bills he

May 31, 1990
Routine Proceedings
intends to bring before the House tomorrow and next week.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow it is my intention to call Bill C-54, the joinder of counts. I would like to designate Monday, June 4, as an allotted day. Tuesday, I hope to call report stage of Bill C-26, the Railway Act amendments. At this point it would be my intention to designate Wednesday, June 6 as an allotted day, but the formal designation should follow soon. Thursday of next week I will be calling the second reading of Bill C-54, having to do with Hibernia.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, may I also say that there have been discussions among the parties, and I think you will find an agreement to move to Statements by Ministers with the usual understanding that whatever time is taken up by statements and responses will be added to the normal day which is an allotted day. I believe there is unanimous consent for that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my discussions, and those of Senator Murray, with the premiers over the past week or so have made progress in narrowing the issues that divide us on the Meech Lake Accord.
Those contacts with the premiers demonstrate, of course, that crucial differences remain. However, all believe that a meeting of First Ministers is now necessary. I do not want to underestimate the divergences on the remaining issues. They are there and they are serious. But what is in dispute is extremely modest when
compared with what is really at stake. What is really at stake is Canada.

While I do not want to underestimate the divergences on the remaining issues, what is in dispute is modest when compared with what is really at stake.
What is really at stake is Canada.

Failure would compromise our capacity for living together in unity and diminish our capacity to maintain the kinds of prosperity that Canadians have enjoyed over so many decades. It would waste an opportunity to close a chapter in our constitutional history with the full partnership of all the provinces in our Confederation, including the assent of those provinces who were partners when Confederation began.
It would curtail opportunities for constitutional change, in such important areas as Senate reform and aboriginal rights, for the foreseeable future. I believe it would send a very damaging signal about Canada to the international community with consequences for our national well-being.

Ratification of the accord, on the other hand, would mean that we could turn the page of constitutional reform and get on with other unfinished business also of great importance to Canadians.
It would allow us to build together on a solid foundation of national unity.

It would send a signal of stability to the international community, ending the consternation in many parts of the world about what is going on in Canada. It would end the puzzlement why anyone in such a respected nation would fail to appreciate the value of its strength and prosperity to the world community. People across the world are genuinely troubled about why anyone would fail to understand the magnificence of this great country, Canada.
Elsewhere, political repression, poverty, famine, natural disasters, not arcane constitutional debates are the stuff of national turmoil. Canadians are looking to their First Ministers for leadership and action now.
May 31, 1990



Elsewhere, as I was just saying, political repression, poverty, famine and natural disasters, not arcane constitutional debates, however important, are the stuff of national turmoil.
Canadians are looking to their First Ministers for leadership and action now.
Canadians are looking not for fine words but for common sense and responsibility.

Canadians are looking not for constitutional niceties but for common sense and responsibility. As Premier Ghiz, leader of Canada's smallest province said: "Canadians are saying, 'Save Canada. Make it work'." I believe when Premier Ghiz said: "Save Canada. Make it work," he was speaking for millions of Canadians who want Canada to make it work.
If there is the political will to break the impasse, surely there is a constitutional way. I am inviting First Ministers to a working dinner on Sunday evening to find out if sufficient political will truly exists. If our discussions go well, we will continue at a First Ministers' Conference to begin the next morning. Our dinner will take place on June 3, three years to the day, I believe, when I, along with 10 premiers representing four different political parties, signed the Meech Lake Accord. That same accord was overwhelmingly endorsed by all three parties in the House of Commons on two different occasions.
I give Canadians my commitment, and I know I speak on behalf of all members of the House of Commons, to make every effort to produce an agreement. Once we have that agreement I give my commitment to Canadians to persevere on outstanding constitutional issues such as Senate reform and aboriginal rights, so important to so many Canadians across the country.
This country will not realize its unparalleled promise until all Canadians believe that their Constitution affirms their rights and reflects their values. That is why Quebec's voluntary endorsement of the existing constitution will make it a vibrant document of unity and hope for Canada and the future.
Routine Proceedings

It is a golden opportunity! Since Quebec has affirmed its faith in a united Canada, it is a golden opportunity for Canada to find in its heart and soul the ability to say yes to Quebec; it is time to build a completely unified country once and for all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have inherited a great land built on the tolerance, vision and labour of generations of Canadians before us. Many of the members on all sides of this House of Commons are sons and daughters of immigrants. When the Leader of the Opposition rose in this House on another occasion he made a most moving address about his own personal experience. I thought as I listened to him that day a few months ago what a magnificent and splendid country this is, where in all parts of this country and all parts of this House, in one generation alone, the children of immigrants have risen to positions of great authority, making it clear to all the world that this is truly, in the very best sense of the word, a civilization that represents the fundamentals of a genuine democracy.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And so we have inherited a very great land, a truly great land, all of us in this House of Commons, members from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is now our responsibility to turn Canada over to our children and eventually our grandchildren undamaged and undiminished, and to bequeath them a nation that stands proudly united before history and before all humanity as one of the world's privileged lands, blessed as it always has been, our Canada, by the hand of God.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we of the Official Opposition have been calling for a First Ministers' Conference as a way of breaking and finding a solution to the constitutional impasse for some time.
It has been our belief that it should have been called by the Prime Minister before now and that he should not have waited until today to call a First Ministers' Conference.

May 31, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I know that the Prime Minister has been concerned about the risk if there is such a meeting and it is not a success. But, Mr. Speaker, there are also risks, perhaps even greater risks, if such a meeting is not held at all.
The provincial premiers themselves have been calling for such a meeting for some days now, perhaps the strongest argument why the Prime Minister should not have waited until today to make his announcement.
The Prime Minister today said that he is "inviting First Ministers to a working dinner on Sunday evening to find out if sufficient political will truly exists". He went on to say: "If our discussions go well, we will continue at a First Ministers' Conference to begin the next morning."
Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a step in the right direction and a step that we welcome. It is, in a sense, more than simply a step, because for the first time since Premier McKenna proposed a companion resolution, the Prime Minister is agreeing that there should be a dialogue involving the Prime Minister and all the provincial premiers around the same table. This kind of dialogue involving all the First Ministers and giving all of them an equal opportunity to discuss this matter, a matter crucial for the future of our country, is what has been missing until now.
I must say that I have some concern that there is a firm commitment from the Prime Minister so far only to a working dinner. I think Canadians would have got more reassurance from his announcement and would have preferred if it was a firm commitment for a First Ministers' Conference as well.
There are important questions to deal with: Senate reform, aboriginal rights, the rights of language minorities, the rights of multicultural groups and others.

Mr. Speaker, we co-operated with government members on the Charest Committee because the Liberals wanted to resolve the constitutional deadlock, and it is our earnest wish that the discussions with the Premiers will be a success, a success that will benefit all of Canada.

We want to see steps as a result of the discussions announced today, and Canadians want to see steps as a result of these discussions that will confirm the future of our country.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians generally should recognize, and I think most of them do, that the success we have had as a country is substantial compared to most of the other countries of the world. Canadians generally want this success to continue and to increase.

Mr. Speaker, we want this success to extend to these discussions, for the future of our country and all Canadians.

We are concerned about the future of our country. We must work together to ensure it continues strong and prosperous for ourselves and future generations.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton - Melville):: Mr. Speaker, we, too, welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister that there be a meeting of First Ministers. I think that this is the time to set aside our normal partisan concerns and wish all the First Ministers well when they meet here Sunday.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We hope that the accord does not die quietly at the dinner table and, if there is a new deal, that the Prime Minister will inform and involve the Canadian people in as much and as reasonable a way as possible throughout the process.
The issue at stake is the unity of this country and the winner, in the end, must be Canada. This could be the most important meeting that the First Ministers of this country have ever held in their 123 year history of Canada and we must set aside partisan concerns to make sure there is an agreement.
I suppose I only have two messages at this time, Mr. Speaker. One is to the premiers. I realize the premiers are premiers of their own provinces from different parts of this country but all premiers must never forget that first and foremost they are Canadians and the interests of Canada must come first.
May 31, 1990

Second, I say to the Prime Minister of Canada that the Prime Minister must be the Prime Minister. He must be the one who leads and speaks out for all of Canada. The Prime Minister must be the one, on behalf of all of us, who rises to the occasion to find the accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, to Quebecers it is important that the rest of Canada accents Quebec as part of Canada, while acknowledging that Quebec is different and that it has a special place within our country as a distinct society.
Mr. Speaker, it is now time to put the interests of our countiy ahead of the interests of the parties in this House.

Finally, in addition to the five important proposals from Quebec that all parties in the House endorse and have endorsed on more than one occasion, it is also important, as the Prime Minister said, that we address the other concerns of equally tremendous importance. The concerns of aboriginal rights, the concerns of the multiracial people and those of multicultural background in the country, the concerns of northern Canadians to make them a full partner within Canada and the concern in many parts of the country for real and genuine reform of the other place, the Senate, must also be addressed. As well, we must address the concern of having constitutional change evolve in a really democratic and open process. Many people complained in the past that that was not there.
There are many other concerns to address such as the ongoing concerns of minority groups and women in the country. I, along with everybody else in the country, hope for success on the weekend. We welcome the fact that there will be a First Ministers' meeting, and we hope that, when the agreement comes-I say when it comes, and I am sure it will come-it will be an agreement that will unite Canadians, bind them together and make us proud of our Constitution and country.

I wish the federal and provincial First Ministers good luck!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement,
Routine Proceedings
Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes. Therefore, Private Members' hour will begin at 6.15 p.m. Orders of the day.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House leader has a point of order he wants to raise.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member on a point of order in a moment.


RESIGNATION OF HON. MEMBER FOR SAINT-MAURICE AS ACTING SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately, it is my duty to make the following statement to my colleagues in the House of Commons. I have received a message from the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Pronovost), who has submitted his resignation as Acting Speaker.

There were remarks made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member from Newfoundland concerning certain remarks made by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. The hon. member for Saint Maurice said to me that, under the circumstances, he felt the importance of the position of Speakership was such that, despite the apology he made and which was generously remarked upon earlier today, he has submitted his resignation.
I know that all hon. members will know that he has taken this decision in the interests of this place and our country and while we may very well regret the event, we can, I think say that we admire his decision under a situation of some considerable stress.
I have nothing further to add and I am quite sure that at the appropriate time certain announcements will be made to find a replacement.

Again, I very much regret having to make a statement like this, but I well know that all hon. members understand the situation exactly and also, probably-

-take the decision that has been made in the very best spirit and tradition-

May 31, 1990
Supply

in keeping with the great tradition of the House of Commons and of our country.
[English \


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I did hear the Deputy Speaker say he was moving to Orders of the Day and I wondered if we had passed beyond Routine Proceedings because I did have a Private Member's Bill to table.


Mr. Speaker:: I would say to the hon. member that I do not think the consent is there.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while every member of this House is likely focused on the great debate going on inside our boundaries about questions that both unify us and divide us, there is a big world out there which is also going through its own volatility and incredible forces of change and development.

Like all other members of this House, I hope that we will have a meeting next Sunday to unify the country and especially to consider the interests of all the regions and to find a way to solve the problems in the country.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have a very important opportunity to establish a new international role.

The purpose of the very important proposal put forward by my colleague, the member for Papineau, is to bring to the attention of this House many of those issues. The world impinges upon Canada, perhaps to a far greater degree than ever before in our history. The real test is how do we respond. What is our answer? What direction do we take and what kind of-to use an
over-worked word-vision do we have about the role we will play in this rapidly changing world where the earthquake of revolution takes place every single day of the week.
I would like to stop for a moment to share an experience that some members of the committee had when we were travelling in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union a few short weeks ago.
We had the privilege of being in Berlin on May Day, a remarkable day. The wall had come down and thousands of people were walking back and forth. During the course of conversation a young woman who was our translator was talking about the incredible change that had gone on three or four months ago when the secret police and the police dogs had been guarding the boundaries. All of a sudden there was a Woodstock atmosphere where there was beer, sausages, and rock bands playing on the streets.
This young woman who had been a participant and was an active member of the crowd that gathered around the church last November 9, which was the spark that brought down the dictatorship in East Germany, said something very important that I do not think I will ever forget. In talking to her about what she would be doing, and she knew we were politicians from Canada, she said: "Please don't take away from us what we won at the church that day. Don't usurp the kind of achievement and the change that we want to bring about".
What she was talking about was the end of military alliances, the end the confrontation, the end of conventional cold war thinking and actions which have so dominated this world for the past 40 years. It was interesting to note that that heartfelt cry made by that young woman was repeated the next day by the newly appointed Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the East German Government, a young man by my standards. He said that it was time to get rid of the old, conventional ways of thinking. He saw the unification of Germany as a way of breaking out of the Warsaw-NATO kind of confrontation that had been around for so long. He said: "We must apply our energy and our thoughts to what is new. How do we bring about a new synthesis in Europe to respond to this?"
When I was watching the news last night I was thinking about the faces of the people of Ottawa gathering
May 31, 1990

around Mr. Gorbachev as he walked up and down the streets. In effect the people of this city, perhaps on behalf of all Canadians, were saying the same kind of thing. There was hope in those faces. They were not simply attracted to Mr. Gorbachev because he is a celebrity. I think they also saw him as a symbol of real change. They saw him as someone who in his own right and in his own country, had initiated an incredible revolution of thought and action. They were reaching out with those hands, not just to the man but to what he represented.
The debate that we have to focus on today concerns how we can ensure that those hopes and expectations of that young woman in East Berlin and of the people of Ottawa are not usurped, not taken away. The response of the politicians, the diplomats, the officials, the bureaucrats, and the people in power with authority must be to understand that kind of undercurrent, that strong willingness of hope and expectation is running around and is oftentimes in danger of being kidnapped by those who have vested interests in keeping things the way they are.
The contrast to that reaching out of the people on the streets of Ottawa was the results of what we saw in the discussions between our leaders and those of the Soviets which once again was in cold war language. Our people say: "We want NATO". Mr. Gorbachev says: "We cannot get into NATO". All of a sudden we were pulling back, were retreating from the impulse and incredible momentum that had been started on the streets of eastern Europe, aided and abetted by policies. I think of the progress that has been made in reducing arms and looking toward new accommodations which is in danger of regressing. It is in danger of being pulled back by those who have power and authority.
I address these remarks to the members of this House because I think we all share the hope that that will not take place but understand the threat that is there.
I want to address for a moment the question put forward in my colleague's motion about the incoherence and the sense of confusion that sometimes exist in our own government. I do not blame a government for being caught unawares by these changes. Goodness gracious, no one pretends that they have omniscient wisdom about
Supply
what was going to take place, but I think we can honestly say that we expect a little more than what we received.
On the one hand, we had the Minister of National Defence as part of a NATO meeting out in Alberta a couple of weeks ago endorsing the concept of maintaining nuclear weapons in NATO and saying that that is the way it is going to be. On the other hand, last Saturday night the Secretary of State for External Affairs was saying: "Maybe we shouldn't do that". Who do we believe? Which minister is speaking for the government? It is hard to determine.
When questions were asked in the House by the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, the House Leader and others, we could not get a clear answer. They did not seem to know who was speaking for the country.
That is not uncommon, but this is too critical a situation in which to play the normal kind of political games. Surely, it is up to members on this side of the House, and I would say to members of the Conservative caucus, to say: "That's not good enough. That doesn't meet the expectations of the millions of people around this country who want something different".
I point out to you as well, Mr. Speaker, the other kinds of issues that have emerged recently. Look at the opportunity that we have had as a country to start building some bridges. What is clear in the debate so far, the debate we have heard in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, is that we cannot presume that we can maintain our way of doing things, our structures, our alliances and say to the Soviet Union: "Sorry, you lost the game". This is not some kind of football match where there are winners and losers. We have to find a way of some common interest.
I suppose one thing that is most vivid in my memory of my trip to the Soviet Union is how deep tire feeling is about the impact of the Second World War and the deep need for security. Part of the whole movement in eastern Europe for the past 40 years has been how to defend themselves against a reoccurrence of the Second World War. For a moment we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the Soviets to say: "How do they gain that security when they see a unified Germany joining NATO with the presence of nuclear weapons on their soil? How can we give them a sense that it is not happening all over again?" I know it may be irrational and emotional, but the fact of the matter is that it is real. It is not good

May 31, 1990
Supply
enough for our leaders to say: "Sorry, that is the way it is going to be".
We are making a plea, as the member for Papineau- Saint-Michel said this morning, to look at this thing in a new light, to have a sense of new understanding of what is going on.
There is a need for a new architecture of political structures around the world, but particularly in eastern Europe. I take at face value Mr. Gorbachev's proposal that he wants a home that stretches from the Soviet Union right to North America. It is clear that we need structure to make that happen and it is not in place.
I accept with some credit the proposals put forward by the government that perhaps NATO can only be a transition phase. That is good, but let us go one step beyond and say that it will be a transition to something that will represent a larger scale collective security organization covering the Soviet Union, eastern and western Europe, and North America, where we share collective security and not where we are divided by it. I think that is the statement that the Soviets are waiting to hear from western leaders. We must add our voice in our own councils of the NATO Alliances, the OECDs, the summit meetings, and so on.
Canadians have a particular opportunity, not that we are going to be the major players. When we start to look at how to put the building blocks of that new structure together there are ways of doing it. We have seen it in front of us.
Surely, one of the most critical areas of concern that we share with the Soviets, the Americans, and many European countries is our Arctic. In 1987 President Gorbachev issued the Murmansk declaration stating that we should have some kind of treaty for the Arctic. When we were in the Soviet Union we had a response from people saying that we could have that. Members of the Arctic Institute in Leningrad said that there should be a denuclearized treaty for the Arctic. There is some common ground to build upon.
However, Mr. Gorbachev has come and gone from Ottawa with no mention of that proposal. No significant steps were taken toward negotiations or discussions on that very significant initiative.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What did they discuss?


