1990-11-08

Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to table, in both official languages, as well as on audio cassette-I believe this is the first time this has ever been done in the House-the government's response to A Consensus for Action, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Point of order, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Secretary of State wanting to create a precedent in tabling a cassette. Does that mean that that document officially becomes part of the official report of the government in response to that committee? Does it mean that that cassette is available to all Canadians, if they require to see it? Does it mean also that it is available to members of Parliament if they would like to hear this cassette?


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising the point of order because it does allow us to flag what we are doing here.
What we are dealing with is a report in response to the committee of the disabled, and so this particular vehicle we are using opens up that report to some of our disabled Canadians and gives them an opportunity to hear for themselves the report that was tabled in the
House, something that is a little unusual and something that I think all members of the House would be happy to hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to deal with a particular problem here, that of a visual handicap. I take it also that the audio is available, but is it available in Braille for those who cannot see, for example? Have we made sure that we have not excluded any group?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention and can confirm to him that, yes, it is available in Braille and that we will be providing the other vehicles whereby we make sure that all of those people who suffer from different handicaps have the opportunity to see or hear the government response to this particular report.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that this is indeed a very thoughtful and a very encouraging initiative. To seek clarification, when reports are tabled in response to committee reports, that would mean, then, that multiple copies are available for people who are interested. I take it that if a large number of Canadians want to seek access to the video, then multiple copies will be available for people.


Albert Glen Cooper: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that, and, of course, within reason. We do not want to produce more than is necessary, but we certainly want to meet the needs.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague did raise this point of order. I think it is a good time to draw to all members' attention that when sending out parliamentary reports to our constituents, we forget the blind who cannot read our reports.
In my last householder, I put a little sentence in there asking constituents who know of people who cannot see, to send those names, addresses and telephone numbers to me-with their permission, of course-so that we can send these people a cassette of the parliamentary report. I think with the tabling of this document, we are setting a new precedent so that we will not forget any of the handicapped across Canada.

Routine Proceedings OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


TABLING OF REGULATIONS
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the draft of the proposed regulations respecting communications with and services to the public in either official language. This is tabled in accordance with section 85 of the Official Languages Act.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Gilles Loiselle: Pursuant to Standing Order 109, Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling, in both official languages, the government's response to the Second Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, while we are pleased to receive these regulations to implement the Official Languages Act of 1988, I must point out to the House that this is two and a half years after the passing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member could raise that at another time. That is debate. The hon. Minister of State.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in the House the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Consumer
and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, "Living with the GST", in both official languages.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment entitled Deadly Releases of CFCs.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's responses to 27 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. In doing so, I have some comments that I wish to make.
The seventh report of the public accounts committee on the reform of the Public Service, which I have the honour to table today, deals with Public Service 2000 and the need for major changes in several important areas of personnel management.
While the committee supports and recognizes the need for the broad based reform launched under Public Service 2000, there is a major concern that the process is
November 8, 1990

being rushed without adequate consultation with the Public Service unions and other interested parties.
The committee has therefore recommended that the government table a discussion paper in relation to the findings of Public Service 2000 and refer it to a new special committee on reform of the Public Service before introducing key legislative changes in the House.
Another matter upon which the committee has placed great emphasis is the serious problem of deteriorating morale in the Public Service. The committee identified four important areas where specific improvements can be made to raise morale, the process of contracting out the system of pay and benefits, the difficulties dealing with the poor performance, and the need for purposeful training.
For example, the committee recommended that the Auditor General examine the cost effectiveness of contracting out by government agencies, including its impact on the morale of public servants. The committee also revisited several important areas that have been the subject of earlier reports in the House, notably staffing, job classification, and the need to clarify the role, responsibility and accountability of the central agencies responsible for the management of people in the Public Service.
A key recommendation addressed to the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission called upon these agencies to ensure that every authority relating to personnel matters that is delegated to departments and agencies is accompanied by appropriate and effective accountability mechanisms to see that things are going right.
The committee has requested the government to reply by November 30, 1990 with regard to changes in the process followed by Public Service 2000 and within 150 days with respect to all other recommendations.



NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on maritime sovereignty.
Routine Proceedings
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.
The committee has had an opportunity to ascertain the surveillance, chase and apprehending capacities of our maritime forces, particularly in respect of the protection of Canada's laws. In the search for evidence the committee has undertaken, we became overwhelmingly and unanimously impressed with the professional conduct of our Canadian forces. We also have heightened our realization of the extraordinary work that they do in the preservation of Canadian law.
It is fair to say that all members salute the fact that on a day-to-day basis it is the Canadian forces that are, often in unknown and unreported ways, protecting against international polluters and terrorist attacks, looking after and protecting our ocean resources, guarding against illegal immigrants coming into our country and, in particular, conducting search and rescue efforts on behalf of Canadians.
This quasi-military effort on behalf of our forces is an important and encouraging element of our sovereignty. It is on this basis that the committee has put 18 recommendations before the House of Commons.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member did not intend to imply that there was unanimous support within the committee for the recommendations. While our party respects and supports many of the recommendations in the report, the report was not unanimous.
[Editor's Note: See today Votes and Proceedings. ]



BRETTON WOODS AND RELATED AGREEMENTS


Gilles Loiselle: for leave to introduce Bill C-93, an act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
November 8, 1990

Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition to the House signed by people in many communities in Ontario and Quebec. The petitioners ask the government not to impose the GST on magazines, books, and newspapers.
Never since Confederation has a tax been placed on these items. This government is planning to tax reading by taxing books and newspapers. These people want the system left tax-free so that it will not inhibit reading and the dissemination of knowledge in any way.



RADIO LICENCE FEES

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a great many concerned citizens in my riding wherein they say that the fire departments provide a very vital service in protecting the lives and property of citizens.
The federal Department of Communications has imposed huge increases in licence fees for radio-telecommunications, including all emergency service radio equipment. This will make it very difficult for these fire departments because a great many of them deal in voluntary service. They are not paid. They risk their lives on a regular basis.
The communities have to fund these departments and to pay the costs. The communities are strapped now and will perhaps be more so if the economy keeps going into recession.
I think it is very unfair for the government to request increased fees and thereby jeopardize the services that fire departments provide.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from people in Victoria and Montreal. They call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
Again this government will not listen to the many Canadians who have signed petitions. They are forced to
call upon the government to recognize the fact that the printed word should not be taxed and should retain the favoured position it has held in the past.
They ask that their petition be heard.



CANADA POST

Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table several petitions containing almost 400 names of persons from the villages of Watford and Alvinston in my riding of Lambton- Middlesex.
The petitioners are availing themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present their grievance to the House, urging the government to ensure long-term operation of the post offices in their respective communities. The petitioners are upset that the government is closing them down in towns and villages across rural Canada. They do not want their mail to be dispensed through Becker's or 7 Eleven stores.
I just want to say a special thank you to the village council in Watford for leading this fight and a special thank you to Stella Ferguson for leading this fight on behalf of the constituents in her area.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, under the government's proposed goods and services tax reading materials such as magazines, books, and newspapers will be taxed. Such a tax will jeopardize literacy and learning and will undermine the important role of education.
These hundreds of petitioners from across Ontario call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
I received a response from the government to previous petitions on the GST, and the government admits in its own words that it will tax reading materials.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today. I note that just the other evening the new Tbiy majority in the Senate gouged Canadians again by refusing an amendment to the goods and services tax bill that would have saved Canadians from excessive heating fuel charges this winter. This greedy, grasping government is proceeding

with this bill in the face of all kinds of objections from Canadians.
The petitioners who have signed this petition are objecting to the government proceeding with the goods and services tax. Admittedly their objections are based on the desire to stop the tax on books and magazines which they oppose. It is the first time in Canadian history that we have had a tax imposed on books and magazines, and they are objecting to it.
However, had they been here to watch the proceedings in the Senate, they would have been outraged at the approach of the Conservative majority in that place.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition to table in the House today. This petition supports many others I have tabled previously, to the effect that taxing books means promoting ignorance and that the government is making a mistake when it proposes to tax publications. Your petitioners maintain that newspapers, books and magazines should be completely exempt from this tax. After all, we are in a democratic society.
Your petitioners, dozens of whom state here that free distribution of printed matter is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, culture and education, claim that an educated and productive society will suffer as a result of a tax that would restrict reading in this country, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think this petition speaks for itself and that we should act on its recommendations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions to present today from constituents of Blue River, Vavenby, Birch Island, Clearwater, Black Pool, Little Fort, Darfield, Lewis Creek, Barriere, Chu Chua, Heffley Creek, Rnouff Lake, Aspen Grove, Red Lake, Pass Lake, Pinantan Lake and Pritchard, British Columbia.
All these petitioners, and there are hundreds of them, point out a whole set of concerns for the government's decision to proceed with the cruel and punitive goods and services tax. They point out how it is going to cost average families hundreds of dollars in additional taxes every year, coming at a time when the policies of the
Routine Proceedings
government have also driven us into a recession. They simply ask the government to come to its senses and stop proceeding with this GST.
I have another petition to present, mainly from constituents of Kamloops. They point out that the government is now going to place a tax on books, including religious books, so that when people buy bibles, religious pamphlets or religious story books for their children they will have to pay an extra government tax on this literature.
They just cannot believe that this is proper, appropriate, decent or sensible. They ask the government to stop taxing reading material.



LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS

Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and indeed honour to present two petitions under Standing Order 36. The first one is signed by people from many parts of Canada, including Winnipeg, Manitoba; Waterloo, Ontario; Dundas, Ontario; Greenwald, Manitoba; Parkside, Saskatchewan; and many other communities in Canada.
These people are calling for an end to low-level flight training over aboriginal lands, certainly until at least the aboriginal claims have been dealt with.
These people recognize that the proposed training centre is not going ahead. Nevertheless the flights continue.
I think the petitioners would like me to point out that the Innu walk to Ottawa is culminating this weekend with a rally on Parliament Hill at two o'clock on Saturday.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

['Agreed.\nGovernment Orders']
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition under Standing Order 36. It is signed by several persons living in the London, Ontario area and it calls upon the government to get rid of the goods and services tax.
The petitioners ask the government to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective, minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations. They also ask that if and when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.

Routine Proceedings
The petitioners want Parliament to cause the government to cease with a proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians, through a regressive consumption tax, instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I have a petition signed by Canadian citizens from various communities, adding further to the number of dissenters. The petitioners are expressing the outrage of the Canadian public in general to the tax on reading materials. This is a cruel and brutal tax, it is unprecedented in this country, and, it is unprecedented, I think, in any other civilized society in the world.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 348 and 368.

1987 PROTOCOL TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT


Mr. Caccia: 1.	With regards to the 1987 Protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, (a) what new data must be provided (b) when will programs be in place to compile such data (c) has such data been compiled and, if so, for which years (d) will the data be released to the public and, if so (i) in what form (ii) when?
2.	With regards to the same Agreement (a) by what date was the priority list of toxic substances to be prepared (i) when will it be prepared (ii) released to the public?


Right Hon. Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) The 1987 Protocol to the GLWQA calls for the collection of data as part of programs to:
-remedy longstanding severely polluted areas ("Areas of Concern")
-develop lakewide management plans;
-address contaminated sediments and groundwater;
-quantify toxic substances in the air and in land run-off;
-assess human health effects;
develop ecosystem objectives and water quality objectives that can be agreed upon by jurisdictions in the Great Lakes basin.
b)	Programs are now in place to collect such data.
c)	Canada's first report under the 1987 Protocol, based on data collected, was made public in February, 1989. It covered the period 1987-88.
d)	December 31st, 1990 marks the end of the second reporting period under the 1987 Protocol. Canada's report for this period will be made public in the form of a progress report to the International Joint Commission. We anticipate the report will be released early in 1991.
2. Through consultation and cooperation, the Parties to the 1987 Portocol to the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement have drafted Standard Methods and developed the required Lists of Substances. The Standard Methods determine those substances believed to have acute or chronic effects on aquatic or terrestrial biota and are believed to be present in, or have the potential of being discharged to, the Great Lakes system. They take into consideration acute or chronic toxic effects, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, mutagenicity, bioaccumulation and environmental persistence.
The Agreement calls for the compilation and maintenance of three Lists of Substances, to be used to guide the Parties, State and Provincial Governments and the International Joint Commission in proposing substances for new Specific Objectives. These Lists, Present and Toxic, Present and Potentially Toxic, Potentially Present and Toxic, were developed in 1989.
A Protocol for adopting chemical objectives is also being developed for federal, provincial and state review.
In March of 1990, the Standard Methods and Lists of Substances were released to the public for review. Comments have been received and are being reviewed by the Binational Objectives Development Committee. Annual updates will be published every spring for public comment.
November 8, 1990

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Duhamel: 1.	Was the government advised by the military and or other advisors on the probability of armed conflict in the Persian Gulf crisis, prior to Canadian troops being sent and if so, (a) what did they indicate on this probability (b) what did the briefings indicate might be the possible loss of life?
2.	Have these estimates changed subsequent to the initial briefings?


Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: The information requested is considered a Privy Council confidence and therefore cannot be released or provided under the terms of the Access to Information Act.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 341 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 341 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you call Starred Questions Nos. 353 and 354?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Starred Questions Nos. 353 and 354.
Mr. Coopen Mr. Speaker, I ask that these two answers be printed in Hansard, as if read.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms. Langan (Mission-Coquitlam): Have any Canadians applied for and been denied training under Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and if so, how many (a) in each province of Canada (b) in each month of 1990?


Hon. Barbara Jean McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Employment and Immigration Canada does not keep records of the number of Canadians who have applied for and been denied training under Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The department only keeps information on the number of Canadians who have received training under Section 26.


Ms. Langan (Mission-Coquitlam): Since January 1,1990, has the government received any revenues under the provisions of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act. (The Minister of Employment and Immigration) and if so, how much was received, (a) in total (b) for each month of 1990?


Barbara Jean McDougall: For 1990, employers were encouraged to remit U.I. premiums on a voluntary basis at the rate of $2.25 per $100 of insurable earnings as proposed in Bill C-21, instead of remitting at the rate of $1.95 under the unamended legislation, in order to avoid the hardship associated with lump sum retroactive payments to be made by employers and employees after Bill C-21 is passed.
a) and b) Accurate data with respect to incremental premiums remitted voluntarily will not be available until employers complete their T4 summaries during 1991.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
November 8, 1990

Pierre Blais: That, in view of the upcoming Summit of Heads of State and Heads of Government of the Participating Parties of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in Paris, on November 19, 1990 this House express its support for the CSCE as a key pan-European and trans-Atlantic forum within which a new cooperative security framework can be built through the maintenance and development of its comprehensive approach to security, political, economic, environmental and human dimension issues, and strengthened by the development of the structure of the CSCE process, including by the creation of a CSCE parliamentary assembly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, November 7, the debate may continue until two o'clock p.m., without interruption.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is an important opportunity for the House once again to consider Canada's foreign policy.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in moving this resolution, has given us an important opportunity because in our country foreign policy is not a luxury issue. It is something that is fundamental to the definition of who we are as Canadians, and what our future might be.
On the eve of this forthcoming meeting which will take place on November 19 in Paris, I think it is important for members of Parliament to have the opportunity to speak out about the changes in Europe in light of the end of the cold war, and the emergence of new alignments and new possibilities there.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has already addressed, in a rather significant statement of government policy on May 26, 1990, Canada's view of CSCE, the Conference on Co-operation and Security in Europe, in a speech at Humber College in the Etobicoke- Lakeshore constituency. This speech has since been referred to as the Lakeshore declaration.
I am sure a number of members will pick up some of the ideas from that in the course of our debate this morning.
Just as North American history would be vastly different without Europe, as any of our native peoples in this country could very clearly describe for us, so too European history would be vastly different without North America. It was to these shores that Europeans came to escape religious persecution, famine, hunger, political strife, to make a new home and new economic opportunity.
It was from these shores that, as colonies, a great amount of wealth and resource was shipped to Europe, which enabled European countries to build up their wealth and power.
In this century, Canadian men and women wearing the uniform of this country and using the resources of our country as an arsenal for democracy have more than once proven that Canadian history and European history are inexplicably linked.
As we debate this morning, on the eve of Remembrance Day across our country, many of us wear the symbolic poppy to remember the many thousands of Canadians who gave their lives or who returned to our shores carrying lifetime wounds because they had participated as Canadians in European-made wars. Therefore, we are not outsiders to what happens in Europe.
We want peace and security in Europe, because history teaches us that this governs how much peace and security we can have here. We want peace and security in Europe because the defence expenditures which we incur are no longer due to any North American threat but because of instability or the threat of conflict elsewhere.
This concept of Europe across the Atlantic is perhaps a concept more important to us as Canadians than it is to the Americans, simply because of our continued need as a smaller country that is actively engaged on a global basis to maintain balance.
I see our country in the state of transition, from the model, the institutions and the ideas of a 19th century nation-state into a 21st century international country. Certainly one aspect of this role of being an international country is participation within regional organizations and associations that stress not national boundaries, but rather stresses common security and shared interests.
November 8, 1990

That is why in the European theatre, Canada has been active and continues with NATO, including the political clause that Prime Minister Pearson ensured was included in the North Atlantic Treaty, in the European Common Market and the possibility soon for us to have a more formal link with the European Community. The third element that is evolving, CSCE, is an amazing arrangement of conferences and meetings and agreements that represent a collective effort at the highest political levels to pursue a common interest.
Canada has participated fully in the CSCE process from the outset, and we are committed to it because of a basic objective, as I have already said, to enhance security and the confidence that we have a peaceful future.
We want to see barriers broken down that have divided people. We want to facilitate the freer flow of information, freer flow of ideas, the freer flow of people.

Our interest and involvement in Europe go beyond the major sacrifices Canadians have made in the past. They are not based on any vague reminiscences of our European roots. They reflect a very concrete estimate of the importance of Europe to Canada and Canada to Europe, and the importance of the European-North Atlantic community as a whole within the global context.
Europe is more than a geographical concept. It contains the vast majority of democratic countries on this planet. It contains the vast majority of countries with market economies. It contains the vast majority of countries in this world that recognize that a pluralistic democracy and the rule of law are essential to safeguard all human rights and all fundamental freedoms.
That is the context in which we should see the CSCE. The CSCE, a series of conferences and agreements involving 32 European nations as well as Canada and the United States, was one of the main catalysts of the changes that have taken place in Europe. The CSCE should be the instrument of choice for building the future order of a new and strong Europe. It is the
Government Orders
drawing board where Europe's new architecture will be designed.

To design with this architecture a new Europe, it is essential to build a CSCE which is both flexible and capable of growth and adaptation. We want to see from the Canadian perspective a CSCE that is both pan-European and trans-Atlantic, as well as a forum within which a new co-operative security framework can be built.
This morning I want to touch on two aspects of this, Mr. Speaker. The first will deal with CSCE institutions. In this respect I will mention briefly that the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex, who is chairman of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, was recently invited to attend the meeting organized by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That meeting was held in Strasbourg. Its purpose was to discuss a parliamentary dimension of the CSCE. The resolution before us refers to the creation of a CSCE parliamentary assembly.
The member of Parliament for Halifax West, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, will be speaking shortly in greater detail about this dimension. I am sure other members will as well.
Just to note, Mr. Speaker, the unavoidable absence of the member for London-Middlesex. The hon. member wanted to participate in this debate but is representing the Prime Minister elsewhere at this very moment.
When he participated in that meeting in Strasburg, he expressed concern in the course of the discussions that Canada, as a full member of the CSCE, should not be left on the margins of any type of parliamentary assembly, nor should there be any indication of a weakening of the Europe-North America relationship.
The resolution that was adopted at the conclusion of their debate supported a formula for an assembly of Europe. The hon. member, in fact, abstained from voting on that resolution because he had had no opportunity to discuss this here in the Canadian Parliament. He was concerned to ensure that any new assembly would be a legally distinctive entity from the Assembly of the Council of Europe. Therefore, this opportuntiy we have