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, that is part of the problem.
We know that Ottawa is famous for its hospitality and its restful, calm, tranquil atmosphere. It is a wonderful place to get rid of jet lag, but when you have the President of the Soviet Union here you expect more than a good night's rest.
I would say that here was an opportunity to demonstrate our interest and willingness to build some bridges, to put together new building blocks that would have helped on the security issue and one that would have helped us. I am not talking about being altruistic with the Soviets. Goodness knows that our security interests are directly in the Arctic. That is where U.S. and Russian submarines are playing tag all the time and where we need some kind of arrangement.
I see by today's The Financial Post that my view is shared by Allan Fotheringham who says that great minds think alike.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I say that with tongue in cheek, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is that we have a real interest in developing these building blocks. In the area of the economy there is an enormous opportunity to develop a whole set of relationships in the Soviet Union, a country desperate for transfers of technology, trade, and investment. The expectations of that country were raised during the last prime ministerial visit by the signing of a number of agreements. Almost a year later, nothing has been done. We have not lived up to those agreements.
Some of the problems are those of the Soviets and many of the problems are our own. The fact of the matter is that we can say without any contradiction that our ability to meet the demands emerging in the Soviet for building a new set of relationships is not being met.
I will tell you one of the reasons why. Let us just take a look at one simple statistic. The Department of External Affairs has 30 posts in western Europe, but just six in eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union. How do we expect to begin to manage a whole new set of relationships, economically, culturally and politically, when we are totally understaffed, under-resourced and do not have the capacity to do it? Claims may be made for budget or restraint reasons, but how can we argue for budget reasons that we are maintaining a corporal's guard in the fastest changing, most dynamic area in the world when everyday we are losing all kinds of opportunities?
May 31, 1990

Let me give one example. I was sitting at a Kiwanis club dinner a week ago with the president of a lumber firm in Manitoba who talked about trying to negotiate a lumber agreement between the Soviets and Canada. They would use a barter system to bring certain kinds of wood into Canada that are not available here. We know in western Canada that we have to start purchasing more from the Soviets in order to maintain the balance because of our grain trade where we have by far the greatest surplus on the trade side.
As he said that getting somebody to help him to work through the red tape and to get the front-end logistics in place was just not possible. He has given up. It is a small example, but I am sure members in this House can repeat the example a hundredfold from their own ridings. We are simply not equipped to meet the demand. We are simply not there in the numbers or in the capacity that we need to respond to those kinds of changes.
I would like to point out another area where we are not providing the leadership in that building block. We have heard in the House today and in the last couple of weeks about the growing problem dealing with nuclear energy. In our country, the Soviet Union, and eastern Europe peaceful uses of nuclear energy is one of the most important areas of common concern.
What would happen if we proposed that there be a common agency which would look after standards, investment, safety and health problems between the Soviet Union and Canada? In part, we would help them with the enormous clean-up problems they have with Chernobyl. We would deal with the problems of the Candu in Romania. We could all of a sudden, I am sure, find some common ground. We could find an area where we can share common interests. It would be the kind of agency that would give us a working relationship in a new area but one vital to our economies and our inter-relationships. We could establish once again a new kind of foundation, putting another block in place that would lead to the new structures and architecture that would bring together the east, the west, and North America.
I think back to when I was still going to university. I read about the theory of Jean Monet in starting the European Common Market. He said that it should be started with functional agencies and then you build from functional agencies into some kind of political agencies to the point where they now have the European Common Market. They started that way. They had the steel
Supply
authority. Then they started working on transportation and coal. The thesis was that this was a way to get to know one another, to establish some common lines of communication and interest. From that you start to build up the super-structure.
Are we not in a similar condition today? Are we not as Canadians, in a position to take those initiatives where there is such a direct and close common interest between the two?
That is what I think the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel means in his motion when he says that we need a coherent policy. We need some direction. We need some creative thinking in this area.
In particular, we need it in terms of our own domestic opportunities. One of the great assets we have as Canadians is that we have a population built upon many Canadians whose origins are in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I think of my own city of Winnipeg where we have a Ukrainian Canadian community of great strength and vitality, as well as Poles and Russians and Germans and all the rest. They understand the culture and the language and have relatives in their home land. There is an enormous sort of criss-cross of connections, people who are anxious at the present moment to go back to the homeland, to go back to where their relatives are to establish commercial or business relationships.
In speaking to many of them they say that they do not know who to talk to, they do not know where to go. Even if the Prime Minister was to designate one member of the cabinet and say: "You are responsible for the Soviet Union. You bring together private business. You bring together the regions. You bring together the cultural groups".
Let us talk about language training in Canada. Let us talk about new transportation links into the Soviet Union. Let us talk about how we get some investment guarantees, whatever it is that will provide some kind of focal point for all those groups to come together. We have this incredible resource in our own country that will give us an enormous sort of outreach into the Soviet Union and eastern Europe and we are not utilizing it.
Many of them are doing it individually, but many are being frustrated because they will arrive in Kiev and all of sudden say: "Who do I talk to?" It is clear to us from our own examination that one cannot find answers immediately in the Soviet Union. There are a lot of complications. Many smaller businesses do not have the front-end capacity to do it. That is where the Government of Canada comes in.

May 31, 1990
Supply
When we spoke to the West Germans about the commercial side they told us that when the Soviets sit down and talk about providing credit of a billion dollars on a big project, the West Germans say that in return they want some understanding that there will be no red tape. They get their business done that way. You need somebody who has got that eye on the sparrow, who knows where they are going with that kind of direction.
We are suggesting in this motion that we have not tapped into that well of Canadian interest, those resources, and have not even drawn upon members of Parliament in terms of an open consultation. The member for Papineau-Saint-Michel said very properly this morning that it is a certain insult to this House that the Secretary of State for External Affairs started to announce a policy when he knows full well that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade has been working on one for close to a year and he has not had the courtesy to wait a couple of weeks to see what it is going to say.
What is the point? Why have 14 members of Parliament spend almost a year working at this and then rush ahead to the finish line? It is not a competition. We are not in a race with the Secretary of State. We are not out there to win the red ribbon. We want to help. The fact of the matter is that it creates enormous complication by doing that.
What we are trying to condemn the government or tell it to get its act together. It must understand that this is one of the most important moments in our history. If we do not do it right we are going to find ourselves isolated. We are going to find ourselves pushed out of Europe. We are going to find ourselves without the connecting links into the Soviet Union. We will not have the kind of influence that we should have.
Without proper action we will not be able to build upon the assets that we have, which includes a good reputation, a population in Canada that is ready and willing and has the attributes based upon their own culture and language to help. This is simply because we have not focused on the problem. We do not have a policy. We do not have a direction. We are not mobilizing the resources of this House and all the people within it to try to bring together a common front. This is not an issue that necessarily divides us as parties. We are all interested in recognizing this enormous challenge and at the same time the opportunity it represents. We are all
here to help, but it is the government that has the responsibility to provide the ability for that help and that co-operation to be targeted at this very important part of the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
I would just like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to know that I appreciate him taking all the time in the House that he would like, but there are other colleagues of his who also would like to speak.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo that sentiment. I was fascinated by the hon. member's remarks.
Having heard him before on international questions, particularly Canadian foreign policy questions, he is one who could be allowed to extemporize even longer than the allotted 20 minutes.
I would like to give him an opportunity to embellish on some of his remarks, particularly in light of his recent visit to the Soviet Union. I would like him to comment upon the reaction of Soviets there to what I consider to be the rather timid response of the Canadian government to the events which are taking place there and, principally, the fact that so little has happened since the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union last November. There appears to be, at least from here, a lack of initiative on the part of the Canadian government in taking advantage of opportunities to co-operate with the Soviets and eastern European countries in furthering the major reforms which they have courageously embarked upon.
I would just like to ask my colleague if he could say a little bit about the reaction he received when he was in the Soviet Union concerning Canada's role and how we can be more supportive.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
Their reaction in some cases was puzzlement. There had been an enormous sense of optimism built around the trip last year of the Prime Minister, followed by the Speaker of the House, which I think established a set of relationships and expectations. Agreements were signed. As I say, almost a year later we are waiting for some delivery. There is a feeling of disappointment that many of these kinds of developments have not taken place.
May 31, 1990

I do not say this to be critical, because I think there is a problem on both sides. They are afraid of being caught up in a kind of diplomatic minuet that oftentimes takes place.
As people from the Arctic Institute said, there was an Arctic environmental agreement signed. The scientists were in agreement. But it seems that somehow the officials got in the way and nothing has been done in this crucial area.
Here we have, as we discovered, the prospect of the Soviet Union initiating nuclear tests in the Arctic. This is an area about which there should be a very major outcry. Because there is no commission in place-we have not even appointed the commissioners yet to make it work- the forum has been lost. We have not had the opportunity to create the very essential dialogue that is needed.
I would also like to comment, if I may, on the agricultural area. We were asked, again during the visit of the Prime Minister, and proposals were put on the table, that we help set up a series of model farms in the Soviet Union using Canadian technology, fertilizers and methodologies as a way of demonstrating a new way of productivity in the agricultural area. Land was being offered. The invitation was there. Yet we did not take them up on it. Now the Dutch and the Italians are doing it and we are not in the marketplace. We asked why. They said: "Well, we did not have the resources to bring it together. We did not have the capacity to do it".
Again, I want to express as a western Canadian that when we say we do not have the resources, I must think of the enormous resources we have in my own City of Winnipeg to have brought that kind of thing to fruition. Somehow it fell in a hole. It just did not materialize. It is those kinds of disappointments that are there which I think are creating wonderment as to whether we are really as serious as our statements claim.
I would have to speak of my own personal disappointment with what has transpired in the last 24 hours. I think the occasion of Mr. Gorbachev's visit here was an opportunity to pin some of these things down, to clear away some of the brush, to get away from some of the red tape and to pin-point some of these problems, whether on the Arctic treaty, nuclear testing, or on commercial agreements. Yet we did not seem to come out with very much.
Supply
As I have not seen anything in the papers, I do not even think we got a commitment on a new agreement on wheat, which has been a kind of bedrock of our relationship with the Soviet Union for the last 20 years.
It is those kinds of things that we are concerned about which show a lack of energy, a lack of focus and a lack of direction.


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


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are having this thorough airing today of Canadian foreign policy in central and eastern Europe. The hon. member's motion which has brought us into this, is predicated on the allegation that there is a lack of initiative and some confusion. I would like to pick up on that in my remarks and refute it with some of the evidence of what has been going on.
Before getting into that I would like to say that just as this debate is timely, following on the heels of the visit by both Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, last Saturday in the Etobicoke-Lakeshore constituency which I represent, we had a one-day policy forum on Canadian policy in central and eastern Europe. It was an opportunity for an exchange of views and information, participated in by well over 400 Canadians, many of whom have been not only to the Soviet Union but in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and so on, actively engaged in education, in trade, in cultural activities, in business opportunities and so on.
It was there that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the remarks that he did, outlining some very important new directions in Canadian foreign policy in that area, the burden of which he carried through on in his remarks here this morning to the House.
I would like to elaborate on some of the points which the Secretary of State for External Affairs made in the general framework by giving some specifics. If foreign policy exists, it is not only in general principles and broad terms but it does come to earth in specific applications. That is what I would like to talk about. In so doing I would like to indicate that Canada is moving in a new and uncharted area with some foreign policy successes.

May 31, 1990
Supply
I think that the speech given by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, typically for him, was both informed and informing. He took a very thoughtful and balanced approach on this.
I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said that we should approach these issues beyond party lines and try to work together. I think that is the important spirit.
I heard the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel talking this morning about a lack of initiatives, yet in the same sentence he mentioned that the Prime Minister had signed a major accord in Moscow last November. The hon. member from Winnipeg said that a year has passed since that was signed, while in fact it is only half a year. I heard the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel talking about a lack of initiative and lamenting that Canada has no consulate in Leningrad and in the same sentence he talked about the opening of a Canadian consulate in Kiev, I really think-


Lloyd Axworthy: It's not open yet.


Patrick Boyer: No, it is underway.


Lloyd Axworthy: They told us 1992.