Government Orders
this morning to discuss this will be very helpful in outlining a form for Canadian policy in this direction.
As I said, the member for Halifax West will shortly give further thoughts from his considerable experience on this subject as to what future directions might be.
The second area that I will speak on and conclude with, Mr. Speaker, relates to the security aspects of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and particularly the confidence-building measures.
Toward the end of this month, as the parties meet in Paris, there will be another stage reached in the creation of a more secure future for Europeans and North Americans. Canadians have played a big role in getting to this stage. The stage will be marked by the development of a further framework through a treaty to reduce and limit conventional forces in Europe.
These are the so-called CFE negotiations, conventional forces in Europe. They are drawing to a close. In parallel with those negotiations, there have been other meetings by the CSCE participants on a range of measures to build confidence-what are often called security-building measures. These have been under discussion. The goals of these confidence and securitybuilding measures, unlike the negotiations for armament reductions, are not to reduce military capabilities, but rather to expose what exists to public scrutiny and the scrutiny of other sides.
I want to say at this juncture that this is actually one of the most revolutionary concepts, when you think about it. It came through in the open skies concept which Canada has been doing a lot to support. We held a conference here in Ottawa earlier this year.
Anyone who has read anything about military strategy knows that one of the key elements always is the element of surprise. What we are talking about here, this openness or transparency, is to remove totally the element of surprise by permitting rivals, or thought to be rivals, the opportunity to see and to know clearly and concisely what the other side has available, where its troops, armed forces personnel, carriers, tanks, and aircraft are located, and the strength and deployment of those forces.
The intent of this approach is to create an atmosphere of openness and trust, trust about the military intentions of other countries. The end result is quite significant because national security measures taken by countries are very much based on the anticipated threat of what the other side may be intending to do. Military planners
through the ages, and certainly in this century, have had to plan and develop strategies, and commit significant expenditures of government money by anticipating the worst possible threat, what they call the worst case scenario. Often in an atmosphere of mistrust, and the cold war certainly gave us sample doses of that, fear is the common denominator on all sides, the fear of being caught less prepared than the enemy. In that context, a significant arms buildup took place.
We all know of the billions and billions of dollars that have been spent on the arms race in this century. It is a deplorable miscalculation and misallocation of resources that could have been spent so much better on the underlying causes of instability. It would have made a better world rather than an arms buildup.
That is why these measures are of a revolutionary nature. Fostering trust and having openness is a way to create an entirely new atmosphere in which peace can prevail, military expenditures can be reduced, and the risk of war can be minimized.
In the final act at Helsinki, which was concluded in 1975, there were a number of relatively modest confidence-building measures. For examples, nations were encouraged voluntarily to notify each other of their plans to conduct certain large military exercises so that others would not think that there was some planned invasion afoot.
The CSCE is a continuing series of meetings and discussions as these ideas take hold and are reflected in governmental policy of all the participating European and North American countries. At the Madrid meetings which were held between 1981 and 1983, new securitybuilding measures were developed.
The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, who will be speaking in just a moment, was a participant at the Madrid conference. I am sure he will take the opportunity to elaborate somewhat on that aspect of this.
We are getting down to the present time, and I do not have time to go on to outline in detail what these subsequent measures specifically have been, but they are significant and include great arms reductions. For example, the U.S.S.R. will have no more than 13,300 battle tanks in Europe. This is compared to more than 41,000 which were present just in the middle of 1988. It is a reduction from 41,000 to 13,300. With artillery, there will be a reduction from over 42,000 to fewer than 14,000 artillery pieces. In terms of armoured personnel carriers,
November 8, 1990

there will be a reduction from nearly 58,000 to 20,000, a reduction of 38,000.
Those numbers go right over most people's heads. Those 38,000 armoured personnel carriers lined up would stretch from Montreal to Toronto along the Macdonald-Cartier freeway. That would demonstrate graphically the size of the armed camp that Europe has and the size of the reductions that are taking place because of the new atmosphere being engendered through the CSCE.
The meeting that will take place in Paris on the 19th of this month will be another significant step. Canadians can take a great deal of pride in the role which our country has played in seeing that our common security and our future in the global and regional relationship with European powers will be secure because of this new order. The House will hear in the coming hours from other MPs. This is a chance to really speak as Canadians, particularly on the eve of Remembrance Day. We are mindful of past sacrifices that men and women of the country have paid in made-in-Europe wars and that a new future is ahead of us. The direction of Canadian foreign policy in this area, developed over a number of years now with different governments all speaking for a common Canadian interest, can continue to be strong and supportive.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to debate Canada's foreign policy with my good neighbour from Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I say good neighbour because our ridings are neighbouring ridings and our constituents come from similar roots. We both have Canadians who come from all countries that belong to the CSCE, including a non-European country such as the United States.
I was pleased that the parliamentary secretary placed such importance on this aspect of foreign policy, but I was very disappointed that there was not even a minister on the government side to move the motion. Does the government really take foreign policy seriously? I did not expect the Secretary of State to be here because I know he is in Toronto to make a major speech this afternoon which I hope to get to. Surely, the government would have had a couple of ministers in place to move and second the motion. That is no reflection on the part of
Government Orders
the parliamentary secretary. I know he does his work very conscientiously.
My first encounter with the CSCE process was in the Madrid conference of 1980 to 1983. I was there with a group of parliamentarians from the House and we witnessed the corridor negotiations that were going on in resolving human rights issues. We witnessed the violent public demonstrations with representatives from Canada, the U.S., Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, all asking the CSCE delegates to address the human rights issue. This is where Canada always took a lead. While the Soviet Union and other countries wanted to address disarmament, and rightly so, Canada made sure that the issue of human rights violations was always addressed at these conferences since it is one of the items in basket one.
In January of 1989, at the conclusion of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in the Europe follow-up meeting, I remember the somewhat cautious, but at the same time elated, atmosphere that resulted from the series of successful meetings. Even the harshest critics could not deny that the CSCE was indeed alive and well and becoming a very real expansion of east-west relations.
When the Helsinki Accords were negotiated in the early days of detente, some called it a new era of pan-European co-operation. Others called it a Soviet victory in ensuring post World War II borders. Even this year we saw how German unification made the Poles and Lithuanians very nervous. Was this a threat to their present borders? Whatever the interpretation was, however, the Helsinki final act provided specific principles to guide the behaviour and relationship of countries with economic, political, and social discussions.
The Helsinki process was not easy. It could not be. There was a need to believe in the process, to persevere, to cross cultural and ideological lines, and to arrive at some common ground. Even then, people called for an abandoning of the process because of the violations by the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. At the end of day, at the end of the Vienna follow-up conference that took place from November 1986 to January 1989, there was a blueprint for the future, signed by all 35 participants. Vienna began, as Gorbachev introduced his glasnost and perestroika reforms. Although the United States and the Soviet Union have no more voting power than any other

November 8, 1990
Government Orders
country, the influence of the two superpowers on the determination and success of the process cannot and should not be under-estimated.
As the optimist would have it, glasnost and perestroika made their way into the Vienna conference and with the change in attitude on behalf of the Soviet Union, subsequent conferences became a reality. We have seen some of the 11 conferences agreed upon take place, including those demanded by the Soviet Union on the human dimension in France in May 1989, in Copenhagen in June of this year, and we are now gearing up for the Paris summit of the heads of states and heads of governments of the participating countries on November 19, less than a week away.
The scope of the areas covered by the conference is truly astonishing. Therein lies the need for clear direction and clarification, not only of the future of the CSCE but of the future of other international bodies that have mandates to address specific areas that may either overlap or run parallel to the role that the conference has played in the past.
Historically, the conference was made up of three baskets. Basket one was made up of sovereignty, both territorial and internal affairs, the need for peaceful resolutions of disputes, the respect for human rights that include economic, cultural, social rights, fundamental principles of freedom, self-determination of peoples, and the integrity of frontiers and territory.
This expanded further with the co-operation of the members to include terrorism, religious freedom and capital punishment. This basket is also closely watched because it deals with confidence and security building measures. Disarmament, conventional and nuclear, will have to be dealt with within the framework of CSCE, although the hesitation is still real.
I would like to draw to the public's attention how other countries are now pointing fingers at Canada whether we ourselves are not violating basic human rights. Just Monday of this week I received a suicide note from Mr. Biedrzycki of Montreal, not my constituent but he was so frustrated that he sent me the suicide note. He wanted to jump off Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal. Why? He came from Poland as a refugee five years ago, he and
his wife. His uncle in Montreal is providing them with a home to live in. His uncle is providing him with employment.
Here is a couple, five years in Canada, ready to work and ready to provide jobs for other Canadians. What was he caught in? He was caught in the refugee backlog. Five years, Mr. Speaker. I ask, were not the rights of Mr. and Mrs. Biedrzycki violated in their own country? Is this what the CSCE would promote, that it takes five years to determine whether a person should stay in our country? The ironic part of this whole case is had he come to Ontario, he could have applied as a self-exiled refugee class and would have had his landed immigrant status at least three years ago.
Because he went through the refugee backlog, he is not allowed to stay in our country. He will be sent back to Poland in handcuffs, escorted by two security guards. This is the way we treat new Canadians coming to our country.
Where we Canadians always set an example for other countries in the human rights area, we now have this black mark because of that government bungling of the whole immigration refugee policy.
Let me take you on to basket two, Mr. Speaker, of economics, science, technology and the environment. This would seem to be the easier in terms of negotiating toward consensus.
It can be argued however, especially today, that as our very security is threatened by global economics and the state of the environment, were one to want to make real progress, that consensus will, as in the past, not come that easily.
The transfer and exchange of science and technology makes up a fundamental facet in the improvement of standards and conditions of living, and therefore are closely linked to economics and to the environment. I suspect a strong commitment, followed by substantive action, will be the minimum required to tackle this basket and to be taken seriously in doing it.
Basket three deals with human contacts: information, co-operation and cultural, educational exchanges. Canada has traditionally been very vocal in these areas, taking a special interest in unification of families and humanitarian gestures.
November 8, 1990

The Vienna meeting obliged conference members to publish by law all laws and regulations dealing specifically with the movement of peoples within and between states. I think we need some laws and regulations to handle cases like the Biedrycki case that I mentioned earlier.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the list is exhaustive, the scope entirely flexible and unlimited. Now, even more than ever, the opportunity is here to expand the role and increase the effectiveness of the CSCE. I am very pleased-in fact, I am somewhat surprised by the seeming seriousness of this government to take that opportunity and to play a leading role in the future of the conference by way of this motion in front of the House today. My colleagues and I have no argument with the principle of this motion.
In fact, when Mr. Shevardnadze visited Canada in May of this year and spoke to the Standing Committee on External Affairs, he expressed hope that the CSCE would play a larger role and would, in fact, become the forum for expanded east-west relations.
My colleagues and I then endorsed the concept as an ideal balance for those countries affected by the changing global climate, to play a more significant role as will be expected, the closer together superpowers become ideologically.
For once, we will be able to turn our attention to other problems, other security threats, as was referred to by the Secretary of State in his speech in May that the parliamentary secretary alluded to when he launched the government's new policy in Europe.
I cannot help but wonder, however, how this new initiative will fit in with the Europe of 1992, as we have already heard the desire of some of the countries to take more charge of their affairs and not involve North America as much in the decision-making process.
How are we going to retain the trans-Atlantic nature of the CSCE? I must say here that when the Standing Committee on External Affairs visited the Soviet Union and then visited the two Germanys on May 1, we heard both from the East Germans and the West Germans that they want the participation and involvement of Canada and the United States as full members. This was very reassuring to hear.
Government Orders
I would still like some clarification though on the nature of the role of the Parliamentary Assembly that is referred to in the motion, the Crisis Resolution Centre and the Permanent Secretariat. I would like to know how all this changes the role of NATO.
Does the minister see the conference replacing NATO, or working alongside to it? If this is the case, what does he envision as the future of the Warsaw Pact, which is now defunct? How can the evolving CSCE guarantee peace and security to the countries that once belonged to the Warsaw Pact? What will be the criteria for new members? How will the Baltic States that desire membership be treated?
Here I must say, Mr. Speaker, I know how you fought for protecting the non-recognition policy for the three Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Because of the Persian Gulf crisis, because of our own Oka situation, somehow the world has forgotten these three countries when the west, Canada and the United States included, said all along: "We do not recognize the Soviet occupation of these countries."
If we did not for 50 years, why are we doing it now?
Should this issue not be addressed by the evolving CSCE? These people want an answer.
I do not think I am letting anything out of the bag here, but I understand that the leader of Lithuania and the leader of Latvia are negotiating to come and visit us in Canada. Rumour has it that the Prime Minister is prepared to meet with them officially.
And this, I want through you, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, to pass on to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Prime Minister, a sincere thank you on behalf of Canadians of Baltic origin. I think that is a very important and significant move. You have the full support from this side of the House.
Another question is, what will be the criteria for countries admitted as observers if some countries cannot belong as members, but would like to come as observers? How should we treat these countries? Who will make those decisions? Or, will these types of decisions require unanimity amongst all 35 participants?

November 8, 1990
Government Orders
This was something new for me when I attended the Madrid Conference. I learned how everything had to be agreed to by consensus. When the conference could not even agree on the agenda, they stopped the clock. Here we were into the next day, but the clock said no, we were still back in the day preceding. These are all techniques that they have at their disposal.
CSCE has been, and should continue to be a vital venue for Canada's international activities. We must expand our activities within the framework. At the same time, we must let it be known to Canadians that this venue is available to us to use for the benefit of global and domestic security. Unfortunately, little has been known about the whole process and how we fit into it. Even less has been known about how we as Canadians are bound by those same principles and codes of conduct that we expect other countries to abide by.
It could only enhance our lives were we to appreciate that, right down to the fundamental freedoms and the right to equality, each and every one of us is protected, and each and every one of us is a beneficiary.
In closing, I would like to offer, again through the parliamentary secretary, that this motion be expanded, or at least be understood that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will open this process to public dialogue among all Canadians who want input, whether it be through the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade or through a subcommittee.
For the Madrid Conference, Canada played a very vital and leading role because prior to the conference, we did strike a subcommittee, getting input from all the various interest groups; from Canadians who come from these countries, and a report was written and submitted. This report is still referred to today.
I think it is time again that we heard from Canadians who have immediate relatives or friends in the Soviet Union, in eastern Europe. I think this is what Parliament is all about, to listen to the grassroots Canadians. Based on their input, let us then develop a meaningful, responsive and responsible foreign policy. Maybe this is an initiative that the parliamentary secretary could take on.


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: There have been discussions, and I think you are aware of the discussions that the first round of speeches of 20 minutes was agreed to. Unfortunately, our spokesperson has joined his colleagues from the government and the official opposition at a press conference and will be here momentarily.
I wonder if it would be acceptable to everyone if our next speaker would speak for only 10 minutes and when the round comes around again to the New Democratic Party, we would have 20 minutes.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree. Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops could get tapes of the previous two speeches so that the critic could see them before he gives his speech.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a delight for me to speak briefly on this motion in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to CSCE, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, where Canada belongs in that organization and where we see that organization going in the future.
Just to repeat very briefly what has already been said, while Canada is a North American nation it has always had very strong ties to Europe. Most Canadians who are knowledgeable on the subject of that aspect of international relations would classify themselves as Atlanticists.
I think we realize and truly appreciate that the cultural and ethnic background of an overwhelming majority of Canadians is European and that in that regard we have extremely close ties on a personal and social basis with Europe. We also have very strong ties politically and economically, particularly in matters of international trade and commerce. Also in the field of investment there have been very active transactions across the Atlantic for many, many years.
I suppose our first baptism of fire, literally speaking, in terms of European involvement, came with World War I, in which we acquitted ourselves with great distinction, honour, bravery, and courage. In a couple of days' time once again we will be recognizing those eventful years and the great effort and great sacrifice made by so many Canadians.

In the inter-war years we were not nearly as active in Europe, perhaps not as active as we should have been, and I think Europe suffered for it as a result. When I say that we were not that active or as active as we should have been, neither was the United States. We have learned a lot since then, that we do have a place in Europe and European security and that we are wanted in Europe in terms of maintaining stability and helping Europeans in their inter-European affairs.
During World War II we made another very substantial contribution in that dreadful war, and through NATO for the past 40 years we have had an active role as well.
In all these interventions or in all these relationships Canada has acted with considerable distinction, a lot of courage, and a great deal of imagination. In fact it was Lester Pearson who insisted on the so-called Canada clause of NATO, in which he argued that NATO should be much more than just a military alliance, and of course my party and I very much agree. It should also be a social, economic and cultural relationship.
Having said that, we are now confronted with a happy problem in terms of what should be our role now in the CSCE. We have been active in it since its beginnings back in the 1970s. I am happy to see that we intend to remain a part of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
There are many reasons I would argue that this is of fundamental importance to Canada. Not only will it continue the tradition of Canada's close ties with Europe, but it will allow us to make a meaningful contribution to a continent that really is very much in upheaval at this time.
We have very happily accepted the events in eastern Europe in the past year or year and a half. We have seen eastern Europe transform itself with virtually no bloodshed, except for Romania, from Marxist totalitarianism toward a more liberal, democratic society. We have seen it first in Poland, then of course more recently in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and in the unification of east Germany and west Germany.
This process has brought great happiness to Canadians, to Americans, and to Europeans. It has also brought many problems, primarily of an economic nature but also of an ethnic nature.
Government Orders
There is a lot of unrest in countries like Yugoslavia, Romania, even parts of Czechoslovakia, and certainly in the Soviet Union. Of course the Soviet Union is a special case in itself. We welcome the changes that glasnost has brought to the Soviet Union: the more open society, the more liberal society, and the more tolerant society. Certainly the citizens of the Soviet Union are happy with that turn of events.
Quite frankly-and I was there very briefly this past summer for about 10 days-the people in the Soviet Union are extremely unhappy. They are extremely upset. The mood is very volatile. They see all around them the great poverty and great deprivation that are accompanying glasnost. In other words perestroika, the other part of the equation, is simply not working and that country is on the brink of social upheaval day by day.
For example, the very people whom I hope perestroika will benefit in the long run, ordinary working Soviet men and women, are those who are most opposed to perestroika because to date perestroika has brought nothing but deprivation and hardship. The food stores are empty. There is little or no fuel available in many of the great cities of the Soviet Union.
It is not for us to condemn the Soviet Union or to condemn Mr. Gorbachev for what has happened. One cannot go from darkness into light overnight. One cannot go from an authoritarian, highly centralized economy to a free society or a free economy overnight, without these attendant, deeply rooted problems.
The point I am getting at-and this relates to the CSCE-is that I am very fearful that before the Soviet Union can fully adjust itself to a market economy and a liberal, democratic, political regime, the country itself will come apart, as it is doing now.
The old Soviet empire is in a shambles. The old Soviet empire, effectively speaking, no longer exists except for the military and except for what is left of the centralized government in Moscow. However, the Russian Federated Republic, the Ukraine, the Baltic States, and the southern Asiatic republics by and large are bent on one course. One can understand why and sympathize with them. They want independence.