Patrick Boyer: The fact is that all these initiatives are taking place. Canada is supporting a new and active working relationship with the reformist central and eastern European countries. We are assisting, along with other western countries, in the process of revitalizing this region. It is a very hard task because they themselves have a lot to sort out. They are in transition. I think that anyone who is honest with himself would not be so critical about the Canadian response as to look for it as having no contradictions and as being completely developed even while the situation there is still developing. We should be open, frank, and non-partisan in this area, and recognize that we are in a world of change and that Canada is responding in that area.
At the economic summit in Paris last July, Canada joined with the other nations in the G-7 in supporting the reforms in Poland and Hungary and in pledging to support the transformation of those economies in a durable manner with both economic assistance and other means. This is something on which we have followed through in a positive way.
The opposition asks about initiatives. Here is some Canadian action. We have created a $42 million assistance package for Poland and Hungary. This package
was announced last November and it has three major elements to it.
First, $12 million has been spent in emergency food aid. This food was not just purchased in Canada and taken to Poland. More important, it was sold there and the equivalent of $6 to $8 million in Polish zloty was earned for a jointly-administered counterpart fund that is today funding developments in rural parts of Poland. That is very important.
A second element was the $20 million revolving short-term export credit insurance that was established for Poland. There has been no lack of initiative at all.
A third element is the clear initiative of putting in place $10 million over five years for economic development.
I will give you six or eight examples of Canadian foreign policy success to show what we are doing to help with economic development. Four hundred and fifty thousand dollars has gone to the International Management Centre in Budapest to create the Canada Fund which supports management training. In fact, the dean of that school will be a Canadian. This is beyond the stage of putting money into countries, money which is in short supply here. That, moreover, is not what they need. They need, want, and are seeking from us assistance in such things as management training and restructuring of government. There is one veiy positive example of an initiative in that area.
Second, two contracts with the Canadian Executive Services Overseas are now providing 41 volunteer professionals in both Hungary and Poland who will work as industrial and business consultants. That is another positive initiative along the same theme.
Third, a Canadian company is doing an evaluation study of possible new and upgraded edible oil processing plants in Poland.
A fourth initiative is a $2 million training program for Polish farmers in livestock and farm management. This is really a creative initiative. This summer over 100 Polish farmers will be coming to Canada for intensive courses at a training institute. They will get practical experience on Canadian farms.
A fifth example of an initiative is the $1 million program of support for the Warsaw Agricultural University and three associated institutes involved in training and research for Polish agriculture.
The sixth example in just this one element is the assistance in establishing the English-French Language Training Centre. Its curriculum focuses on language proficiency but also on the principles, in the course of
May 31, 1990

that, of representative government, democratic processes, local administration, and human rights.
I can go on, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of these initiatives. There is a grant to York University School of Business Administration to establish a nine-week course for 40 middle managers this summer. Again, that will include attachment to a Canadian firm for practical experience. There is funding for a Canadian expert who will serve as an advisor on privatization to the Government of Poland.
How can anyone sincerely say that there is a lack of initiative? These are very good examples of Canadian foreign policy success, the kind of things that our country is sought out for and appreciated for in the councils of the nations. Canada does not go to other countries with a blueprint of how they should run themselves. We go and work co-operatively with them. They know what their needs are and we have practical experience and technical assistance, as well as financial aid, that can be supportive of what they are doing. We support what they are doing because for years we have sought it, we have urged it, and we have worked for it. In this transformation, we are seeing countries going from totalitarian regimes to democratic regimes, from communist one-party states to pluralistic multi-party states, from the command economy to the market economy, and from harsh militarism and cold war division to a new era of exchange, dialogue, and common security. That is the transition and it is a transition in which Canada is playing an important role as a partner.
We have assisted the central and east European countries in becoming integrated into western markets. We are actively encouraging Canadian trade and investment. Last Saturday, at the Etobicoke-Lakeshore conference on eastern Europe, a number of examples were given of Canadians who are over there doing just these things.
The member for Winnipeg South Centre lamented the difficulty of dealing with bureaucracies. That is a very real problem and no one is underestimating that. It takes a lot of time to place a phone call, let alone to get governmental decisions. But these are things that, in the more traditional areas of trade promotion, we are continuing to pursue very actively. These are positive initiatives.
Supply
The Secretary of State for External Affairs hosted a series of joint venture and investment seminars on Poland. He held them in Montreal, Toronto, and Calgary in January of this year, following through on the arrangements made in November in Moscow when he and the Prime Minister were there. There is no lack of action and no lack of initiative, but a methodical, consistent effort to move on in this era of transition.
The department is getting very practical in this area. It has produced a very useful booklet. I do not know how many members who are criticizing the government for lack of initiative have read it. It is called: A Guide to Business Opportunities in Poland. This is exactly the kind of thing that the former minister did not hear when the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke. He is not hearing it now because, where there is no willingness to hear, there will be nothing heard.
Canadians are actively pursuing opportunities in eastern Europe, whether it be through education, new economic activity, business opportunities, supporting democratic reforms, or working within NATO and other organizations for military climate change. Those people do know. We have passed beyond rhetoric to bringing in an new order here.
We have signed or are signing double taxation and foreign investment protection agreements with countries in eastern and central Europe in order to promote further Canadian investment. The negotiation and signing of those treaties is a response. That is a Canadian initiative.
So, let us not hear any more from those who are timid in their evaluation of Canadian effort. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing, other than our perpetual Canadian capacity to sell ourselves short and to see the glass as being half empty instead of half full.
We have extended the general preferential tariff status to countries like Poland, Hungary, and Romania to help them get better access to the Canadian market. These are initiatives. This is positive action by the government facing the new realities in central and eastern Europe.
The Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs held meetings with 35 Canadian business leaders at the end of April, continuing the process of implementation and carrying through, in order to signal our government's intention to expand the program in this area. That is what we are doing.

May 31, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The member said there is no way that Canadian effort is being co-ordinated. Has he not heard of the formation of the task force on central and east Europe? It is not sitting at External Affairs over in the Lester B. Pearson Building on Sussex Drive, but right here in downtown Ottawa where other departments can be readily involved in its activities and where Canadians from across the country and foreign visitors who are here can deal with it. This is a great effort to bring together, in a concerted way, the initiatives that we are taking.
At the meeting at the end of April, it was agreed that the Canadian government should concentrate on technical assistance and management training, exactly the things I have been mentioning. It was also agreed that we should take a prudent approach at this time and avoid committing large sums of money. Rather, we should facilitate a program that will develop all kinds of connections and linkages between Canadians and the people in those countries, not just government to government, but individual to individual and organization to organization.
The work of the York University Professor Michel Chevalier in developing twinnings between Canadian community colleges and regions in eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R. is very important for the technical training of people. The Fund for Democracy, developed by a number of people of Czechoslovak background who are now Canadians, has gathered from the private sector across the country funds, supplies, and teachers who are in Czechoslovakia teaching the English language.
Last Saturday at the conference in Etobicoke-Lake-shore, one of the organizers of that Fund for Democracy explained that over $7 million in goods and services have already been made available in Czechoslovakia. It is not only the governments but many other organizations that are developing this entire network. That is the strength of relations at many levels between sovereign countries. The network we are weaving together is fundamental and it is certainly a good example of the many initiatives which our government is taking. It is a positive response. For once let us, as Canadians, start to celebrate some of the successes of our foreign policy.
I am not sure how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker, but I have been informed that the parliamentary secretary would like to raise a point of order at this time. I will yield the floor to him.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member's comments, I am sure that the House would be happy to give him quite a bit more time. He has made very interesting remarks. I apologize for interrupting him with this point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following three motions as there, have been discussions among the three parties. I move:
That the number of allotted days for the Supply period ending on June 30, 1990, be reduced by one.
I also move:
That Monday, June 4, 1990, be designated an allotted day; and Wednesday, June 6, 1990, be designated as the last allotted day for the current Supply period, on which day the provisions of Standing Order 81(16) shall apply.
I move further:
That, effective Thursday, June 7, 1990, and for the subsequent nine sitting days in the month of June, 1990, the House sit the following hours:
Mondays from 1 o'clock p.m. to 10 o'clock p.m.;
Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 o'clock a.m. to 10 o'clock p.m.; Wednesdays from 2 o'clock p.m. to 10 o'clock p.m.;
Fridays, from 10 o'clock a.m. to 3 o'clock p.m.;
Provided that
on such Tuesdays and Thursdays the House will not sit from 1 o'clock p.m. to 2 o'clock p.m., unless Ministers' Statements and replies to them have extended the morning sitting; and on Wednesday, June 13, 1990, at 5 o'clock p.m. the House adjourn any debate then underway and then the House stand adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. on Thursday, June 14, 1990; and following adoption of this Order, a motion pursuant to Standing Order 27(1) and (2) not be receivable.
Further, Mr. Speaker, there has been agreement among the three parties that there will be no quorum calls or dilatory motions between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on any of the days that the House is sitting those extended hours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the motions that the parliamentary secretary has just presented to the House are indeed agreed to by all parties.
May 31, 1990

I want to say on behalf of the Official Opposition that, notwithstanding the excessive use of closure and time allocation throughout this Parliament we have, for the last several weeks, witnessed very considerable co-operation on the part of both this party and the New Democratic Party in assisting the government with its legislative program. Indeed, that co-operation has been shown throughout the Parliament. In spite of that co-operation we have been met with closure and time allocation time and again.
I am delighted to see that the government has changed its ways and has apparently given up on this abuse of our rules and is now proposing a series of proposals for hours of sitting which will effectively wrap up the business of the session, we anticipate, by June 20.
I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his co-operation in the negotiations that we have carried on together and say that we are pleased that we have been able to achieve agreement on these motions. I know all members will be delighted with the results of the changes and that we can get the business wrapped up in a timely way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands on the same point of order.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. For the viewing audience, I think what the previous speaker meant was, we agree. And we also agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think there is any necessity for another shot, but I will listen to the hon. member on the same point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would not take a shot at the hon. member. I wanted to confirm the agreement in respect of the dilatory motions and quorum calls between 6 and 8 p.m. on the days when the extended sittings are held and the fact that there will be none permitted.
I do not disagree with what the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has just said. Indeed, I hope that my comments indicated our agreement. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his efforts in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motions. Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous agreement to move the motions?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet.
Mr. William Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the previous speaker to comment on any political changes that may have taken place over the past year or several months leading up to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are going to questions and comments now because the hon. parliamentary secretary's 20 minutes have terminated. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton has just asked him a question.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, you have put such clarity into our proceedings at this juncture that no one could be misguided as to where we are.
In answering the question from the member for Victoria-Haliburton, I would like to say that it is very important that we do look at the political changes as well as the economic changes. It is a fundamental part of Canadian foreign policy that we see political rights and economic changes as being very closely linked.
Just a year ago in China, for example, after a decade of economic change but a failure to have the political change and the individual rights going along with it, there was a real problem because reform and progress cannot march on one leg, it must march on the two together.
In the political changes as well as the economic changes, Canada has been quite actively participating in central and eastern Europe. We are developing a political co-operation program that will ensure that the democratic gains can be sustained in this period of turbulence and radical transformation in a lot of these countries where there have not been free elections for half a century or more.

May 31, 1990
Supply
We are looking at the judiciary, law reform, elections, human rights and the media. Again, these are areas where Canada can provide some specific technical information, assistance and support. Other areas include co-operation on financial planning, health services, environmental concerns-which is desperately needed-and telecommunications, another area of great Canadian strength.
Beyond that there are a lot of really specific detailed initiatives that we have taken to see that Canada is in there and working where it counts, supporting those countries which need the help and responding to their requests. The $40,000 which has gone to Radio-Canada International for equipment and training for the radio networks in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland would be one example. Another would be disposable syringes and further medical supplies to meet the immediate health requirements of Romania. We provided over $500,000 worth of that. Elections Canada provided over $200,000 of financial assistance to Czechoslovakia for the holding of their free elections.
The member for Victoria-Haliburton would also appreciate knowing that we have done little things like providing a $7,000 computer in Bulgaria to help them run their election. We even provided the paper for it. These things may seem pretty trivial when we are talking about some of the global changes, but in fact that is once again where Canadians come through; with the specifics on time, in place and where they are needed. That was the same reasoning that led us to put $10,000 worth of books in the main library at Bucharest University to help replace a lot of the collection that had been destroyed by fire during their revolution in December.
There are programs of training and information exchange on parliamentary procedures. This is something of interest again to all members of Parliament. The Speaker of the House of Commons has been having interns from some of these countries come here to observe the procedures and methods that we follow. The first of these programs was with Poland in March of this year. Our Speaker is currently arranging to have a group from Czechoslovakia following their election on June 8.
These are further examples of the positive initiatives that cause me to say with pride that, yes, Canada is responding in a way that is consistent with the longstanding foreign policy of this country to help other countries help themselves.
Again, we do not have a blueprint of how others should run themselves. We are happy to work with them and provide real support to go beyond nostalgia to a new order.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has just given us, I would say, a puffed up list of things that the government has been doing. He has addressed particularly the situation in eastern European countries and almost totally neglected in his litany what Canada might be doing in the Soviet Union.
He criticizes us on this side of the House for talking about a glass being half empty rather than half full, saying that we were taking a negative perspective of things. I have returned from the Soviet Union and the feeling there that was expressed to us was that the half glass has evaporated.
I wonder, just as a beginning point, what this government is considering doing with our diplomatic presence in the Soviet Union. Obviously to be more of a presence to the Soviet Union and to help them we must have more of a presence within the country and exhibit in that way our commitment to a relationship with the Soviet Union.
It was most unfortunate that when the President of the Soviet Union, President Gorbachev, was here, he did not address this House. I wonder if he felt that he did not know what to address. His comment when our Prime Minister was there was, "What kept you? Why weren't you here before?" The sense there is that there is a lack of communication, there is a lack of commitment. We have made overtures but they have resulted in nothing. I do not know what the parliamentary secretary would have to respond to that.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about lack of communication following two days of discussions between our Prime Minister and our Secretary of State for External Affairs with President Gorbachev and Foreign Secretary Shevardnadze here in our capital. I do not know what she wants in the way of communication that would surpass that. That is at the highest level but it reflects that there is, throughout the system, an awful lot of discussion and dialogue taking place that two years ago no one even contemplated.



*

May 31, 1990

The business council between Canada and the U.S.S.R. was specifically created by our government's initiative not to see the Canadian government doing everything there but to put in place a framework where Canadian business people and entrepreneurs could themselves move into that situation. Just as they have found abysmal failure in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe with state directed economies, we have long recognized the importance of the market economy and having our entrepreneurs there. So our government is creating the framework for Canadians to be in there.
The list of specific examples that I was able to give could have gone on but we all speak under time limits here. If she thinks that is a puffed up account, then I am really going to listen with great interest to the substance of her speech which the House will be hearing in a few moments, because I really do lament that someone would look at the specific examples that I have given of Canadian public servants, Canadian business people and educators who are over there. They are travelling as well as the member to the Soviet Union and to places in eastern and central Europe. They are doing a great deal. A lot of them spoke with the eloquence of practical action about the things that they are doing.
To answer the final point of her intervention on diplomatic representation, Canada is very well served by our representatives at our embassy in Moscow. We are looking to expand that with the full service of the consulate in Kiev. The progress in opening that has not been as rapid as any of us would have wanted and we are redoubling our efforts on that.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps nothing better demonstrates to any of us how difficult it really is to move on the ground in some of these countries than the amount of time it has taken to open the consulate. We are committed to doing that. It will happen, there is no doubt about that, but it is not the same as opening a business office in Vancouver. We are dealing with a very different set up and arrangement on the ground. There are a lot of problems that any Canadian would not think would even be a surprise. There are real problems and we are working to overcome them.
I hope that members of the Canadian Parliament would find it in their hearts to be encouraging and
Supply
supportive so that the real progress is recognized. Let us have more ideas about the next steps to take rather than lamenting the good steps that have already been taken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Erie on a very short question or comment.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to the parliamentary secretary. Our government has been admonished by not only this Liberal member but by the member for Winnipeg South Centre. I want to deal specifically with agriculture initiatives. The member for Winnipeg South Centre indicated that the Dutch were into one of the countries and had a model program going there.
Will the parliamentary secretary give the House a bit of detail on how many farmers will benefit from the initiative that our government is taking. How many farmers will benefit from that program and about how many Canadian dollars are being spent on those kinds of agricultural initiatives?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the question sounded specific enough but the answer, I am afraid, has to be fairly general because we are talking about initiatives in a lot of different countries. For example, a number of Polish farmers will be coming to Canada this year for training, the cost of that being absorbed by the Government of Canada. There is obviously some economic benefit from that. I think that is almost secondary to the training and experience those farmers will get.
If you look at it the other way, what we have been sending to Poland in terms of food aid, while there is a specific figure in the amount of $12 million, the money spent here on such things as pork, canola seed, oil, wheat has gone to the market.
The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds is currently leading a delegation of industry representatives to Moscow and Geneva to discuss these issues. He will be looking at the terms of grain sales agreements between Canada and the Soviet Union. The member for Winnipeg South Centre dismissed any government action. In fact, here is a trade mission on its way to deal exactly with what the Secretary of State reported progress on this morning.