Government Orders
I flew into Tashkent in July. I went to a dinner that evening, hosted by the President of the Supreme Soviet. The very first thing he said after he welcomed us was: "I want you people to know that our first goal is independence and our second goal is to seek membership in the European Community". Thlk about leaping over years, in fact one might even say a decade, all in a matter of a few words. That was his intention. Those were his opening remarks. Having heard that firsthand, one can understand and appreciate that there are going to be very serious problems, unless somehow they all stumble through day by day and eventually end up where they want to go, without any explosiveness and without any kind of civil war.
However, history teaches us that that part of the world is extremely volatile and has resorted more often, in fact one might say exclusively, in moments of crises, to arms and armed rebellion rather than through a democratic process that has been non-existent in the past. It is pretty difficult at this point to assume for a moment that the democratic process is going to prevail. We all hope it will.
In that context, then, it is extremely important that the CSCE begin to assume functions that will enable it to contribute to the maintenance of peace and security not only in central Europe, which is where traditionally, certainly for the last 40 years, we have directed our thought, our energy and our military deployments, but in eastern European and in the Soviet Union. That is a very deep and thick shadow that is casting itself across European security and stability today. If the balloon goes up in the Soviet Union, if the military should feel that it has to seize power in order to establish security and stability, or if the arch-conservatives within the Communist Party decide to seize power and get rid of Gorbachev, then they have only one course of action. They cannot go forward with Liberal reform. They have to go into a period of political retrenchment. They have to re-establish the old order. They have to establish authoritarianism once again. That of course will present very serious problems with respect to stability in eastern and western Europe.
I know my brief time is up. I congratulate the government for bringing forward this motion today. I look forward to Canada's continued participation in the growth of the CSCE in Europe.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the over-all CSCE process, a process in which I know we all are very interested, a process to which we all are very dedicated and a process of which we all are very supportive.
When we pause to reflect on security and co-operation in Europe, there are naturally a number of various approaches that one could discuss.
What I would like to emphasize, however, is the importance of the political approach and the entrenchment of strong pan-European and trans-Atlantic political ties.
Those who know of my involvement with the North Atlantic Assembly will already have guessed I will recommend that organization for greatly increased participation in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, known as the CSCE.
The North Atlantic Assembly is the political wing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It has as its members parliamentarians from 16 NATO countries. NATO, unlike the Warsaw Pact, was formed not only as a defensive military pact but also as a political organization. Canada, I might add, is very active and our Canadian delegates are very highly respected by our NATO colleagues when we attend these various meetings.
What we have traditionally referred to as the Old World in the past has been transformed now into a new world. The Europeans are building an integrated economic and political structure that was unimaginable just a decade ago. The concepts of Europe 1992, a common currency under a European central bank, the opening of borders, and more closely aligned foreign policy constitute hard evidence that the days of chauvinistic and often bloody rivalry in western Europe have passed.
Europe is already wealthy, and closer economic co-operation will increase that wealth. As a nation dependent on trade for one-third of its Gross National Product, Canada cannot ignore the huge and prosperous European market, a market of 320 million people in the European Community alone.
At the same time, the communities of western Europe are faced with a spectre of economic chaos in the east, the prospect of massive movements of economic refugees and migrants, and the possibility that ethnic rivalries or economic collapse could lead to conflict.
November 8, 1990

It is evident that the end of the cold war has not brought a new era of peace and stability into Europe but, rather, it has created great opportunities and great risks for Europeans, their cousins, their friends, and their allies.
For the millions of Canadians who have roots, family members or friends in western and eastern Europe, the ties are very close. They want desperately to see the whole of Europe at peace, unified and economically strong. We all do.
However, rebuilding or, rather, reinventing the strangled political institutions and economies of eastern Europe will be an enormous but essential task if the potential for conflict is to be curtailed.
I know other members of this House and in the other place have taken a very active interest in the CSCE over the years and in recent months. They have been discussing and promoting an expanded role for the CSCE and for parliamentarians within that CSCE process.
In particular, I commend the hon. member for Labrador, the hon. member for Brant, and Senator Duff Roblin, all of whom have played a key role and have been dedicated along these lines.
I think there has been a consensus for some time that parliamentarians must expand their contacts with our new colleagues from eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We must come together to share our knowledge, experience and impressions of the promise and dangers inherent in the changes that are transforming Europe.
Within the North Atlantic Assembly, Canadian and other NATO parliamentarians have been keeping a close watch on the evolving security situation in Europe and maintaining regular contact with representatives of the new democracies in Europe, who are as concerned as we are that co-operation and collaboration be institutionalized, that it be effective and forward-looking and that Canadians and Americans be as actively involved as possible.
Government Orders
For Canada, the CSCE process and the role it will play in developing new methods of confidence-building and co-operation between former adversaries are very crucial.
With an effective parliamentary assembly, Europeans and North Americans will be able to share their ideas and expertise on military issues, on arms control issues, on economic and technical co-operation, on the environment, human rights, the development of political pluralism, and in fact, the whole range of issues that can divide or bring together peoples or countries.
I would also like to express the hope that all members of this House will continue to look for creative and effective ways to continue to make Canadian viewpoints and concerns known to our European and American colleagues.
If we fail in this endeavour, we risk losing influence and valuable friends. We also risk missing an opportunity to help shape a safer and more peaceful world.
Canada is renowned for its role as an international peacekeeper. With this in mind, we can help perform the tasks of mediator in the European community.
The CSCE can, in turn, play a pivotal role in securing political, economic and environmental confidence. We must all strive toward this worthy end. I know all members of this House will want to join.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion. It is certainly broad, but it encompasses many things that are of great issue in international affairs today.
I would like to compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs for putting this on the Order Paper for discussion in this House. International affairs are not much different than one's own domestic affairs or indeed, one's own family affairs. Those members of the family who talk together and discuss matters tend to get along very well. The more we talk about issues in our own country on a co-operative basis, the better we get along. It becomes very important in international affairs where many crucial decisions have to be made that nations talk to each other on a family basis as well.

Government Orders
That has taken place over the many years since the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There have been over 40 years of peace in the world. Sometimes there was the cold war, with the Warsaw Pact in eastern Europe. Over those years, there was very little conversation between the two sides. As long as that situation exists, there is not going to be much of a breakthrough.
The Conference on Security and Co-operation was held in Helsinki in 1975. It was a great breakthrough in international affairs and set the tone for the years to come. To a certain degree, it started a conversation which was absolutely necessary and one that was not taking place as a result of the cold war attitudes between the east and west military blocs. I want to point out that NATO is not just a military bloc. That is the feeling that many Canadians have had over the years.
Lester B. Pearson, who spent all his life in the diplomatic field-I do not know what he was like as a diplomat on the baseball field in his earlier days, but certainly throughout his years in the Public Service, whether as a civil servant or as an elected public servant who served in this House-had a major hand in the formation of that North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He built into it the ability for NATO to discuss economic issues among those 16 nations that eventually ended up as members. There were fewer of course to begin with, but others joined along the way over the 40 years of its history.
Economic issues could be discussed. Social issues could be discussed even down to the levels of unemployment which, of course, we realize is a great source of unrest within nations and among nations.
With social affairs, there is the mixing of individuals and the exchange of knowledge of a scientific and technical nature. I would like to point out that while we think that is important in this modem day, during the Dark Ages of world history, the only people who really communicated with each other were the scientists at the scientific and technological level.
There must be bridges built. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe must be enlarged. Yes, NATO will be more flexible, and must be more flexible. It must lend itself to the co-operative field of work, supplementing and working with, and indeed to some degree, becoming a real part of the CSCE.
Canada and the United States must be part of any new organization that comes out of the present Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. We cannot just sit in North America as the fifth wheel on the wagon. Canada has been a great diplomat among the nations of the world over the years, and we have a role to play. We cannot hesitate from doing this for one minute.
Among the things that we must project, of course, which is most prominent among the CSCE, are the confidence building measures, the verification ideas that came out of any arms control agreements. We must make sure that both sides are, in fact, living up to the conditions which they signed for disarmament.
The Conference on Conventional Arms went on for years in Vienna with no move, no success. Of course, conventional armaments in Europe were just as great a problem as the nuclear problem itself.
They never really came to an agreement because there was no political will to do it. Again, Mr. Speaker, you must have that bridging of the gap and co-operation among nations.
When the Warsaw Pact started collapsing because of internal, economic and social conditions and because there was a desire among those people to have their freedom, there was the immediate political will at the Vienna Conference to have a downsizing of conventional arms in Europe.
All these agreements on the downsizing of conventional and nuclear arms must be an ongoing process. There must be additional meetings and talks to break down and get rid of all barriers so that we have co-operation and tranquillity in the world.
This can only be done if we have an effective forum in which to do it. We in this party certainly support a revamped CSCE. We support the fact that NATO will change. It will become more flexible and its attitude will change from supporting the arms against arms movement in Europe to getting rid of all arms so that there is no major threat to the peace and safety of mankind.
I think that over the years it will be proven that the NATO alliance was one of the most successful alliances in the world, when it came to holding off aggression between east and west long enough for the Warsaw Pact to collapse and fall apart. It was almost like waiting them out, for the day to come when the Warsaw Pact was no longer willing, able or had the desire to continue with

the same old system that had for years been denying people their freedom and, indeed, their human rights. This is where the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has really shone, in fighting the battle for human rights throughout its jurisdiction. As time goes on, it will become very necessary to have a worth-while organization. We are now talking in terms of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe forming an assembly where we will have delegations from the various member countries discussing the issues that are very prominent before them that are important and must be tackled.
I want to say from personal experience what a great thing it is to have parliamentarians from different countries getting together to discuss issues because they become the bridge. They go home and inform their governments in their individual countries what discussions went on. I have had many years of experience in the North Atlantic Assembly where we had delegations of parliamentarians from all members of that organization. I was vice-president of that organization for two years.
In closing, I want to say that the most solid foundation upon which any international organization can be built to last through the years is the fact that nations must be willing to sit down as a family and talk business, mean what they say, do what they decide and have the political will to solve the problems of the day.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by proclaiming our full support for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Members of this House of Commons can unite in supporting the Paris summit of heads of states and governments involved in the CSCE. My personal hope is that the Paris summit will breathe new life into the CSCE process and that this renewal will be the base for security and co-operation across Europe, North America and the north Atlantic over the next decade and beyond into the next century.
The motion supporting the CSCE contains an important and even vital parliamentary dimension. It is this dimension that I would like to explore in discussing the motion today. I believe that the involvement of parliamentarians as an adjunct to the CSCE is vital to its success in maintaining democracy into the next decade and for the future.
Government Orders
Let me begin by explaining the involvement of parliamentarians with international organizations. I should start by saying that when we look back over the almost 50 years since the end of World War II, we realize that the much-maligned international organizations from the United Nations, but including many other pan-European, Asian, Pacific organizations, have in fact succeeded in maintaining world peace over those very troubled years, through the cold war and in other times.
While the international organizations, and particularly the United Nations, at times had their credibility questioned, the fact of the matter is there has been peace in our time, so we can look at it from the perspective of 1990 and say the system has worked, even though we might have doubted its workings at times in the past.
The same can be said of the parliamentary organizations that are adjuncts to many international organizations. I have attended many of them, and at times you wonder whether you are making any progress, whether you are accomplishing anything of a positive nature. When you realize that peace has been maintained and you see the dramatic changes across Europe and throughout the world, you realize that the spirit is there among the people represented by their parliamentarians and brought to international organizations. We now must make sure that we continue to support those international organizations so that they can continue to fulfil their role in maintaining peace and security throughout the world.
Let me talk for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about some of the parliamentary organizations as they relate to our country and to North America, but especially to our relationship with the European Community.
There are in existence a number of organizations. Of course, everybody is familiar with the European Community and the European Parliament which plays a vital role among the 12 nations that are involved in that particular organization. But on a more general basis, as has already been mentioned, there is the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly connected with the Council of Europe. That is a much more co-operative organization, based on mutual understanding and not based upon any legislated text. It is that kind of organization with which we in Canada can participate because we are not held to any specific law-making functions or binding decisions. We maintain our sover-