May 31, 1990
Supply
The existing agreement calls for a minimum purchase of 25 million tonnes of Canadian wheat and feed grains over a five-year period. It can be seen from that alone that there is significant continuing activity.
Not only the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, but the Minister of Agriculture was in Poland some weeks ago-and with a name like Mazankowski, I think we are all proud to have our agriculture minister go to Poland-when it was announced that Canada would be sending food aid in the amount of $72 million through the stabilization program for Poland.
There are a lot more details and I am glad to have a chance to provide a few of them. The story is a good one. My plea is a simple one. There are successes in Canadian foreign policy in this area and it is high time we all recognized that fact.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today to speak to the motion of our party before the House.
I want to address the events taking place in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I regret the lack of clear policy by the government in defining a new Canadian role in response to events there.
I want to confine my remarks to defining the new Canadian role in response to events taking place in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
I begin my comments this afternoon by stating that, with other members of the external affairs committee, having studied Canada's relation to east Europe and the Soviet Union, I am particularly concerned with Third World affairs, but very interested in the changing role of Canada in the world vis-a-vis east Europe and the Soviet Union. I came away from meetings on my recent trip to the Soviet Union and the Germanys with the sense that the world is wondering what Canada is doing.
Although many Canadians are not that aware of it, the world knows what is going on in Canada. Very often throughout our questioning of newly elected deputies in the Soviet Union and East Germany, many of the questions that we had about unity, disunity, coming together, falling apart, in some instances came back to haunt us. The east Europeans said "Well, what are you doing in Canada?" Canada is the country that is supposed to be exemplar in the world, that brings together so many cultures and religions and has lived harmoniously. They know what is happening here. They look to us for an example. I hope in the coming days we will not prove them wrong.
Besides wondering what is happening within our country, there is a sense of wonderment beyond that. There is a sense that Canada has lost its prestige in the international world, that Canada is becoming marginalized, that Canada is a spectator rather than an actor in what is happening on the world stage, that Canada is not being as creative, visionary and responsive to changing circumstances as it could be. These facts I listen to and watch. I believe that there is quite a bit of truth to them. It is very important for Canada to define a new role in response to events that are occurring around this world, particularly in east Europe, the Soviet Union and with the unification of the Germanys. We are lagging behind and must do more to show our commitment to the change that is occurring and to help to ensure that that change is for the benefit of all of the people of those countries and regions of the world.
I would like to quote from the speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that was alluded to by my colleagues earlier. I think it brings to us as Canadians many points with which I can agree. There does seem to be a lack of coherence in government policies addressing many of the points that he raises.
In his speech in Toronto of last Saturday, he said: "Virtually no other nation possesses the web of intense personal connections to eastern and central Europe which we have in Canada. That gives us a special interest and a special capacity in helping those societies become prosperous and free."
After visiting the Soviet Union, you realize just how much we share in common with the Soviet Union with it being a multicultural, multi-ethnic, a country of many diverse religions such as we have in Canada. Through their lack of freedom, however, they have not had the opportunities to express the tolerance that we have in Canada. We are a diverse society. For example, Canada has the largest Ukrainian population outside the Soviet Union.
This week we met with Armenian Canadians. We have some Canadian citizens who understand the culture and the language that is represented by the many republics in the Soviet Union. Canada should take advantage of these characteristics and promote relations in as many diverse ways as possible. This is something that Cana-
May 31, 1990

dians we do not recognize and are not taking full advantage of.
"Canada's stake in Europe should not be taken for granted", our Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to say. This is certainly the truth but what we are doing in actuality would not suggest the veracity of this statement. As said before, there is a feeling in the Soviet Union and the Germanys that Canada is sitting back and waiting to see what is going to happen before taking sufficient action.
The minister went on to say: "Canada's wishes will not necessarily determine Canada's role. Powerful new economic and political forces are at work, forces over which Canada has limited influence." Canada has the potential for much more influence in the situation in east Europe and the Soviet Union than we exhibit by our actions right now. Because of our characteristics and because of our training capacities in many areas, we can contribute.
I come back to some of the specific ways that the Soviet Union and the Germanys asked us to become involved; some of the ways that were expressed to us and some of the ways that seem obvious to us where Canada could improve its role. I go back to my critical remarks about our diplomatic presence in the Soviet Union. I raised this yesterday in the House in a standing order. I recognize that our embassy in Moscow has gone through difficult times with the recall of nine staff people who were well qualified.
With no more cost whatsoever involved, our government ought to make a commitment to putting personnel into our embassies who are fluent in Soviet languages, not just one Soviet language but Soviet languages. If we cannot communicate with people on the street, if we become isolated in our embassies and within the diplomatic community, we are going to be unable to influence change in the Soviet Union as is required.
Without language, without knowledge of Soviet culture and Soviet ways, we simply cannot succeed. When meeting with people in the Soviet Union, they spoke to us of the different ways in which they felt Canada could become involved. As one steps off the plane in the Soviet Union, the very first thing that confronts you is the environment.
Supply
It is interesting that the first words we heard President Gorbachev speak when he arrived in Canada was how clear our air was. He suggested that our Prime Minister ought to tax it. I was very happy to hear that our Prime Minister had no intention of doing that. But I found it very telling that that would be President Gorbachev's first perspective of our country. In reverse, my first impression after arriving in the Soviet Union was the awful environmental problem they have.
The very air one breathes is obviously polluted. In fact, we learned of the very few people we have in our embassy in Moscow, there are two adults who have been there a year and a half and have developed allergies. These people who never had allergies before. This speaks, from their point of view, of the dreadful situation of pollution that exists in that country.
Pollution is in the air and in the water. It is obvious it is there, but the impact of the environmental degradation is not really appreciated or studied. Certainly, the average person in the Soviet Union does not seem to be aware of the environmental degradation.
The main problem in the environment to which they allude with some regularity is the Chernobyl disaster and its massive negative impact on their society. However, even acknowledging the environmental disaster, there is a frustration on behalf of the Soviet people about dealing with the situation. In fact, the tendency appeared to us to be more one of wanting to ignore the problem and get on to other issues which were seen to be more significant.
My impression was that there was a lot that Canada could do to work with the Soviet Union to try to help those people overcome their environmental problems. At the same time, it would help us, as was mentioned by a previous speaker, to be more aware of our own environmental problems. Through co-operation, we could achieve a better environment for the whole world. As we all know, environment knows no borders. When one sees what is happening there and know that the same degradation can be affecting the quality of our life here, it behoves us to urgently address the situation.
We were specifically asked for assistance in agriculture. The thought was that the agricultural system in Canada is excellent. President Gorbachev visited Canada previously in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture and was very impressed with what we were doing. It was felt

May 31, 1990
Supply
that in the areas of food distribution and processing, we would have a lot to offer to the Soviet Union.
Having visited the market in Kiev, where one was beginning to see a slight move to the free market economy in terms of being able to sell excess produce, one realizes what a difficulty they had with food distribution. Some of the sellers in the market had travelled
6,000	kilometres by plane with lemons and oranges from the south to sell at 5, 7 or 10 roubles each. They were able to bring the fruit in suitcases by plane and make a profit. There were serious problems there. We were devastated to hear that the Soviet Union was contemplating nuclear testing in the north. It requested economic assistance and assistance with joint ventures.
The parliamentary secretary has talked about what is being supposedly supported in this country in terms of joint ventures in the private sector, but we know that there are many industries and businesses in the private sector in Canada that have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate business in the Soviet Union but have felt that Canada has not provided sufficient seed money or guarantees to make business possible. There is much more wc can be doing in this way.
Human resource development is seen as a priority and a must particularly in management no matter what the business is, including agriculture, but there is the thought that management development should be linked to joint ventures so that the management training has discipline and focus to it.
We talked to many newly elected deputies who spoke to us of their bewilderment about Canada's role within their country, being aware of the fact that our Prime Minister had visited the country and had signed 14 agreements. They seem to have gone into limbo as far as they were concerned. The half glass of water had evaporated. They were asking us what had happened.
There is a definite lack of communication between this government and the governments of the Soviet Union. There is a lack of communication and a lack of consultation and certainly we in this House have felt that lack of communication and consultation as well in terms of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
We hope that our study of the last year will have an impact on what our policies will be in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, but there should be regular consultation and communication on a regular basis between parliamentarians and the Department of External Affairs.
One of the concerns I have is Canada's difficulty in defining a new role in response to the events there. We have within our own government conflicting views of what we should be doing. Recently we have noticed this conflict in regard to NATO. The Minister of National Defence responded to questions during Question Period of May 17 as follows:
As a mix of deterrents in the defensive alliance, NATO, we have to
maintain the mix that has been successful in keeping peace in Europe
for 45 years.
That was the Minister of National Defence. Yet, we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs saying that NATO must review urgently and comprehensively all aspects of its nuclear and conventional strategy.
It makes little sense to retain nuclear weapons whose only target can be our new friends in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. It makes little sense to retain a military strategy which is based on a scenario of a surprise attack across a front which no longer exists and where surprise is no longer possible. It makes little sense to continue to retain in Europe the largest peacetime deployment of military force in the history of the world.
We have conflict among the departments of this government in terms of defining our Canadian role in response to changing events in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We cannot possibly develop the proper policies when we have these conflicts that the government itself is not resolving. Certainly there is a lack of coherence in policies among departments. My studies in the area of international human rights have certainly highlighted this.
One of the issues that I would like to address briefly before leaving this subject is security and Canada's relationships with eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We all realize that the military security risk has diminished tremendously with the new peace initiatives glas-nost and hopefully perestroika in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. However, we hope that with the diminishing of the military security risk east-west, there will be peace dividends deriving from this in a north-south direction.
May 31, 1990

The security issue is now north-south rather than east-west. The world must recognize that as much effort must be put into keeping peace in a north-south direction where it is not so much arms-but that is not out of the question-but poverty which is a security risk, the new greatest threat to our world, and environmental degradation which we are all so concerned about derives from poverty. There are many ways that Canada can define its role with changing events in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We must not be the lazy fat cat that sits back watching what is going on. Rather, I believe Canada can be the mouse that roared.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We must act now to help move toward peace and security with changes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe right now by doing everything we can to hasten that process.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on an excellent address which covered many of the aspects of our relationship with the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
It is clear that her recent visit to those countries has been a source of enrichment in terms of her understanding of the problems confronting them and how Canada can effectively contribute to their solution.
I would like to ask her to draw upon her experiences during her recent trip to comment on a few specific aspects, particularly in light of the comments during debate today, about the Canadian presence in the Soviet Union not keeping up with the new demands that have been placed upon it.
Based on her recent trip and her observations made in Moscow and other parts of the Soviet Union, what new demands are being placed on our diplomats and foreign service people in the Soviet Union? Where is the most urgent need for us to beef up our presence and facilitate the transition which is taking place in that country?


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Other than the environment being one of the first things that struck us on arrival in the Soviet Union, the second was that we had so little staff in our embassy there. We were very grateful for their gracious hosting of our group and for their great effort to make us
Supply
comfortable and to make our meetings and visit profitable. I believe that happened.
However, we also felt that they were working under severe neglect and circumstances that could be corrected. It is very difficult to go into a situation such as exists in the Soviet Union and integrate oneself, make valuable contacts, and be able to negotiate with the people if one cannot speak the language and does not fully understand their culture.
We do know there was a diplomatic furore some months ago which caused some well qualified people in our embassy there to leave the country. I think that our Department of External Affairs should look at the qualifications of staff going to our embassies and consulates.
There is supposedly a consulate opening in Kiev. It has been delayed, but I have a sense from talking to people in the mission there that perhaps the necessary aggressive action was not being taken on the part of our government to push for the opening of that consulate.
It was also obvious that we needed a consulate in Leningrad, one of the chief economic regions of the Soviet Union. We heard earlier from another colleague of the general lack of consulates and embassies in east Europe and the Soviet Union.
There was the sense in West Germany that Canada could be doing a lot more in East Germany through West Germany. In that embassy we need a lot more Canadian facilitators who speak German and who speak languages of east European countries. We have those resources in our country because of our multicultural nature. Mr. Speaker, you know those resources are here. We should be capitalizing on them to augment and improve our way of relating and carrying on business in that part of the world.


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


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause. It should encourage me to deliver a speech today that will be earth shattering, people moving, and whatever else goes with it.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House today on the very topical question of east Europe and our policies in defence, trade, and foreign affairs. I do not think any members of the House have been anything

May 31, 1990
Supply
short of captivated by the startling events which have swept through the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
I listened fairly closely to the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Northumberland and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Though I want to develop my speech today around defence issues primarily, I want to touch on a couple of economic issues.
I brought with me two or three news releases. This is something the House is already aware of. It is history, but I want to bring forward that these are initiatives that the government has taken. We have not been asleep at the switch:
Minister Signs Protocol with the Soviet Union Ottawa, Sept. 11, 1989 -
I am reading from the press release:
-Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, Don Mazankowski loday officially concluded negotiations under the Fourth Canada-U.S.S.R. Mixed Agricultural Commission-in Moscow-the focus of the 1989 MAC was decidedly commercial - While we are anxious to transfer our technological expertise, our business community must take the lead in determining the conditions of the agreement.
Another one reads:
Deputy Prime Minister to Lead Business Delegation to Poland
Ottawa, March 27, 1990 -Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture-will lead a delegation of senior Canadian business people on a trade and investment mission to Poland, April 4-7 -
"Our primary goal for this mission is to develop economic and trade co-operation -and to encourage a broader range of contacts-
Then the April 2, 1990 press release reads:
Mayer to Discuss Trade Issues in Moscow and Geneva
-Grains and Oilseeds Minister-Mayer is leading a delegation of industry representatives to Moscow and Geneva to discuss trade issues this week.
Mr. Mayer will be in Moscow until April 4 -
The conclusion of that page reads:
Accompanying Mr. Mayer in the Soviet Union are Bill Reid of Canadian Bronze, Pat Shimbashi of Diamond S Products and Paul Klein of the Winchester Group.
This indicates to all of us that there have been economic initiatives by the government to see that there will be trade with what has been known as the Warsaw Pact countries. Initiatives are being taken. As a result of
this there are and will be tremendous opportunities available to Canadians. I think it is important that we put that on the record today.
I want to read in part the opposition motion today which says that it regrets that there is a lack of clear policy by the government to address the serious issues of trade, commercial relations, and agricultural agreements. What utter nonsense for the opposition to make statements like that when we have the proof positive right here. The proof is in the pudding and we have it. We have been taking initiatives.
One is absolutely right if someone is going to ask: "Have you done all you can do?" Absolutely not. There is much more that can be done. That is a big piece of geography. We are looking at a population in eastern Europe that would give us a tremendous amount of opportunity for us to sell our products and sell our expertise. I know that as Canadians we are going to accept that challenge.
The member for Northumberland had charged us with not being responsible for filling the need for diplomatic officials in Russia and in some of the other countries. I think that is true, but we have not been asleep at the switch. I was pleased that she had the honesty to say that we have to bear in mind that some of these officials had to leave Russia. It is going to take time for us to fill those vacancies and I know we are going to follow through. We also need to put that in the context of the dramatic changes that have taken place in eastern Europe which have happened so quickly.
I would differ with the opposition motion not only in those initiatives that we have taken in agriculture and other commercial initiatives, but with the claim that the government has not been clear in setting out the impact of these momentous changes on Canadian policy.
I would submit that Canada, acting in concert with NATO allies, has been consistent and constructive in adapting our policies to those recent developments. The changes which have transformed eastern Europe and the Soviet Union just over this past 12 months have truly been startlingly.
May 31, 1990

In essence, the process of foreign and domestic policy reform in these countries will redraw the political landscape of Europe as we have known it since 1945, four and a half decades. There are new governments in Poland, East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We have witnessed the fury of the Romanian revolution which deposed the Ceausescu regime.
Finally, there is the prospect of German reunification, possibly the most concrete sign that the cold war is fading into the annals of history. Far from being unsettled by these developments, Canada and the other alliance countries are encouraged by the spread of democracy and political independence to the eastern European countries. These recent developments have the potential to bring to fruition NATO's long standing goal of a more genuine and lasting peace on the European continent.
For the NATO countries, an essential part of this more stable peace lies in the speedy conclusion and implementation of an agreement on conventional forces in Europe currently under negotiation in Vienna, the so-called CFE agreement.
The impact of this agreement and its accompanying regime of intrusive verification on European security will indeed be enormous. Once implemented, the prospective CFE agreement will drastically reduce the possibility of surprise attack and large scale offensive action, something which has been a fundamental NATO arms control objective from the very beginning.
Although both sides have made much progress toward an agreement, some important issues remain to be settled and the NATO countries call on the Warsaw Pact nations to work with the alliance in resolving these remaining issues.
Canada also believes that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should play a much larger role in facilitating a more just and a more stable peace on the continent. As my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, noted in a speech at the University of Toronto last weekend: "The role of the CSCE must now be expanded so that it becomes a drawing board for the new European architecture. As a complement to NATO, the CSCE can become a true instrument of
Supply
co-operative security, one which would supplement deterrence with reassurance". Similar sentiments on the role of the CSCE were expressed by the NATO defence ministers in their final communique of the recent Defence Planning Committee meeting in Brussels.
It is precisely because the events of the last 12 months have been so fundamental in their impact that we are able to contemplate these happy prospects. At the same time, we must be realistic about some of the dangers which still face us. There remain aspects of the European security environment which call for us to be both prudent and deliberate as we contemplate how we might change the structures of western security, structures which have served us so well over the past four decades.
First of all, it is important to remember that even after the implementation of a CFE agreement, the Soviet Union will retain the most powerful conventional and nuclear forces in Europe. We need to remind ourselves of that fact. This underlines the need for western countries to continue the type of successful collective defence arrangements that NATO has embodied for this past 40 years.
Certainly no one will lament the passing of the cold war, but drawing down the military stand-off in Europe will require a disciplined, co-ordinated effort on the part of the NATO countries so that at each stage of this process, the alliance can retain military forces which are adequate to its security requirements.
In the wake of the CFE agreement, some reduction in defence spending can be expected, and NATO recently decided that its long-standing goal of having alliance defence budgets grow at an annual rate of 3 per cent is no longer appropriate. However, although the precise levels will vary with national circumstances, the determining factor for the alliance countries will continue to be the ability to field forces which are adequate to NATO's missions of deterrence and of defence. We should also remember that there will be substantial costs attached to the verification and to the implementation of the CFE treaty itself.
To return to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on May 26, I quote: "Twelve months does not invalidate the lessons of history. The possibility of instability is there and Soviet military capabilities

May 31, 1990
Supply
remain substantial. Therefore, a strong military mandate for NATO continues to be valid and the North American commitment to Europe represented by the presence of Canadian and American troops there is crucial as we strive for strategic stability at significantly lower levels of military force".
Beyond the need to maintain a stable military balance in Europe, it is important for us to remain aware that rapid and fundamental change, the sort that we are witnessing today in Europe, can be an inherently unstable process. To ensure that the changing nature of European politics remains on a peaceful path, NATO can and indeed should remain a cornerstone of European security, providing a body where some difficult western security issues, from arms control to German unification, can be dealt with in a co-ordinated fashion.
In summary, the alliance has committed itself to seizing the current opportunities to further its longstanding goal of a more stable peace in Europe, one where military forces are required only to prevent war and to ensure self-defence. NATO will retain its general principles of deterrence and defence, but will do so with the lowest possible force levels and a strategy which is appropriate to the new circumstances.
Thus, when representatives from the alliance countries convened the recent nuclear planning group meeting at Kananaskis, Alberta, they reaffirmed NATO's need to base its security on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces. I must emphasize that throughout the troubled history of East-West relations, nuclear weapons have provided a very powerful inhibition to military conflict, and in my view, the alliance is correct to retain nuclear weapons as an integral part of its deterrent posture for the foreseeable future.
At the same time, however, the alliance agreed that the recent developments in Eastern Europe, coupled with the improving prospects for conventional arms control, suggested a diminishing need for NATO to field short-range nuclear forces. Consonant with this perception, Canada and the other alliance countries welcomed the Bush administration's decision to terminate the modernization of nuclear artillery shells deployed in Europe as well as the development of the follow-on-to-Lance missile.
The nuclear planning group communique welcomed the accelerated timetable for negotiations to reduce land-based short-range nuclear missile systems deployed in Europe, which should commence after the signing of the CFE agreement. As the Soviet Union enjoys a substantial superiority in these systems, NATO reiterated its call for the Soviet Union to carry out substantial reductions in these systems.
At the recent defence planning committee meeting in Brussels, the NATO defence ministers noted that the radical changes in Eastern Europe made it essential that the alliance review its broader military strategy. This review will assess what NATO's defence posture should be in terms of force levels and operational doctrines.
In their final communique the defence ministers went on to say the following:
The alliance is entering a new decade in which it will face unprecedented change and opportunity. In the midst of change, the need for an established and reliable system of collective security will remain undiminished. We shall therefore hold fast to the basic principle of war prevention through deterrence and defence. In adapting our defence efforts to meet the needs of a changing world, we shall ensure that the levels, structures, and operational concepts of our armed forces continue to evolve in a positive and constructive way.
The alliance has already begun to move in this direction. This year's NATO summit, to be held in early July, will consider NATO's role in the transformed Europe of the 1990s. At a more concrete level, the alliance has taken a number of steps which will lower the peacetime readiness of its forces, including changes in its training programs and significant cuts in the size and number of military exercises. Quite apart from the confidencebuilding effect these measures will have, they will also reduce the impact of NATO's military forces on the public, benefit the quality of life, and protect the environment. I think hon. members will agree that these are important components of the much discussed peace dividend.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates that the alliance is adapting with both prudence and with vision to the sweeping changes in Eastern Europe and the uncertain future of European security. In responding to these new developments, NATO does not simply seek to jettison the past for the sake of public relations. Instead, the alliance seeks to adapt its existing policies, those which have provided for the successful management of western security for the past 40 years, in ways which will
May 31, 1990

allow it to contribute to the forging of a more stable and a more lasting peace. Canada, we are proud to say, has been an integral part of this process and fully supports these recent NATO initiatives.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that, contrary to the erroneous suggestions of some observers, there is no disagreement between the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs on these issues. Canada will continue to play an active role in the alliance as it adjusts to a changing Europe, and every attempt will be made to harmonize Canada's contribution to NATO with the events in Europe and the defence policy review currently under way.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it was hard to believe in some instances that we were together on a trip to the Soviet Union and the united Germanys because the way we approach the issue is so different.
My esteemed colleague referred so often to Canada's role in the alliance as if there was to be no change there. Yet what we heard about was the newglasnost, the desire for perestroika, the desire for changes did not include the emphasis on military security and new alliances.
I would like to ask my colleague if he does not agree that our emphasis should be on trade, commercial relations, Arctic security, agricultural agreements, and the many issues that we talked about when we were overseas. We talked about the need for parliamentary exchanges and that even parliamentarians could learn from each other. In particular, new deputies in the Soviet Union were making this request.
It seemed to me that security in the world today derives from civil, political, social, and economic rights and does not come from the end of a gun. Could my esteemed colleague respond to my reflections?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Northumberland. Perhaps our differences are not so pronounced after all, for I agree with much of what she has said. We need to consider civil rights and we need to have parliamentary exchanges. That is a tremendous way to acquire an
Supply
education, to learn to meet people's needs, and to understand each other. That is so very important.
Glasnost is occurring. We are now able to see into countries of which we had only a wee glimpse before. Now the doors and windows are opening. I agree with her on all those comments.
Perhaps where we may have some disagreement is that I believe we, as a government and in NATO, know that the U.S.S.R. is still the world's strongest military nation and has this means at its disposal.
History has proven over the last four and a half decades that we have had the preservation of peace in Europe because NATO has been there and we have been strong. We want that peace to continue. Yet, we know that the amount of military forces there will start to diminish. Those numbers will decrease and we welcome that. However, for us immediately to dissolve NATO- and I am not sure that is what the hon. member is suggesting-would not be an honourable or wise course for us to take.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the hon. member who just spoke and who obviously spoke on behalf of the government. He and I went to the Soviet Union and Germany, and I think he saw for himself how limited the resources of the Department of External Affairs really were. I would like to ask him why, considering increased demand in Soviet Union, our staff, which is barely twenty strong, has not been increased. There was some talk of reassigning certain postings in Western Europe to Eastern Europe. I don't think that is enough, and it's not the right way to proceed. We need additional staff. If Europe 92 is important to the Conservative government, the people who are already there should be left in place, and transfers to Eastern Europe should involve people from headquarters at External Affairs here in Ottawa, if we are to respond to these new demands and obligations.
The hon. member and I also went to Berlin, and we all know that the new dynamics at work in Germany will require particular attention. A number of Western countries have already increased their diplomatic commercial contingent in Berlin.

May 31, 1990
Supply
Unfortunately, Canada has done nothing so far. The number of Canadian representatives posted in Berlin to deal with our needs is still the same as it was several months ago. We are still treating Berlin as an exclusively military mission. I fail to understand this government's failure to respond energetically to new obligations and new trade opportunities for Canada in Eastern Europe and especially in Germany, via Berlin. Could the hon. member give us some good news in this respect or will he at least make a commitment to join me in urging the minister to increase our diplomatic staff in eastern Europe as soon as possible?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel. He has raised some very important and vital issues that our government and Parliament need to address.
Regarding limited staffing, he is absolutely right but, as I indicated to someone else, we need to put that in context. When we look at the events which have unfolded in eastern Europe so quickly in the past 12 months, surely we are not going to be able to respond that quickly to all those changes. The hon. member is aware that some of the diplomatic corps and staff had to leave the U.S.S.R., but that should also be put that on the record as well.
There is no doubt that 1992 is an important year. The possibilities for trade in Europe will be unlike anything we have ever seen before. We as a government need to do everything we can assist people involved in business and people who want to travel. We need do everything we can to see that we get our share of that huge market.
The hon. member mentioned East Germany. It is absolutely going to be a dynamic market for the investment of other countries. We know that. East Germany is going to flourish very quickly because of the reunification and what will take place on July 2 regarding their fiscal agreements.
The returns will be much faster in East Germany. We need to make Canadian business people aware of the tremendous opportunities. In fact, the Germans told us to come into Germany and invest and the returns will be fast.
It is not so in the rest of eastern Europe. The returns there will be much slower. They will be perhaps 10, 15, or 20 years for the returns on investments.
Having been there, I certainly accept the challenge of the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel to make my wishes known to the responsible ministers that we have more people in Europe. We need them. In that regard, I agree with him.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am going to use this opportunity to speak on foreign policy-a too infrequent opportunity in the House to focus on this topic of major concern to our country and to the world-to make a plea for a more coherent foreign policy, and also a plea that Canada take a more activist, internationalist role.
At least the last portion of this debate has focused on our relations with eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Of course, that is where all the action has been in the last year. There have been unbelievable developments in that area. But what we have to remember-and this is why I want to talk about the coherence of foreign policy-is that we have gone way beyond our ability to compartmentalize the world. When events happen as they have done in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe the implications are global. Canada has an absolutely pivotal role in affecting those events and the implications that flow from them.
Canada has a reputation second to none on the international front. Canada has disproportionate influence because of that reputation. There are some, and I consider myself among them, who think that reputation is more as a result of history than as a result of action, at least in the last decade.
As someone who has been active in international development and interested in international affairs for a long time, I feel a good deal of frustration that Canada does not use the influence she has.
I remind the House that Canada is a member of the Commonwealth; the Francophonie; the G-7, the most powerful countries in the world, and has a seat on the UN Security tCouncil. We are the only country in the world that has those kinds of links. We are unique. We are a very humble country, in spite of all this, and I think too humble. We use our influence to too little effect.
May 31, 1990

On this Liberal opposition day, I hope that my contribution to this debate will be to urge Canada to be more activist and more coherent in the development of foreign policy.
Canada should be using its role as a bridge between the developed world and the developing world. As someone who has had the opportunity to travel more in the developing world than in the developed world, I can tell you that Canada has a glowing reputation. I agree with what the Prime Minister said today in his address to the Elouse on the crisis that is confronting us, that the rest of the world looks in amazement that we cannot sort out our own problems.
If we could just step outside ourselves and look at Canada through the eyes of someone from Sudan, Brazil, or El Salvador, the pride that we would feel in what we have achieved would be a motivation to solve our current impasse. But I digress.
Canada should be using its role much more effectively as that bridge between the developed world and the developing world. This is really a global village. When one talks about security and environmental issues, we are in this together and Canada, with its reputation, should be using all those seats, in the Commonwealth, the Francophonie, and the G-7, to a much greater effect.
Our Minister of Finance sits on one of the major councils, the International Monetary Fund. As someone who is on the subcommittee on international debt, I know the kind of influence the International Monetary Fund has in international development and in foreign policy. Foreign policy cannot be distinguished from economic policy or from trade policy. They are all together. That is why I plead for coherence.
We need a vision of what Canada is and of what the world can achieve. This is what I see lacking in Canada now, a lack of vision and direction in foreign policy. It is a tragic loss of opportunity, not just for Canada, but for the world. Canada should be using that role to become not just a peacekeeper. We have a very good reputation in that role. There are many people from my constituency who have served with the armed forces with great distinction in a peacekeeping role; Cyprus is one example. I am not trying to denigrate that role in any way
Supply
when I say that, but we should be extending ourselves beyond peacekeeping to peacemaking.
With all the influence that I know Canada has, this is what we should be doing, peacemaking. We talk about the peace dividend or the sort of economic benefits that will naturally flow from the decreasing tensions, from the lowering of the walls and from the growing sense of trust. Mr. Gorbachev just left our country yesterday and it was like a love-in with him.
We should be using that greater sense of trust to achieve the economic benefits, the peace dividend. What should we do with that peace dividend? We should be developing environmental policy, not just for Canada- of course we should be doing it in Canada-but we should be looking globally to see what we can do internationally because we are a shrinking world.
One trillion dollars per year is spent on arms. That amount defies the imagination. I know it is an awful lot of money. Stephen Lewis, the distinguished former UN ambassador has pointed out that 5 per cent of that trillion, or $50 billion, would permit doubling all health care expenditures for the four billion people of the developing world. We could provide universal immunization for the six deadly preventable diseases for every single infant on the face of this earth.
We talk about environmental degradation and overpopulation. We know the causes of those. It is because people do not have choices. Canada has the ability to contribute to the expansion of those choices for people. We know that population growth and the reasons behind it is, first of all, you have to improve the status of women. Women have to be given choices over the size and spacing of their children. That is a rather ironic thing to say, considering what this House did just this week regarding the choice for women.
It is also the environmental degradation that accrues from over-population. There are nearly six billion people on this planet and projections for population growth are quite horrific. In Canada, we think that we have limitless places to go, and we do, but we do only on the understanding that the environment stays as it is. I also sit on the environment committee and I can assure you the environment is not staying as it is, it is going down the slippery slope very quickly. The advent of global warming is a crisis. The oceans are rising. This will mean

May 31, 1990
Supply
that there is going to be millions of environmental refugees, at a time of burgeoning population growth.
I do not want to be too catastrophic in my descriptions, but we are facing a real crisis. Canada, with its reputation in the Commonwealth, in the Francophonie and in the G-7, should be taking a more activist role. The finance minister and the International Monetary Fund also should be taking a more activist role because people in the developing world have no choice. The reason that their choices are limited is because we, in the developed countries, are not allowing them the choices. We are insisting that because they have this debt, they should pay it. I know I have some friends in the gallery from the banking community. They know, and I know, because I used to work in the banking community myself, that it takes two to make a loan. It takes two to make a bad loan. When a bad loan is made it is not just the debtor who pays, the creditor has to take responsibility as well.
We in the north are partly responsible to the south for our actions. The international debt crisis is not just a Third World problem, it is our problem. It is a world problem and we are all suffering from it. It is not just economic policy, foreign policy, trade policy, finance policy, they all have to be interlinked. I urge this government to have a coherent policy, to have a vision of the world and our place in it and where we can go.
The kind of peace dividend we should consider is one which would help stop the destruction from arms expenditures, the $1 trillion a year in arms expenditures. A number of those dollars go to finance wars in the developing world. Of the 22 million human beings- nearly the population of Canada-killed in warfare since 1945 have died in regional conflicts, many of them in the Third World. This is why Canada has a role.
When Stephen Lewis, our former ambassador to the UN travelled across Canada, he spoke passionately about the importance of the United Nations in a peacekeeping and a peace-generating role. We have to shore up the UN and our international reputation could be used to great effect in that way.
We have a seat on the Security Council. We sought that seat, we bargained for that seat. When I was at the UN last fall many representatives of developing countries spoke to me about their hopes that Canada will use that seat to voice their concerns on the Security Council. They voted for Canada to be on the Security Council. They did so out of a sense of hope because they know that Canada can act as the bridge between the developed and the developing world.
We can do it with overseas development assistance which still is not up to what we promised, .7 per cent of the GNP.
We can take a more activist role in the international debt crisis. We can use Canada's role to a greater effect on the environment. We can be strong in the international fora which our represents attend. We will be listened to and respected. We are not a bit player on the world stage, we are a major player. We have to use that reputation to a much greater effect.
In conclusion, there are few things we can do. We can increase overseas development assistance, use Canada's reputation to solve the international debt crisis, and concern ourselves with the environmental degradation of our world. We can use our reputation and technical abilities to that end and use Canada as a peacemaker rather than a peacekeeper.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to get this Parliament, and I am not blaming anyone in particular, to have a wide-ranging debate on international affairs. I have noticed that members seem to be somewhat reluctant to show a concern for international problems, as if these were not important to their constituents. That is why I want to say to young Canadians who are listening to us today that in a country like Canada, any federal member of Parliament who is worth his salt should be concerned about the international situation. After all, isn't that what federal members are for?