Government Orders
eignty and within the spirit of the CSCE is the maintenance of national sovereignty throughout the process.
As I have said, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe involves a broader group of European Nations. The question becomes, how do we create a parliamentary assembly that can join in a more direct way with CSCE and participate in that broader process, especially in the light of the developing democracies and the emergence of parliaments and parliamentarians from those developing democracies in eastern Europe.
This brings me specifically to the words in the text of the motion before us because that motion encourages the establishment of a parliamentary assembly as an adjunct to the CSCE.
I had occasion very recently to attend the Interparliamentary Union meeting in Uruguay. This very matter was discussed among the European group to which Canada and the United States of America are also parties because we follow the tradition of the CSCE in making that Pan-European connection with North America. Some of the European parliamentarians felt that there should be an expansion of the Parliamentary Assembly and of the Council of Europe to include the new democracies and make it a Pan-European organization. That would not really be in the interests of Canada and Canadian parliamentarians because we would not be in any way directly involved in that kind of organization.
The CSCE from its very origin has involved Canada and the United States of America and has taken a broader outlook on the coverage of the organization. We are already very much involved in this organization, so I think the development of a parliamentary assembly as an adjunct to the CSCE is very much in Canadian interests. It ought to be encouraged and fostered by Canadian parliamentarians.
There is already in process a number of elements that will lead to the consideration of parliamentary assemblies in connection with the developing democracies in Europe and their linkage with their established democracies already involved in the European Community and the Council of Europe.
In July, 1991 in Vienna, there will be the Seventh Interparliamentary Conference on European Co-operation and Security. This is a conference that emanates from the member groups within the interparliamentary union which is the broad based international organization for parliaments. As part of its deliberations, this conference will consider the very matter of a new European Assembly of Parliaments with a European base. It will also consider if this Assembly of Parliaments should be extended to North America, particularly to Canada and the United States of America. It will be essential that Canada participates in that conference and makes the case, which we have already made through our representatives of the House of Commons at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, that Canada has a place and a role, and ought to be included in the parliamentary assembly.
Why do we participate in these kinds of organizations? It is simply to foster the thought and considerations that are very much a part of the CSCE and very much a part of the Helsinki final act which is the basis of the CSCE. We believe, as the member nations in the CSCE process believe, that sovereign equality has to be respected; that territorial boundaries have to be inviolable; that there can be no intervention in the internal affairs of other states; that we must have peaceful settlement of international disputes; and, above all, that there must be respect for human rights in all nations of the world.
These are the principles that bind together the nations that participate in the CSCE process. These are the principles that bind democratic parliamentarians together, and these are the principles that we want to foster, not in this country, but around the world. As every nation of the world observes these principles, we can be assured that that will be the basis for peace and security.
I do not for one minute believe that we can abandon our obligations to NATO and the North Atlantic Assembly. I think that those activities should continue and be enhanced. We have demonstrated through the peace efforts of the past half century that deterrents are necessary. There will always be somebody-and we see this in the Middle East today- who will take advantage of those who cannot defend themselves in a physical way. It is true of people. It is true of nations. We will not, and we cannot, abandon that aspect in our search for peace and security.

What we can do, at the same time and on another track, is to create better relations with all nations, encourage and foster the establishment of democratic principles, and at the same time bring about a total observance of these principles that will assure peace and security in the future.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, support the thrust of this motion in that we support the CSCE as the basis of a new security system for Europe. Having said that, we believe that more detail and more work is necessary. We support the principle of having the CSCE act as the basis of a new security system in Europe because the old security systems are in the process of coming apart, and for good reason.
The two traditional organizations for security in Europe, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, were both confrontational and both set up in the late forties to defend one against the other. But, with detente in Europe, with the growing number of disarmament treaties, and even with the recent announcement that it is likely the Warsaw Pact will dissolve next year, we must look to a new type of security system for Europe. The logical place to start is with the Conference on Security and Co-operation for Europe, known as the CSCE.
It is the logical place to look because it not only includes the European countries from the east and the west, the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO, but it also includes Canada and the United States. These countries, we believe, are essential if there is to be economic and political stability in Europe and if there is going to be a real security for Europe.
I referred to the movement to detente in Europe. Of course it is not complete, but there has already been the signing a few years ago of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. In October of this year a draft treaty for the reduction of conventional forces in Europe was agreed to. We are well advanced on a START agreement. The strategic arms limitation treaty is well advanced. We have had the open skies conference here to deal with security-building measures and other measures to disarm. Of course another element that has entered into
Government Orders
this which is very significant is the unification of Germany and a united Germany which will be a principal force in Europe.
With all this happening, one might ask why a new security system is necessary at all. On the one hand, some of those eastern European countries are moving to conservative or liberal type governments, and on the other hand some are moving to reform type of communism or a reform type of socialism involving a lot more democracy than was present in the past. Despite the changes at the top, the bureaucracies in these countries, especially the eastern European countries, still remain entrenched with the old communists of the past so there is still a lot of work to be done.
That having been said, Mr. Speaker, there are risks of conflict in the new Europe that is developing. There is the risk of conflict from increased nationalism. There is the possibility of breakdown of central authorities, whether in Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or elsewhere. There is the emergence of minority groups within various countries which pose certain threats. There are old border questions that might arise. There is a whole threat that comes about as a result of economic disparity in Europe and the potential massive flow of economic and political refugees moving across borders from east to west and causing, perhaps, dislocation.
There is also the threat from outside Europe of small border attacks but also international terrorism. Through the CSCE, Europe, as a whole, may wish to set up co-operative measures to protect itself against such terrorist attacks. There are also the threats that come from environmental questions, such as the flow of waters and air. There was the whole business of Chernobyl a few years ago. How does the new Europe deal with this?
These are all questions that could be dealt with in a newly structured CSCE.
When I say we would support the use of the CSCE as the basis of a new security system in Europe, we suggest as well that it needs restructuring with perhaps more permanent institutional structures and more institutional forms, and it must be given a new and a clear mandate.

Government Orders
My time is coming to an end, but let me say that there are other organizations in Europe as well that might be looked at. There are the European Community, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, and the Western European Union. None of those has the same potential as the CSCE. The CSCE is more broadly based and does include the North American countries, Canada and the United States.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, we encourage our government to go to the conference in Europe on November 19 and put forward proposals which will assist in the development of the CSCE as a more effective and new security institution for all of Europe to deal with the threats I referred to and to take the place in due course of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for their indulgence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Take the full 20 minutes.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I understand the qualification that you are not saying I have to, because we are now beginning to work through lunch period. On the other hand, I am sure you will find even a full 20 minutes for me is more than fascinating.
On behalf of our party, I would like to confirm our support for this important resolution and motion before the House. The motion calls for the support of the House for the CSCE, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as a key Pan-European and trans-Atlantic forum within which a new co-operative security framework can be built. This can be done so through the maintenance and development of its comprehensive approach to security, political, economic, environmental and human dimension issues, and strengthened by the development of the structure of the CSCE process, including the creation of a CSCE parliamentary assembly.
The CSCE grew out of the Helsinki Accord and was a process of discussion involving not just the members of NATO or the Warsaw Pact, but also other countries in Europe. It began its life when the cold war was at one of
its low spots and when tension between the superpowers was at a height. It continued through the Reagan years. The early Reagan years were also years in which the Americans were building up arms and rattling their sabres and missiles. The prospect for peace seemed dim.
Now, CSCE begins to reach into its full power at a time of momentous changes in Europe, changes that are brought about by the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and the whole communist regime in eastern Europe and the arrangements that had prevailed since the end of the Second World War. Those arrangements, depending a bit on one's point of view of history, could be said to have been in response to a perceived threat from the west or, as evidence of the threatening intentions, particularly of the Soviet Union, against the west. Whichever view of history one maintains, both in my view have something to be said for them.
Walter Lippmann, for example, a noted American commentator, has argued very forcefully for the proposition that the Soviet Union never had adventurous intentions toward western Europe and that in fact, NATO was developed in large part to provide a vehicle for the military industrial establishment, particularly in the United States, as an outlet for its energies and resources. Whichever view is taken, the fact remains that today that whole structure is now falling apart. No longer can it be said that NATO has any military purposes because it no longer faces any military threat from the Warsaw Pact countries, including the Soviet Union.
One of the key countries in the Warsaw Pact, East Germany, is now no longer. It has been absorbed within West Germany as part of, in effect, a new country. Other countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland are, for all practical purposes, allies. They certainly have no forces aimed in our direction. The Warsaw Pact, it may be said, is under liquidation. The Soviet Union is facing internal turmoil, terrible economic problems and clearly has no capacity or will to launch any kind of invasion against the west. The prospect of a war in Europe that was the fundamental basis for the spending of billions of dollars by the western economies in maintaining troops in Europe is now gone. The threat is now gone. This is a view that is shared by virtually everyone from all political persuasions.