Our esteemed colleague said that we should be more active in an international role. I wish we had, as members of Parliament of Canada, an international activist group of people. I assure her that I will buy the first membership card.
Mr. Gorbachev came to Canada in 1983. I had the honour to chair the first meeting on foreign affairs and national defence with Mr. Gorbachev. I say things today that may sound unusual but I had to twist many arms, in
May 31, 1990

a friendly way of course, to make members attend that meeting. It turned out to be one of the most successful meetings to have ever taken place. In my view, it was because of the personality of Mr. Gorbachev. Yet, at that time, so many people tried to block that meeting. I am not mentioning any party in particular or any individual.
I had a close friendship with the Soviet ambassador, Mr. Yakovlev for ten years in Canada. In the early 1970s, people were afraid to be afraid, security services were afraid to see you too often with people who were not considered to be too kosher. I say this to please my friend, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. But, some members at that time dared to be different in foreign affairs.
I rejoice today when I see what is taking place between east and west. I rejoice at what I see taking place in South Africa, even though I believe officially, at the risk of being embarrassed, that we should now reach out to the Government of South Africa, to encourage them before this becomes an explosion of hate; hate between white, hate between black, and hate between black and white. That is what I predict could happen. The time has come for all parliamentarians who dare to reach out even though some say it may not be the right time.

This Saturday, I will speak at Lafontaine Park in Montreal, together with a number of people we French Canadians in the Quebec Liberal Party do not meet very often. The will include Mr. Larose of the CSN, Ms. Hard, a member for the Parti Quebecois, Pauline Julien and several others. There are going to be quite a few speeches. Mine will be about a subject that is rarely mentioned in Parliament. I see my hon. friend to whom I referred earlier, and I can look him straight in the eye and tell him that as far as I am concerned, in the past 25 years one of the last powder kegs remaining on this planet is the terrible situation in the Middle East. However, when a member of Parliament admits to concerns of this kind, you know how they are treated in this country. I say this publicly and with regret, because I believe that if the State of Israel exists, it has a right to be secure. But I also think that if we have the kind of vision the hon. member for the NDP mentioned earlier, we must consider what the threats are to this state's security. What can threaten its security is a refusal to
Supply
seek solutions to the incredible problem of the Palestinian community-I am not going to get controversial today-of those Palestinians who are a living unit.
Oh, these feelings of hate that keep getting worse! Hate between Israelis-I mentioned earlier the hate between Blacks and hate between Whites in South Africa, and hate between Blacks and Whites-well, I have seen this happening for a long time. I have said it so many times, and sometimes I feel as though I am the only one who realizes that it is these long standing feelings of hatred that have caused the whole tragedy that is Lebanon.
I knew Lebanon when it was a paradise on earth. However, and I am getting to my question, they didn't want to deal with the problem at the time, and today, there seems to be the same reluctance to resolve this problem of hostility between the State of Israel and the Arab countries and between Israel and the Palestinians, and now between Israelis and between people who live in Israel.
I wonder why Canadians are so afraid to react. I could go on for hours on this subject. I would like to ask the hon. member whether with all her importants concerns-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the hon. member would put his question. If there is no one else who wants to ask a question, I will allow the member a supplementary.


Marcel Prud'homme: In all the preoccupations that you have expressed, of which I am well aware, is that part of the world also one of your preoccupations when you tell us that we should be more active in international affairs?


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I think the events of today absolutely demonstrate what I was saying. There is too little opportunity to speak about foreign policy. What happens is that we try to lump it all together, and I am as guilty of that as anyone else.
What we have to do in this country is realize that we are living in an evolving world. I am not just talking about foreign policies. I am talking about words as well and redefining what security means. What does security mean? It does not mean more armaments in Palestine and Lebanon. It is not making them more secure. It does not mean more armaments for South Africa or southern

May 31, 1990
Supply
Africa. That is for certain. It does not make any of us feel more secure.
I do not want to get too cerebral here, but we are talking about a way of looking at ourselves as world citizens, just as we have managed with the Charest report to put aside partisan interests. On a world scale, we should be able to put aside national interests when we are talking about the environment or peace. I think we are capable of getting there. There is hope-I am an optimistic person-that is out there with respect to the events of last year, extending through this year. It shows what we are capable of. In Canada, we should be using our position to more greatly affect bringing that kind of world vision to fruition.
Mirs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland): Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this short.
I think my colleague will agree, but I want her to comment. One of our concerns with the detente occurring in the east-west and the lessening of the military threat is the transfer of arms trade from east-west to north-south. There has been far too much of the arms trade north-south. I am wondering if she is equally concerned about the change, our government not specifically addressing it but suggesting that our own arms industry should be converting to peaceful measures, such as technology for the environment.
Second, when she referred to coherence in policy with the government, one of my major concerns-I still get questions about this-was the specific situation of our Prime Minister going to the Caribbean and forgiving Caribbean debt. There seemed to be no coherence on the government side when that was done because it has caused so much negative opinion in this country against foreign aid. I wonder if the hon. member could comment on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Succinctly, in two minutes.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, it is a very complex question for two minutes, but I will do my best.
I absolutely agree with the hon. member for Northumberland. think that the reaction to the ARMX exhibit last year in Ottawa is really instructive to the government about what Canadians are willing to tolerate. We are not willing to tolerate militarization and economic development through military might. ARMX was an absolute anachronism. We are not willing to be part of that little game with the arms traders. It is not a little game, it is a rather large game.
Regarding the forgiveness of debt, this is what I was trying to address in the body of my speech. When you talk about forgiveness of debt, it cannot just be giving alms to the poor. It is not like that, as I pointed out. It takes two to make a debt and irresponsibility on our part and irresponsibility on the part of the other. It takes two. We are not giving charity. The kind of assistance that we should be giving is helping people to develop themselves. That is why, in my final few moments, I would like to make another plea for coherence in foreign policy. It is not evident yet, but I am still hoping.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like you to know that some of my colleagues would also like to say a few words. Do I understand that this debate will end at 6.15 precisely?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes. If nobody is going to ask you any questions or comments, then I think we could get two speakers in, if you want to split your time. You have 22 minutes. Govern yourself accordingly.
[ Translation ]


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, when I saw today that the House would consider an opposition motion by the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and discuss some of the world's serious problems, I read the motion and I said to myself that the first spot that comes to my mind is the Middle East.
I agree there have been important events in eastern Europe, with all these unexpected changes that have suddenly revolutionized the political face of Europe, in a way we have not seen for over 50 years. But as the hon. member for Saint-Denis pointed out, if there is any spot that is like a volcano-


Marcel Prud'homme: A powder keg.


Mark Joseph Assad: -a powder keg about to explode, it is certainly the Middle East. Anyone who is at all concerned about human rights and humanitarian considerations and who looks at what is happening in the Middle
May 31, 1990

East finds it very difficult to accept what is going on down there.
I will just give a few examples. Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are listening to us, especially, as the hon. member said earlier, young Canadians, should have an interest in these issues because we are living in a rapidly shrinking world. As members of a federal Parliament, we have a duty to look at what is happening on the international scene because if we believe in human rights, in the rights and freedoms of the individual, we cannot ignore, in fact we must be on the alert for violations of those rights. I will give you an example, and I must say that this particular situation is an extremely difficult one and that it is regrettable that so many people in this country prefer to ignore it. They refuse to fact the facts.

Mr. Speaker, look at occupied Gaza and what has happened over the years, how Lebanon has been torn apart by the Syrian and Israeli armies inside its territory which they cannot seem to get rid of. There have been many years of occupation. Who have been the victims? The Palestinians.
Everybody expresses concern and sympathy for the Palestinians, and yet this goes on to no end. There are violations that we have not seen since the Second World War. For example, there have been school closures in the occupied territories which are illegal under the Geneva Convention. The Palestinians in the occupied territories have not been in school now for 30 months. That is one of the worst violations.
There has been demolition and sealing of homes, and over 1,400 curfews that lasted weeks where 600,000 people were confined 24 hours a day, five days a week.
Dr. Israel Schack of Israel, a most outstanding scholar, a man who survived the Warsaw ghettos and the concentration camps was in Canada last week. This man has the courage to bring up the violations of his government. He spoke of the uprooting of olive and citrus trees which the Palestinians need to survive. Since the intifada started,
180,000	trees have been deliberately uprooted by Israeli forces. That is unbelievable. Can you imagine ripping up by the roots the livelihood of a people?
Is there anything more precious in the Middle East than water? The day will come when water will be more important than oil. It is already a cherished commodity in
Supply
the Middle East. Yet there is illegal use of resources of occupied territories, forbidden under the Geneva Convention. The use of water by the Palestinians has been frozen at the 1967 level.
The 1988 water census shows that 1,100,000 Palestinians in the occupied territories were allowed to use 17 per cent of the total annual amount of the underground water and-


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


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, my point of order rests on whether or not the information that is being shared by the hon. member, which may be of interest to all of us, has anything to do with the motion that is before the House today. I question whether the topic he is discussing has anything to do with the motion and I suggest that he be brought to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: My understanding is that it is a matter of foreign policy but I am sure the hon. member will be getting closer to the motion as he carries on with his speech.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, it concerns general foreign policy and -I am sure that if the hon. member knew the facts of what is going on in the occupied country, as a decent human being who believes in humanitarian rights, he would be one of those protesting this violation against human rights.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: What has it got to do with Canada's foreign policy?


Mark Joseph Assad: That's your narrow view of things in the world. Continue with your attitude and you will see where it will lead us.
Under international law and the Geneva Convention confiscation of land is prevented by an occupying power. Yet, 54 per cent of the west bank has been confiscated, and 40 per cent of the Gaza land has been confiscated. There have been 900 Palestinian casualties, more than 200 of which were children, and 80,000 injuries.
As some members have said, Canada's role has a disproportionate influence in the world regardless that we have a population of only some 27 million. We can influence certain events. We can appeal to other countries on humanitarian grounds to protect peoples under occupied territories who are suffering, are being de-

May 31, 1990
Supply
prived of their livelihoods, and are under strenuous conditions.
I am hoping that in the weeks and months to come the Liberal party will be more active in the House during Question Period concerning international affairs and this situation.
We are all aware of eastern Europe and what has been developing there. There is no problem. They do not have armies of occupation in their territories.
What we need here from the Canadian government is a persistent demand to the authorities in Israel that we are aware of the violations of human rights, that we are aware that there are Palestinians who are suffering difficult times, and that we feel that our Canadian government should intervene.
I am sure that all Canadians would like to know the facts about what is going on in the Middle East. It is a very volatile situation. As long as these atrocities continue and as long as this situation is permitted, what can we expect? Do we expect that the Palestinians are going to come out of this after thousands are dead and say: "Well, those are the fortunes of war"?
There is going to be vengeance and that is what we want to avoid. We want this country to intervene to make sure that this comes to an end, to make sure that they are forced to sit down with the Palestinians and give them their rightful place in the Middle East.
This is a subject about which we could go on for hours. It is regrettable that we have to raise a subject that is so important for world peace and for the nations that are occupying those territories, be it in Lebanon, and for the Palestinians-


Marcel Prud'homme: And to be interrupted.


Mark Joseph Assad: Yes, to be interrupted by somebody who is supposed to know better.
Nevertheless, the time has come. We have to look at the facts and at reality and point out to the world who are the guilty parties.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address this House, although briefly, on such an important question as Canada's foreign policy, especially as it
concerns the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
Since I have long had a keen interest in this subject, I am sorry that I cannot go into it as deeply as it deserves. Since I was elected to this House, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that in the world today and especially in Canada, our relations with other countries and especially with such an important one as the Soviet Union, as shown by Mr. Gorbachev's visit among us yesterday and the day before, will interest me even more, among my other concerns. I am grateful for the privilege to be able to talk about it briefly today, at least for starters.

I will make a few brief, general remarks which will be more impressionistic than factual in their content about the subject before us today.
The first remark has to do with leadership. I would like to contrast the style of leadership which has emerged in the events that have been taking place in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union with the style of leadership which has been manifested in the reaction to those events in the west. I believe they are telling for us as Canadians and for those living in the western industrialized world as to the kind of way in which we are going to have to react diplomatically to circumstances and to events which will be taking place in the years ahead.
It has been said that the revolution taking place in the Soviet Union has been a revolution from the top down. Clearly there is no doubt that what has captured the imagination of the world has been the style of leadership manifested by Mr. Gorbachev and others who have emerged in the Soviet Union during these last several months to transform the economy, the society, and, indeed, the entire world by the events which have taken place there.
What has characterized the leadership as we have seen of Mr. Gorbachev, which is so much in contrast to traditional diplomacy, has been his willingness to forgo the established patterns of the past, to take amazing political risks, to move forward on all fronts, and to be prepared to risk all, knowing that the transformation of his society really had to take place all at once. We have seen that Mr. Gorbachev has been working feverishly. He has captured our imagination by his ability to do
May 31, 1990

something which no one else has been willing to do. He has been carried forward by events.
I think that is one characteristic which has been manifested in the nature of situation taking place in the Soviet Union. The force of his personal leadership, as well as those of others who have come forward throughout the Soviet Union from all walks of life, has propelled the events that we have seen.
Another aspect of the leadership in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe is that it has come from unpredictable places. We all know that the origins of many of these events can be traced to the early 1980s in Poland. Who is the person who has been most identified with those events? A shipyard worker, Lech Walesa, who came from nowhere to guide and move the events in Poland through the difficult decade that emerged last year in the democratic reforms which have taken place in that country.
We have seen in the western press observing events in that country just how that particular personality has been transformed by the momentous changes in which he has been involved producing.
If we turn to Czechoslovakia we see that a playwright is now president of that country, someone who has been in exile and in prison for many years under the previous regime. The examples could be multiplied.
What this has shown is the fluid and totally new styles of leadership which the kinds of events taking place in Europe have demonstrated. What has been unfortunate is the cautious, timid reaction in the west. It is more serious than simply wanting to watch and see how the drama in eastern Europe is going to play itself out. It has been marked by an inability to comprehend the complexity of the events taking place in eastern Europe. Perhaps more than typical has been the reaction of Canada which has been so slow in responding to the events that have taken place.
The Prime Minister's visit last November is illustrative of that, if not merely for the fact that it took him so long to get there, a fact which was remarked upon by Mr. Gorbachev himself. He and this government have been so slow to respond to the initiatives which have taken place as a result of that visit.
Supply
We are only seeing now the Secretary of State for External Affairs finally coming to grips with charting Canadian foreign policy to react to those events. It is moving in a piecemeal, step by step fashion which does not do justice to the times in which we live. That is characteristic of the western response which has taken place to events in eastern Europe.
We know now that with the rapid integration of the world in which we live that we have to rethink completely our notions of diplomacy, reacting to external forces, participation, and leadership.
That is the basic message I want to bring here today. I realize this debate will go on far beyond this day which we in the Liberal opposition have initiated.
Canada has much to offer the Soviet Union and eastern Europe in this time of rapid change. We have many interests in common. There are ways in which we can be more pro-active and more aggressive in articulating abroad our interests, our concerns, and our willingness to participate in changing the planet toward a direction in which it is already going. These are ways which are consistent with the values that Canada has always stood for: the values of tolerance, democracy, freedom, enterprise, and a certain civility which is now starting to be manifested in these countries. It is something which is so long overdue.
I urge this government and all of us in this place to be willing to expand our horizons, to think in new ways, and to take a lead from some of the events which are taking place in these countries and from some of the leadership that is expressed there.
We should be more bold in our initiatives. Whether those initiatives be in terms of collective security, Arctic co-operation, new environmental concerns, or the new environmental imperatives which we now realize are the major issues confronting the planet in the future, we must be prepared to rethink our approaches in a dramatic way. We must be prepared to take our lead from what is taking place in eastern Europe, particularly with the leadership that has been coming out of those countries.
That is my message for our debate today. I would urge the government to be more assertive and daring in its approach to foreign policy as this policy review is being designed.

May 31, 1990
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House will now deal with Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CANADA LABOUR CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu) moved: that Bill C-201, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (scabs and essential services), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to start the debate on second reading of Bill C-201, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (scabs and essential services). The purpose of this bill is basically to prohibit Crown corporations from using the services of a person hired for the sole purpose of performing the duties of an employee who is on strike or locked out.
The bill was first tabled in 1987, but unfortunately was not among the winning numbers in the parliamentary lottery during our government's first term. That is why I had to table the bill again in April, 1989.
When the bill was first tabled, it was intended as a way to avoid a recurrence of strikes as problematic and painful for this government as the strikes by letter carriers and postal workers in the spring and summer of 1986. You will recall that at the time, the Canada Post Corporation resorted to hiring scabs right across Canada, mostly young unemployed Canadians, to replace its employees who were legally on strike. This had the effect of worsening the dispute and led to increasingly tragic scenes of violence.
We saw innocent youths enduring insults for the sake of working under terrible conditions for a higher salary than regular employees. It was certainly not an edifying sight to see the lowest paid workers in our society
fighting each other for the sake of a temporary job. These scenes, reminiscent of the 30s and the Depression, are completely out of place in the 90s.
Although it has now been nearly three years since these unhappy events took place, I think that now, more than ever before, the federal government desperately needs an instrument that encourages negotiation instead of confrontation. At a time when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being held high as an example, we have a duty as a government to put an end to situations that are an affront to human dignity and human rights.
The endless dispute at Voyageur, a federally-regulated transportation company but not subject to the Quebec Labour Code or Quebec anti-scab legislation, recently provided us with one more reason to acquire as soon as possible a flexible yet effective instrument for limiting disputes. This particular dispute was settled not long ago, but it went on for more than two years.
This Canadian antiscab legislation stems basically from Clause 97(a) of Bill 45 to amend the Labour Code which was introduced by Pierre-Marc Johnson, the then-Que-bec Minister of Labour, on July 29, 1977.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to summarize some of the arguments in favour of these antiscab provisions about which so much was written about 13 years ago.
These provisions were meant to eliminate one of the major bones of construction in some labour disputes and one of the most apparent sources of frustration and violence during work stoppages. The history of Canadian Labour disputes shows that the systematic imbalance of the parties quickly results in frustration for one of the parties, even both, and ends up in verbal or physical abuse.iolence.
Since the Labour Code granted the right to strike, was it not normal to expect this right to imply the protection of the jobs with which it is associated?
Of course, a small minority of employers use scabs. But to tolerate the backward behaviour of this minority would mean in fact a denial of the basic right to strike.
The data obtained between 1972 and 1980 by the Centre de recherche et de statistiques sur le marche du travail and which can be found in the report entitled Les briseurs de greve et le Code du travail which this Quebec organization published in March 1982, clearly demon-
May 31, 1990

strate that the implementation of the Quebec antiscab legislation had a deterrent effect on employers.
Between 1972 and 1977, fewer than 3 per cent of the disputes in Quebec had seen the hiring of scabs. Bill 45 caused this proportion to fall by half to less than 2 per cent. The data concerning these disputes indicate that among these remaining 2 per cent, employers were mostly ignorant of the legislation and rarely acting in bad faith.
Among federal institutions, it is mostly Canada Post which used scabs over the past ten years. In addition to lowering for long periods of time the level of postal services which the Canadian people had every right to expect, these strikes were a major traumatic experience for Canadians. For a great many senior citizens and people living alone, their mail carrier provides more than a simple service, he is a friend, a witness of better or worste times, a smile which brightens their daily routine. Several of them felt that, when a scab was delivering their mail it was a betrayal of their mail carrier! And yet, waiting for their cheques for some of them might often have been the only adventure in their lives!
Upon reflection, I feel that it would be advisable to extend the application of this future federal antiscab legislation not only to Crown corporations, but to all federally incorporated businesses. This might prevent the deterioration of disputes, as in the case involving the Voyageur Transport Company in Montreal or the Hudson Bay's a few years ago.
It is well known that the Quebec law not only limited the number of conflicts involving strike-breakers but also appreciably reduced the average length of strikes involving scabs. The above-mentioned report points out that since Bill 45 took effect in Quebec, the average duration of these conflicts has fallen from 171 to 111 days, a decrease of 35 per cent, which is quite considerable.
This law has also reduced the number of man-days lost as a result of work stoppages and thus the impact on workers' jobs.
The shorter a conflict, the less likely it is to be violent and lead to a strained atmosphere unsuitable for solving
Private Members' Business
conflicts. When the employees go back to work, the climate will therefore be more serene and thus help operations resume more quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that Bill C-201 is in no way meant to prevent the provision of essential services or to prevent companies from continuing operations, but rather to make these essential services more humane.
This bill will not prevent employers from trying to run their business with management personnel or non-striking employees or from calling police or security agencies to protect their property and facilitate access for managers and other employees to the premises.
However, any employer who violates a federal antiscab law would be liable to a fine of $20,000 to $100,000 per day, while employer representatives who agree to use strike-breakers could be fined from $10,000 to $50,000.
Some might fear that under such a law, some companies would have only two choices: to close down or to accept the union's demands. The Quebec experience shows that this argument is invalid, since those companies that closed following legal strikes did so not because they did not call upon strike-breakers but for many other reasons.
I think that our government, just like the Quebec government in 1977, should give labour relations in federal institutions a new orientation. Despite the fears of some, the purpose is not to favour one party over the other, but rather to eliminate as best we can, with the means at our disposal, those things most likely to cause conflict and tension in labour-management relations.
Mr. Speaker, these provisions are meant to protect those who are out on the street to legitimately exercise their right to strike. They protect the dignity of our workers, but their main purpose is to try and put an end to the sorry spectacle of companies who would hire other workers to replace those who are exercising their legal rights.
By restoring a certain balance between the parties and by obliging them to pursue their negotiations in a calmer atmosphere, the government is playing a leading role in changing attitudes.

May 31, 1990
Private Members' Business
Too many employers have been negligent about maintaining this balance during negotiations, an attitude that has not worked out to their advantage.
After all, for an employer the purpose of collective bargaining is to know in advance under what rules and criteria his company will operate during the next two or three years. A collective agreement means that for two or three years, the employer has the assurance he will be able to operate without any problems extraneous to the production process that will prevent his company from functioning properly. Employers who failed to accept these elementary rules of the game have found to their sorrow this has been counter-productive.
At a time of increasing references to new agreements between management and employees, to co-operative management and participation by all workers in company operations-at a time when the emphasis is on the need for providing mechanisms for permanent negotiations; at a time when we try to get everyone more and more involved as employees and as citizens aware of the national issues, I think it is urgent to stop this medieval, outdated procedure of resorting to use of scabs.
In the recent debate on national issues like free trade, the deficit or the new goods and services tax, this government has tried to involve all citizens in a public consultation process so that all Canadians will participate in Canada's economic renewal.
It is with this attitude in mind that we should consider the need for federal anti-scab legislation. If we want Canadian workers to have confidence in their government, we must be able to preserve the most precious attribute they have; their dignity. The right to strike was acquired over the years thanks to the courage of many workers and to their faith in human dignity. It was acquired after bitter struggles, won at great personal cost. It is this fundamental right that is challenged by the use of scabs. By allowing this to happen, the government is indirectly undermining the workers' right to strike. The hiring of scabs in some disputes might jeopardize the right to strike, because a party refuses to accept the rules of the game and tilts in its favour the normal balance of power.
I do not think that the government wishes to rewrite history. Quite the contrary, our government wants to
move forward, toward creativity, technology, and well-designed and more modern management methods.
Far from ruining the good relations between the parties, this bill is meant to re-establish order and strike again a new balance between them.
The parties are responsible for this balance and the success or failure of the bargaining process will hinge on the way they use it.
As I was saying earlier, most strikes and lock-outs end up in service agreements, without the employers using scabs. In a sense, this antiscab bill is more provocative than coercitive.
The purpose of this bill is also to prevent situations from deteriorating and striking workers from breaking material and causing injuries out of frustration.
As I said, the idea is not to go to war against employers, but to impose humane and reasonable conditions during disputes, to create tools to make it possible for striking workers to calm negotiate during strikes and lock-outs without fear of losing their jobs to scabs.
What is important is for the duration of disputes to be restricted so as not to unduly penalize the public, the workers and the corporation. Statistics show that all disputes in which scabs were used lasted a very long time, much too long, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that the House will be interested in this bill and that most members will support it on second reading.

Mr. W.C. Scott (Victoria -Haliburton) Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-201, introduced for the consideration of the House by the hon. member for Richelieu. The bill is a detailed account that reflects the concerns of the hon. member in dealing with an important subject with both economic and social ramifications.
The bill before the House proposes a number of changes to the Canada Labour Code, Part I, Industrial Relations. Its over-all objective is two-fold. First, it seeks to prohibit the hiring of persons to replace the employees of a Crown corporation who are on strike or are locked out. Second, the bill proposes changes intended to ensure that essential services are maintained
May 31, 1990

in the event of a strike or lock-out in Crown corporations.
I share the sentiments of many members of the House who hold the view that good industrial relations is an essential element of our economic and social fabric and that it can make a meaningful contribution to our economic performance. The preamble to the Canada Labour Code, Part I, Industrial Relations, makes reference to the significance of good industrial relations practices to the economy. It indicates a commitment by Parliament:
- to support labour and management in their co-operative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all.
The preamble to the code makes clear that there is not only an economic significance to industrial relations but, also, that there is a larger impact that extends to the common good of Canadian society. This is declared in the first paragraph of the preamble which affirms that:
There is a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes.
One of the important elements of the bill before us is the fact that it proposes to make changes to some important industrial relations practices in several industries under the Canada Labour Code, but only to Crown corporations. We must appreciate that the spectrum of industries under the jurisdiction of the code is very broad in scope and covers a wide range of economic and industrial activity.
The range of industries covered by the code's jurisdiction encompasses the different modes of interprovincial and international transportation, including railways, airlines, trucks, and bus transport. Encompassed, as well, are the telephone, telegraph, and cable systems; shipping; longshoring; broadcasting; banking; pipelines; ferries; tunnels and bridges; primary fishing; and most Crown corporations. Also included are certain undertakings that have been declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada, including grain elevators, uranium mining and processing, and flour and feed mills.
Private Members' Business
This is not to suggest that we should want to see the measures before us applied to all federal jurisdiction industries. On the contrary, measures proposed in the bill present a number of practical difficulties that require the scrutiny of members of the House. But I have to question, in light of the wide range of industries under the code, why Crown corporations should be singled out for special treatment.
I feel certain that significant inequities would arise in the application of our labour relations laws as they apply to industries under the Canada Labour Code if the bill now before us were to be adopted. For example, labour relations at Canadian National Railways and VIA Rail fall under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code and would be encompassed under Bill C-201.
Canadian Pacific Railways is also under the code, but it is not a Crown corporation and would not be covered by the bill. As a consequence, the provisions of the bill would have us accept the view that railway operations under Canadian National are essential while those under Canadian Pacific are not essential.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is another example. It is also a Crown corporation, as we know, with labour relations under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code. Collective bargaining at the CBC would be affected by the proposals included in the bill. Limits would be placed on collective bargaining at the CBC that would not be felt in negotiations at the CTV Network, the Global Television Network, Telemetropole Inc. and other radio and television broadcasting companies under the jurisdiction of the Code that are not Crown corporations.
Miners working for the Cape Breton Development Corporation are under the Canada Labour Code and would be affected by Bill C-201, but workers in similar jobs in the mining industry working for Denison Mines or Rio Algom Mines would bargain under different collective bargaining laws if the bill were adopted. Workers in one company would be treated differently from workers doing similar work in another company in the same industry.
I would submit for the consideration of hon. members that the bill contains an element of arbitrariness in its coverage and that this would create an inequity in the application of the laws governing collective bargaining

May 31, 1990
Private Members' Business
among workers and employees in the federal jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code.
Another factor I believe should be considered in this regard is the fact that collective bargaining can take place on an industry-wide basis involving one union representing employees working in two or more companies. The most important example that comes to mind would be Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
These two companies have frequently bargained on a joint basis in past negotiations with nine unions represented by the Associated Railway Unions. Although the approach to bargaining in the railway industry can vary from one round of bargaining to the next, the decision by CN and CP and the union to bargain jointly in this case was in all likelihood taken by the parties in the interest of reaching a collective agreement in the most expeditious manner possible.
The provisions of Bill of C-201, however, would change the framework within which collective agreements negotiations take place and, in doing so, could adversely affect the conditions for determining the most expeditious approach to collective agreement negotiations.
I suggest that we should not want to interfere with the options and the flexibility of the collective bargaining process now available to the parties through the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that I appreciate the efforts taken by the hon. member in preparing and introducing this bill, and acknowledge the serious attention that he has given to the matter. However, there remains some practical difficulties which will require careful consideration.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a short while ago by my colleagues on this side of the House to respond to Bill C-201 and to tell the mover and drafter of this bill our thoughts with respect to its implementation.
First, let me say that as we go through labour codes and legislation as they surround the rights of labour and employers in the country on the federal scale, we find very quickly that there is a great deal of legislation already in place. One wonders if perhaps the legislation
that we are considering today is not duplicated in some other act, for example, the Canada Labour Code, in Sections 2, 4 or 5; the Public Service legislation; or other acts that respect and honour the rights of labour and corporations in the so-called conflicts that always seems to exist between employers and employee in the workforce. I want to compliment the member for having the foresight to bring it forward in this House. He stated that he commenced the movement of this bill in 1986 and for many reasons it did not get to the House. Just recently, in April of this year, he again won the lottery and has the opportunity now to speak to it.
The operative section is Clause 1.1 will come back to that in just a moment. The other operative sections support Section 89 (1.1) right through to Section 90.6. Those and Clause 3 on page 4 of the bill are really the operative sections. Section 100 on to the end of the proposed changes that he is suggesting to the Canada Labour Code are the remedial or penalty sections in this bill. I will come back to section 89 in just a moment.
What is the purpose of the legislation? Obviously this is a bill which is, as it states, to prohibit the hiring of other employees during a strike to replace those employees who are on strike and, second, to ensure that essential services in this country are maintained during the course of a labour dispute. That is the purpose of the legislation and I will refer to that in just a moment or two. However, we do not talk about what is defined as an essential service.
What is this member really trying to do? What mischief is he trying to correct through the introduction of another section of the Labour Code? What is he attempting to make easier within the labour movement and within the structure of our labour-management agreements in this country?
Simply put, this piece of legislation, with which we on this side of the House do not disagree, refers to the problems that were caused in two incidents in the last year or year and a half. One was the post office strike of approximately a year ago. The post office mail carriers had decided to go on strike and the post office started to consider hiring outside people in order to fill the jobs of the letter carriers who were on strike.
The other piece of mischief which I think this bill is trying to correct is what we dealt with in this House in
May 31, 1990