Now we are left with the question of where next in Europe, and particularly what will Canada's relationship be with Europe? There are perhaps four options. The options can be considered under four headings, to be slightly more precise. One option is the CSCE. There is a very real prospect, as has been noted already in this debate and has been referred to in the resolution.
The CSCE itself will become the framework for organizing security in Europe, for dealing in a military way with whatever remaining threats are perceived to the security of Europe.
The great advantage of the CSCE, as has already been stated, is that it includes countries on both sides of the now defunct Iron Curtain. It also includes the neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland, and includes Canada and the United States. So it has a trans-Atlantic component as well as strictly a European component.
That means that all of the countries on both sides of the Atlantic that conceivably have a particular interest in issues of regional security in Europe would have a place at the table. It may well be that the CSCE then becomes the forum for sorting out what will be the future arrangements, and arguably may establish within its own system a sum system of collective security in Europe.
Another option is the Council of Europe. Another option is NATO. Another option may be something that nobody has yet put on the table. We have at least four headings under which we can look at the issues of the future security arrangements in Europe. The CSCE, of course, deals with many other issues in Europe, and that is referred to in the resolution.
Let me focus my remarks in my capacity as defence critic for our party on the issues of military security, and how they may be organized and dealt with. One question we have to ask is what is Canada's interest in these arrangements? A subsidiary question to that is what will be the role of the United States in a future Europe?
I think Canada's interests are clearly, certainly in the minds of government supporters and of the Liberals, entirely linked with that of the United States. There seems to be a strong position still emanating from government circles and from the Liberal Party that NATO is to be taken for granted as continuing to have a role and that every effort must be made to maintain NATO's continued existence even if it means finding roles for NATO which it does not presently have.
Government Orders
Furthermore, it is in our interest to encourage the Americans to maintain troops in Europe and concomitantly that we also therefore must maintain troops in Europe, must maintain an air force that can support those troops, must maintain a navy that also is in support of the troops that we have in Europe.
Yet, the military role for American and Canadian troops is now no longer there. It has disappeared. The front lines cannot even be found. One of the officers in the CF-18 squadron there said to the defence committee that what was the town in Czechoslovakia that was his target for exercise purposes and in the event of war, is a town that he now drives his family to on a Sunday afternoon outing.
The target has gone. There is no military requirement for Canadian and American troops in Europe. The only remaining argument is a political one, that is that somehow American and Canadian troops are needed to counter balance some development in Germany. There is an argument sometimes raised that it is essential as part of the nuclear deterrent strategy that if the Americans leave and whoever is left in the Soviet Union threatens a nuclear assault on western Europe, western Europe could no longer in those circumstances count on the American use of deterrent.
Let me deal with these arguments one by one. The real truth of the matter is that there are those in the United States, and reflected and echoed to some extent in Europe, who want the Americans to stay in Europe to exercise American influence in Europe. That is a view which we must dissociate ourselves with. It is not in Canada's interest that the Americans still remain in Europe. It is in Canada's interest that the Americans withdraw their troops from Europe in part so that there is no longer any argument that we should be maintaining troops in Europe.
We spend $1.2 billion a year on maintaining a contingent in Europe. Everyone in this House can consider other more valuable and useful expenditures. Some would argue simply reducing the deficit. Others would call for a child care program, for restoring the cuts in social programs in this country, for finally dealing with the crisis on native reserves and among native people in Canada, for dealing with poverty in the Third World. We are spending $1.2 billion directly to maintain this contingent in Europe which no longer has any military significance.

Government Orders
I suggest in the circumstances that is frankly immoral. When you add to that the costs involved of maintaining in Canada the support for the troops in Europe, as much as 40 to 50 per cent of our defence budget goes to maintain this so-called commitment to NATO. It is in Canada's interests, I submit, that we end Canadian and American military participation in Europe and that we leave to Europeans the responsibility of specific security concerns and dealing with the remaining security concerns in Europe.
We should participate in the discussions as to the framework and we should continue to have a place at the table in view of our long historic relationship with Europe, but we do not need NATO to do that. There are other forums under which that input can be had.
Let me deal if I can with the nuclear deterrent issue. It is argued, as I suggested, that somehow if American troops are left in Europe that will be some form of protection for Europe in retaining the efficacy of the American nuclear deterrent.
Let me suggest that the time has come for us to squarely address the immorality and impracticality of the whole nuclear deterrent strategy. Impracticality. The Soviet Union and any other countries that are equipped to deliver some form of nuclear assault on Europe or anywhere else in the world have already discovered more than once that that is an idle threat. It is not a threat which can be used. It is an expensive threat. It is a danger to the environment of their own country. It is a threat which will in fact not be exercised.
Even if that argument is not bought, we are left with the issue of the remaining American deterrent. Clearly, if whatever is left in the Soviet Union, when it all shakes down, there will be no will in the Soviet Union to deploy any nuclear weapons against western Europe or Europe as a whole. The Soviet Union is part of Europe.
When the CSIS committee was in Washington earlier this year, we met with senior CIA officials and some ex-officials from the CIA who had kept themselves well informed of events. Their view was that the Soviet Union
would become part of Europe economically and politically within the next 10 years. That was March. Tbday that 10-year period seems too long.
It seems to be very clear that with economic investment in Europe, with the political changes in Europe, with the investment in the Soviet Union, with the political changes in the Soviet Union, with the co-operation that has been shown now as part of the response to the gulf crisis by the Soviet Union, France, the United States and Great Britain, that the Soviet Union is now responding in precisely the same way to these international events and with the same interests. They take different positions on specific aspects, but it is entirely co-ordinated and the interests are viewed the same. There is even no argument left for maintaining the nuclear deterrent.
This leaves us, then, with how we are going to get to where we want to go in Europe. The CSCE provides a framework for those discussions, and this motion encourages that direction. It is important that the government go a step further than it has been prepared to go so far and say within the councils of the CSCE that Canada views as one objective of the discussions now under way and continuing that NATO be wound down. The Warsaw Pact has been wound down. The time has come to develop as a matter of policy that NATO should be wound down.
Canada should serve notice that it will no longer participate in NATO, that NATO is obsolete and has no place in international and regional discussions, and that Canada will withdraw its troops from Europe because we have better things to do with the money that is being spent in maintaining the contingent in Europe. This is an important policy and one which, if the government does not accept it today, it will be obliged to accept tomorrow. It would be helpful if the government would move more quickly rather than wait until events overtake it again.
It would be helpful if Canada would show some leadership in continuing the momentum toward a world that is a safer place, a world in which disarmament has finally come to pass, and a world that no longer relies on
November 8, 1990

huge armies for security but understands that security is a matter of fundamental acceptance that we are a family and that our security depends upon our family's security. We must begin to understand that we can no longer rely, at least in European terms, on the military for providing our security. It is in Canada's interest to further this process, and I would urge the House to endorse the motion.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufF-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the upcoming summit in Paris on the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
In 1975, when the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE, came into agreement on its first set of principles and undertakings, we were in the midst of an era dominated by fear and filled with tension. The CSCE was bom out of the desire to move beyond fear and tension, to agree on common principles and rights, and to begin the process of moving toward a new Europe.
Now, 15 years later, we emerge from the year of revolution and begin upon an era of reconstruction. Change was so sudden and sweeping it has become easy to get caught up in the celebration of change rather than to stop and reflect upon the enormity of the change.
I think Vaclav Havel, President of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, best described the enormous changes in Europe when he stated:
Obviously they had no idea what they were setting in motion or how rapidly events would unfold. We knew a lot about the enormous number of growing problems that slumbered beneath the honeyed, unchanging mask of socialism. But I do not think that any of us knew how little it would take for those problems to manifest themselves in all their enormity and for the longing of these nations to emerge with all their strength. The mask fell away so rapidly that, in the flood of work, we have literally no time to be astonished.
A primary catalyst of the changes of which Mr. Havel speaks was the CSCE process that achieved and enlarged commitments to rights by nations that previously had not acknowledged them, then provided constant and inescapable pressure to respect those commitments, and finally created a habit and example of nations working together to advance basic common values.
Government Orders
A new Europe has emerged and, in step with this new world, the CSCE must expand upon its initial principles to ensure the new order strengthens.
Canada's commitment to Europe is both pragmatic and profound. We are tied to Europe in spirit and in substance. NATO, the CSCE, and the European Community form three essential pillars of our vision of the new Europe.
We in Canada applaud the new Europe and see the role of the CSCE as helping to build a Europe which is engaged in the wide world and not apart from it. The new Europe must be an example for others, an example of common purpose which will then allow the world to turn seriously to other pressing problems this planet is facing.
In order to complement the new Europe, a new CSCE must emerge. The CSCE must be a flexible organization capable of growth and adaptation, and a structure which change strengthens and does not weaken.
The CSCE summit in Paris on November 19, 1990 will provide an opportunity to build upon the shared ideals, values, interests, and aspirations of the new Europe. The CSCE process must be institutionalized, regularized, and politicized. The CSCE must be responsive to the changing needs of its membership, change which was no more evident than during this past year of European revolution.
There are five specific areas which are vital parts of this new, adaptive CSCE.
The first is the requirement for the CSCE structure to have a strong element of political direction and leadership. The peoples of our countries must see their leaders controlling and guiding the CSCE process if that process is to retain and build legitimacy.
The second is to give the CSCE a truly democratic and representative face. The principles of the CSCE are principles of democracy. Canada considers it important that the Paris summit move toward an Assembly of Europe with appropriate parliamentary representation from all states, which would gather to discuss and exchange views on those issues that fall under the CSCE mandate.
Thirdis the formation of a CSCE Centre for the Prevention and Resolution of Conflict. Such a multilateral centre can play a crucial role in assisting verification