December of this year when the Coast Guard went on strike, prohibited the shipment of grain and caused the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway approximately 12 or 14 days before the end of the shipping season which prevented all of the grain from the port of Thunder Bay from moving down into the seaway and into the terminals at the downriver ports. As a result, it had to be shipped through the winter by rail at the expense of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. Those are the two incidents of mischief which I think prompted this legislation and which this legislation is designed to correct.
With respect to the Coast Guard strike, Bill C-49, which was passed a short while ago, has corrected that situation. As you will recall, that is back-to-work legislation that was put through this House some 10 or 12 days after the Coast Guard had gone on strike and which returned it to work.
Labour law in this country deals with applications for certification, the certification process itself, the designing and the making up of the bargaining unit and the right to a collective agreement. All of those processes are designed to be embodied in a dispute resolution mechanism that is designed to protect the rights of both the employer and the employee. The basis of that is that every right held by an employer is granted either through the act or through the negotiating process to the employees or the bargaining unit of the employees through the contractual process and then embodied in the collective agreement.
If we do not have the collective agreement in place, we know we do have in our legislation the right of the first contract. Once we have that in place we have another whole dispute resolution mechanism through the grievance procedure, the arbitration and the final award.
With all this legislation, we still have problems. The language of every act has to be so precise, because when it gets to the arbitration process, the whole course of an arbitration can be turned on the wording or interpretation of one section of the act.
If we have any question about this legislation before the House today, it is the imprecision of some of the wording in Bill C-201. I would like to refer to some of these imprecisions. We do not oppose the concept and philosophy of what our colleague is trying to pursue, but we do oppose some of the wording in this bill. We suggest that it should go back to a legislative committee for more in depth study and research.
Private Members' Business
Let me just draw to your attention one of the items that is missing out of the labour code, but which is embodied in the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and that is what we term as a designated employee. When we talk about a designated employee we mean that employee who is responsible for providing essential services within the Canada Labour Code. Section 78 of the code says: "Pursuant to this section the employees or classes of employees in the bargaining unit in this act referred to as designated employees whose duties consist in whole or in part of duties, the performance of which at any particular time, or after any specified period of time, is or will be necessary in the interest of the safety or security of the public."
In my opinion, that is something which should be embodied in the legislation so that we know what we are talking about through this proposed change, that is, what is an essential service. Section 89(1.1), the first part of this proposed legislation, tries to determine what an essential service is but falls a little short of that. Again, that is why I am suggesting that this act should go to a legislative committee for further study.
Another problem that I am having with the interpretation of this act is that it only refers to Crown corporations. As you stated when you were not occupying the chair, Mr. Speaker, and as I have said in my remarks, I suspect that if we pass this legislation or embody the change in the Canada Labour Code, there will be many other corporations put to a disadvantage.
I know my time is running short. Let me just make the point that the other agencies that would be put at a disadvantage would be the other departments of the government that are not Crown corporations, the other agencies that work within the government that are not Crown corporations and the other corporations which are affected by the Canada Labour Code. These include CTV, CPR Rail and so on. Those agencies would be put at a definite disadvantage if this act passes. Therefore, it should go back to the legislative committee for further study.


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer some observations on the bill before us involving the maintenance of essential services and the prohibition of the hiring of replacement workers where Crown corporation employees are on strike or locked out.

May 31, 1990
Private Members' Business
The present bill provides that where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a strike in a Crown corporation might endanger the public health or public safety, the Governor in Council may, by order, on the recommendations of the minister, require the maintenance of essential services in the case of a strike.
The concept of danger to public health or public safety can readily be seen to apply to such activities as health, fire and police services.
The Crown corporations that are covered by the Canada Labour Code, Part I, are primarily commercial enterprises, in contrast to the situation provincially. With most federal sector disputes, including those involving Crown corporations, the public consideration is mainly economic in nature.
The impact of work stoppages in such federal Crown corporations as Atomic Energy of Canada, Canadian National Railways, VIA Rail, Cape Breton Development Corporation or the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority would, of course, be evident in terms of the country's or a region's short and long-term economic interest.
The Canada Labour Code sets out a framework which provides mechanisms to minimize work disruptions in industries of national importance, both private and public. Federal undertakings under the code include interprovincial, international rail, road and pipeline transportation; shipping and longshoring; air transportation; telephone, telegraph and cable services; banking; broadcasting; most federal Crown corporations and certain industries declared to be to the general advantage of Canada.
As members of this House know, there have been times when it has been necessary to introduce special back-to-work legislation to end disputes in key areas of economic interest. Such action was taken as a last resort when it became clear that legislative efforts were necessary to provide for the continuation of services essential to the economy.
I will return to the issue of essentiality in a moment, but I would like to explore the implications of the bill proposed to amend the Canada Labour Code which would ban the hiring of replacement workers during strikes or lockouts.
The Canada Labour Code does not prohibit the use of replacement workers in the event of a work stoppage. However, the code does provide certain protective measures for employees affected by labour disputes. Workers engaged in legal strike action cannot be permanently replaced and have the right to return to their employment after a strike in preference to anyone hired to replace them. As well, the code prohibits an employer from disciplining an employee who refuses to perform the task of another who is engaged in a legal work stoppage.
Under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, the parties are provided conciliation and mediation assistance as required and where appropriate in the interests of dispute resolution. They are encouraged to bargain in good faith and to assess their bargaining priorities in the light of their relative economic strengths and interests.
One of the features of collective bargaining under the code, for both private employers and Crown corporations, is the knowledge of employees and union negotiators, that in the event of a strike, the employer may continue to operate. Such knowledge has a restraining effect on the use of the strike weapon. In the same fashion, the employer seeks to avoid having to deal with disruptive effects of a strike.
It is fundamental to collective bargaining that the parties are encouraged to negotiate and compromise when the facts warrant. In this fashion, tests of economic strength are only used as a last resort. When the union is aware that the employer is not going to be able to maintain operations during a strike, the element of compromise is weakened. On the other hand, if the employer is insured of a minimum workforce, his need to compromise and make concessions is reduced. In effect, the relative power equation is distorted and the carefully balanced approach established under the code is undermined.
In the final analysis, what is at the root of this bill is the question of what in fact is an essential service in the context of the bill and what should the Parliament of Canada do when faced with an important disruption in its area of jurisdiction?
Parliament has adopted the Canada Labour Code which provides for free collective bargaining in federal jurisdiction industries. With this legislation comes the right to engage in legal work stoppages, be it strike or lockout activity. As already noted, the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, which regulate labour-manage-
May 31, 1990

ment relations in the federal sector, place great emphasis on the negotiated resolution of labour disputes. The right to strike or lockout is only acquired after meeting all the dispute resolution requirements of the code.
On those occasions where disputes having major economic importance for Canada cannot be resolved through the normal dispute resolution procedures, the government assesses the facts and circumstances and decides on an appropriate course of action. In the process of analysis, the competing interests of the parties and the public are weighed in the light of the over-all interest. This approach, I believe, is most appropriate for the scope of enterprises covered by the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon -Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Richelieu on it. It is a very precise bill. It deals with a number of issues about the effectiveness of the Canada Labour Code which have been of concern and in need of action for a long period of time.
I cannot agree with the previous speaker that the labour code has established a balance which is acceptable to both the employer and employee in all circumstances. It has a built-in structure which has allowed the less public of the corporations to take advantage of even the definition of essential services.
We are dealing with this bill now at second reading, which is to give it approval in principle. I must again congratulate the member for putting his finger on those items in this bill that do need some review and are of concern to negotiations between management and labour in many circumstances. The precision of the wording indicates a basic knowledge and understanding of the effects of the labour code, both positive and negative. Again, I congratulate the member for Richelieu for bringing this forward.
The main thrust of the bill is that it is anti-scab labour. It is against the opportunity of hiring scab labour. In other words, it does not allow the bringing in of strikebreakers. The implication of the previous speaker was that this was in place, but it is not in place. If an employer wants to use management to keep the operation going, that is well within the structure of the present code. The code has allowed the bringing in of strikebreakers under certain circumstances. This bill would
Private Members' Business
limit that entirely, and that is the basic direction of the bill.
I cannot argue against that. I think it is a necessary change to the labour code and should be supported by all people in the House who have some concerns about the quality of labour and management relations. This bill would balance the power of the two groups a little more.
There is a second section to this bill with which I had some concern. The second section uses language which gives to the cabinet or the Governor in Council that which those of us who have worked near, with and beside, and in some cases against labour unions recognize as giving power which they have not had in the the past but would get under this bill. Consequently it would be less acceptable than it might have been without those changes in the wording.
I refer to sections 90.3 and 90.9. section 90.3 deals with the establishment of essential services. This is not too objectionable in that it does establish a negotiation process between the union and the employer before it gives power to the cabinet or the Governor in Council to take action.
Section 100 fractures the structure that we have known and accepted as the basic structure of the negotiation process. What it does is give to the cabinet the power to disallow a strike.
My point is if you certify a union, you accept its structure and its operations. It has the right to strike and it operates as a union in the negotiating process. The minister may suddenly say: "Under a particular circumstance this particular union will not be able to strike". All of us in this House have been brought back on occasion, working either for or against the passage of a bill to put people back to work. We passed one not too long, Bill C-49. That process has worked in the past. The reason for the back-to-work is brought forward publicly and discussed. That is an adequate process. Section 100, which gives this power to the Governor in Council under certain circumstances, is degrading the process of negotiation as far as the union and employer is concerned.
I appreciate the fact that this brings in a kind of anti-scab, anti-strikebreaker legislation. It deals effectively with the establishment of essential services. There is one concern which should be dealt with in a legislative committee, that is to allow cabinet power to eliminate the possibility of a strike under certain circumstances,

May 31, 1990
Private Members' Business
power which the cabinet does not now have. Therefore, I say that is an unacceptable approach.
I also have concern as to the breadth of it, the fact that it is limited under certain circumstances. This is the kind of anti-strikebreaker legislation which we think should be an across-the-board code and should be available as protection to employees in all kinds of industries.
I hope that when this bill passes second reading, it goes to a legislative committee that will look at the wording, the concern as far as power that the cabinet has with the wording and to give the unions and employers, the corporations, the ability to come before the committee and say: "Yes, we agree," or "No, we disagree with certain parts of it." We can then bring forth better legislation than we might otherwise.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on the proposed legislation before us, Bill C-201, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
As has been discussed, this bill is targeted at federal Crown corporations which fall within the jurisdiction of the Code and provides for a prohibition on the hiring of replacement workers during work stoppage, and also that essential services would be maintained in the event of a work stoppage in a Crown corporation specifically.
The bill contains interesting proposals but also raises some questions. One question arising from the proposed legislation is that it seeks to change the current industrial relations system in existence under Part I of the Code at a time when the current procedures appear to be functioning quite well. I hope hon. members will not interpret the introduction of Bill C-201 as meaning that the present framework for collective bargaining under Part I is not working. In fact, figures from the federal jurisdiction indicate that the settlement rate for cases handled to the final stage without resort to work stoppage action remains above 90 per cent. In addition, the reliance on formal third party intervention in labour disputes at the conciliation commission level has decreased very dramatically over recent years, with only one case accorded such assistance during the 1989-90 fiscal year.
The figures I have quoted reflect a philosophy and a continuing commitment toward promoting a responsible and responsive bargaining framework. The policy is designed to encourage the parties, with their intimate knowledge of the issues in dispute, to resolve their own differences and conclude a mutually satisfactory collective agreement. As hon. members will appreciate, an agreement concluded by the parties themselves is much preferable to one forced upon them through arbitration or some other statutory means.
If I may for a moment, I would like to briefly review the provisions currently found within Part I of the Canada Labour Code. Part I of the Code establishes the framework for industrial relations and regulates the conduct of collective bargaining in the federal private sector. This jurisdiction covers the operations of enterprises that fall within the definition of a "federal work, undertaking or business" and includes interprovincial and international rail, road and pipeline transportation, air transportation, shipping, longshoring, grain handling, banking, broadcasting, and certain Crown corporations.
The Canada Labour Code requires that the conciliation process be exhausted before the legal right to strike or lockout can be exercised. Normally, this process involves the appointment of a conciliation officer, but it may also involve the additional efforts of a conciliation commissioner or conciliation board. Following the termination of conciliation and the acquisition of the right to strike or lockout, the minister may appoint a mediator to further assist the parties in negotiations.
As I indicated earlier in my remarks, the use of the more formal conciliation commissioner option has decreased in past years with an increasing onus being placed on the parties themselves to deal directly with the issues and not look to shift the responsibility for settlement to an outside third party. I understand that in those cases where a dispute is not settled at the conciliation officer stage and the repercussions of a work stoppage would have serious economic consequences, the situation is weighed carefully before a decision as to the appointment of additional assistants is taken.
It is however of interest to note that while the use of the commissioner option has decreased, the settlement rate without work stoppage in the federal jurisdiction has
May 31, 1990

remained in the 90 per cent range and the incidence of work stoppages has remained relatively stable.
An excellent example of this renewed reliance, which the Minister of Labour is placing on the parties to deal with the issues in dispute and arrive at acceptable compromises, was the most recent contract settlement involving the grain handlers in the port of Thunder Bay.
Negotiations between the Transportation and Communications International Union, Lodge 650, and Lakehead terminal elevators to renew the collective agreement which expired on January 31, 1988 received the assistance of a conciliation officer from Labour Canada over a 10-month period before the talks broke down.
After a careful assessment of the various factors involved in the negotiations and of the economic impact of a work stoppage at that point in time, a decision not to appoint a conciliation commissioner was taken. The parties were notified of the decision and some weeks later resumed direct negotiations. These proved successful and a tentative settlement was reached which was subsequently ratified by the union membership.
Another situation in which the onus was directed back to the parties to deal with matters in dispute arose in the 1989 negotiations between the Council of Marine Carriers and the Canadian Merchant Service Guild representing tow boat employees on the west coast. Again, the parties were initially assisted in their discussions by a conciliation officer over a four-month period.
However, bargaining broke off and the Minister of Labour was faced with a decision as to whether further assistance in the form of a conciliation commissioner should be provided. Following a thorough assessment of this situation, it was decided that a conciliation commissioner would not be appointed to the dispute. Instead, the assistance of a mediator from Labour Canada, fully versed in the issues in dispute, was provided to the parties and a tentative settlement was arrived at shortly thereafter in the mediation proceedings.
Private Members' Business
Another concern which I have about the proposed bill before us relates to what might be termed a piecemeal approach to dealing with legislative amendments to this very important code. Part I of the Labour Canada Code has proven over the years to be a fair and equitable statute in dealing with industrial relations in the federal jurisdiction and has like most federal legislation periodically undergone extensive review and evaluation.
What the hon. member is proposing through Bill C-21 deals with only one specific segment of the federal jurisdiction universe, namely Crown corporations, and with issues which are complex in nature such as essential services.
I would suggest that changes such as those proposed in the bill before us should be considered as part of the total review of Part I of the Canada Labour Code and not in isolation from the other provisions of the legislation. What we have here is a proposal from the hon. member to amend comprehensive labour relations legislation in order to deal with certain concerns specific to a particular segment of the total federal jurisdiction universe.
In dealing with the topic of replacement workers, I should point out that we should study this particular legislation to some extent before voting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)):: I wish to inform the member that his time has expired.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list in order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It now being 7.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 1, 1990