Government Orders
and data exchange arising from the negotiations on confidence and security building measures. This centre can be used as a mechanism for the prevention and resolution of conflict, an enhanced instrument related to fact finding, conciliation, mediation, and the arbitration of conflicts.
Fourth, within the new CSCE is the question of force reduction talks. The summit in Paris requires a Conventional Forces in Europe agreement or CFE. This agreement, already several years in the making, once signed will dramatically reduce conventional arms. A new Europe cannot be constructed when the symptoms of the old are allowed to persist and we cannot agree on the means to remove those symptoms.
Fifth, the trans-Atlantic and pan-European role of the CSCE must be reinforced: a Europe which bridges the Atlantic, a Europe which is a concept rather than just a continent, a Europe which encompasses the outward reaching spirit in which the CSCE was founded.
Summarized, the CSCE provides for the essential element of an open Europe. It involves both the Soviet Union and North America. The new Europe must be a strong Europe, a hemispheric fabric of common achievement, common principles, and shared engagement. The CSCE can be an instrument of this wider Europe, a Europe whose very breadth will enhance prosperity and strengthen our peace.
As the nature of European security grows beyond military balances to political stability and economic prosperity, CSCE must in turn expand on its initial mandate so that the new Europe can reach its full potential. We must contribute constructively to the growth of the new Europe and CSCE and in turn we will contribute to the growth of a new world order. I believe the five initiatives outlined earlier will do just that.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the upcoming summit of heads of state and heads of government of the participating parties in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to be held in Paris, France on November 19,1990,1 am delighted to be able to stand here this afternoon and speak on this topic.
The face of Europe has been irreversibly changed. In the last five years there has been a monumental transformation. Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost
have given Soviets the confidence to demand still further changes.
The status of eastern Europe has undergone an even more dramatic and momentous metamorphosis in the last year. It is difficult to overstate the effect of this change not only on Europe but the entire international milieu.
As the world order has been driven by east-west conflict for the last 40 years, this order will necessarily change as a result. Canada, as a stakeholder, must be aware of the nature and extent of the changes and be prepared at least to react and at best anticipate accordingly.
The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe gives Canada an effective forum to participate in the forging of a new, sustainable, and peaceful Europe.
Let me first speak to the enormity of changes that have taken place in Europe, changes that have resulted in the CSCE process taking on added historical significance: the ratification of the reunification of Germany and, by extension, the symbolic reunification of Europe and virtual declaration that the cold war is officially over. We have all marvelled at the speed and extent of change. The dominance of totalitarian communist governments in eastern Europe has been virtually wiped out.
The pace, severity, and consequence of the upheavals have varied, but the theme has been the same throughout most of eastern Europe: democratization and a basic disavowal of Marxism-Leninism as the controlling principle of economics and government. The role of the world's newest Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mikhail Gorbachev, cannot be overlooked as impetus for these revolutionary changes.
New policies and several seminal speeches that he gave, starting in 1985, made it increasingly clear that there had been a fundamental change in philosophy at the very top in the Kremlin.
One long-time analyst said that Mr. Gorbachev had lit a burning fuse that would set off a rapid series of political explosions throughout eastern Europe.
The Soviet reforms meant that, first, citizens in the other countries would expect or seek similar changes because of the historical Soviet leadership in policy in the East Bloc and, second, that the U.S.S.R. no longer had the legitimacy to stop reforms from occurring outside its borders.
November 8, 1990

The Soviets, by not doing anything to stop the dramatic democratic reforms in eastern Europe, had tacitly given their endorsement.
The beginning of that process was the legalization and subsequent shift of political power to Solidarity in Poland. This was the demonstration that the rest of eastern Europeans had been waiting for since the end of the Second World War.
Since then we have watched with interest events in Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, and of course the reunification of Germany.
These changes are fundamental and irreversible. The tide has been irreversibly altered. The genies have been let out of the bottles all over the region.
This conference comes at the perfect time in history for a serious pan-European and trans-Atlantic dialogue. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is a structure in such a way that it will act as a framework for future joint discussion and action.
I whole-heartedly support efforts to create an effective CSCE parliamentary assembly. The CSCE itself encompasses conferences and agreements between 33 European states, plus Canada and the United States.
The Helsinki Final Act, signed in 1975, provides the framework for a fundamental political commitment. The act incorporates three distinct sections or baskets. The first basket is of particular interest to me, as the human rights critic of the Official Opposition. It includes principles designed to guide relations between participating states, as well as security questions including military confidence building. Within this framework, the first basket deals with the whole realm of human rights issues.
It is essential to ensure in the process that is to take place in Paris later this month that respect for fundamental human rights and dignity is at the base of discussions.
More recently, the Vienna Concluding Document took an important step in elaborating extensive normative commitments in all areas covered by the CSCE process, particularly in human rights. It established a four stage mechanism for monitoring and encouraging
Government Orders
compliance with human rights commitments, and a three part conference on the human dimension within Europe. Furthermore, it called meetings on, among other things, peaceful settlement of disputes and culture.
Canada is an important participant, taking part in all aspects of the process since its inception. We must remain committed to the goals stated: to enhance security and confidence, to break down barriers wherever they exist and to help facilitate the freer flow of information, ideas and people throughout Europe.
This conference is an example of the type of role Canada can play and should continue to play in the international community.
Again, I am most pleased to speak to the subject of this very important conference. I know that all parties on all sides of the House will be endorsing this.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this particular item. It is a very important item because when we talk about human rights violations, security and peace in the world, one part of the world seems to be forgotten.
There is this little island in the Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus. For those of my colleagues in the House who do not know exactly where the island of Cyprus is-my colleague says she knows, but for the rest of my colleagues-it is located in the eastern part of the Mediterranean just below Thrkey.
For many years that island was invaded time after time. If we go back in history about 2,000 years, the island was first settled by the Greeks. This was followed by wave after wave after wave of people invading the island, settling it and leaving some history behind. The Tbrks owned the island for parts of the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries and then they sold it to the British.
There was an uprising against the British in 1950s. The people of Cyprus wanted to be free. They gained that independence.
Cyprus is divided between the Greek Cypriots who make up about 80 per cent of the population, and Thrkish Cypriots who make up 18 to 20 per cent of the population. They were living together in peace until 1963. In Nicosia, Cyprus, violence broke out with the one side wanting to take over the other side.

Government Orders
In 1974, saying they were protecting the Turkish minority, Turkey invaded the island. Since that time, the island has been divided. There is a green line or a wall across the island to separate the Greeks from the Ihrks.
For almost 26 years, Canadians have been on the island as part of the United Nations forces to help keep the peace. Canada has had 29 of its soldiers killed in that time. It is costing Canadian taxpayers about $30 million a year to have that force on the island.
When we are discussing the motion put forward today by my hon. friend, it is very important that we look at that particular part of the world, for the particular reason that, as the European and North American nations are getting together to discuss peace, that island is part of Europe and yet nobody gets up to speak about it.
We have one country which is involved in Cyprus which wants to be part of the European Economic Community. Tbrkey wants to join the EEC, and yet, they are saying that they are on that island to protect the Hirkish Cypriots from their aggressor. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, who is the aggressor? Certainly not the Greek Cypriots.
Yet this particular part of the world has been forgotten. Why is it forgotten? Is it because of its role within the Middle East? Is it because it is the last foothold of the western nations overlooking all of the Middle East, right up to Pakistan, because, Mr. Speaker, besides Israel, that is the only place the western world has a foothold overlooking its activities in the Moslem world.
In Nicosia there are two embassies built right across the street from each other. They are the United States embassy and the Russian embassy. I had the opportunity to visit there and these are the biggest embassies that these two countries have all over the world. How many citizens of the United States are on the island of Cyprus, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000? Do they need one of their biggest embassies to serve them?
How many Russians are living in Cyprus? I could count the number on the fingers of my hands, and yet these two embassies are right across the street from each
other. Why? Is it because of espionage in this day and age, when we talk about detente or when we talk about peace in the world? I wonder why those two countries are spending millions on that small island?
Do the superpowers want that island to remain divided? Do they want the status quo? One wonders, Mr. Speaker, why it is that in the past 25 years no solution has been found for that particular part of the world.
When members of the government go to this conference, they should bring these facts forward. Then all of the European nations can sit and discuss that little island of Cyprus. It is the last part of Europe that still faces some form of aggression and instability.
The walls of Berlin have come down. We have witnessed over the past year and a half how eastern Europe is starting to become more of a democracy. We witnessed in 1989 the Tiananmen Square massacre, how the people stood up and said no more to the regimes of the east.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have a beautiful island right in the middle of the Mediterranean with one side saying, "I want to have demilitarization", while the other side is saying, "I am here protecting my people". I wonder who those people are? We have seen successive members of parliament, successive governments of the island try to settle this particular matter.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is running out but it is such an important issue. I hope when our leaders go to this conference, they will take this to heart. When our leaders sit there, they will actually discuss the problem of Cyprus because the people of Canada and the people all over the world cannot see this beautiful island divided and invaded by 30,000 soldiers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In view of the fact that there are no more speakers, shall I suspend the sitting until two o'clock?
There being no further members rising on debate, pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, November 7, the debate is deemed to have adjourned and sitting is suspended until two o'clock.
At 1.40 the House took recess.



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the government's response to the standing committee report on the economic integration of disabled persons was tabled this morning.
It is yet another step taken by the Government of Canada in ensuring that persons with disabilities are full and equal participants in Canadian social and economic life.
The government has illustrated its commitment to this goal through the establishment of the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, a $3.2 million yearly provision to the disabled persons participation program, the inauguration of National Access Awareness Week, and the enactment of the first ever National Employment Equity Act which protects persons with disabilities.
We call on communities across Canada to help us continue to meet these objectives by eliminating the barriers to full access for disabled persons.
Join us in pursuing this pre-eminent goal of Canadian citizenship.


THE LATE HUGH MACLENNAN
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened, as I know all hon. members were, to learn last evening that Hugh MacLen-nan had passed away.
Mr. MacLennan, one of Canada's foremost authors, was bom in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, in 1907. He grew up in Halifax and studied at Dalhousie University before attending Oxford and Princeton Universities.
His best remembered works include: Barometer Rising, The Watch That Ends the Night, Voices in Time, and of course, his most famous work, 7vvo Solitudes, which showed the author's understanding, appreciation and hopes for his country.
Mr. MacLennan's writing about Canada, its people and its places, brought him both honour and distinction. He received five Governor-General Awards, he was a Companion of the Order of Canada, and he held 18 honorary degrees.
We pay our tributes to his memory today and express our sincere sympathy to those who mourn his untimely passing.


DISABLED PERSONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, it was with consternation and disappointment that I read the government's so-called action plan on disability tabled earlier today. Given the Prime Minister's lofty words of encouragement for disabled Canadians, I expected much more.
The few initiatives taken are not nearly enough. Three and a half million disabled Canadians have waited patiently for a comprehensive plan of action from this government. Piece-meal activity and rhetoric are just more smoke and mirrors. Federal leadership and commitment are needed now, not at some politically convenient date further down the road.
Is the Prime Minister really interested in the well-being and equality of Canadians with a disability? Does the minister responsible for disabled Canadians really care about their full participation in community affairs?
Talk is cheap and that is what we have seen in today's report on disability-talk, talk and more talk. Cheap, cheap, and more cheap.
Mr. Speaker, I very much regret having to say that, and I say it more in sadness than in anger.

[Translation\


THE DISABLED
Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the report tabled this morning by the minister responsible for the Status of the Disabled, the Secretary of State, in response to the committee's report, contains some important measures, including an exhaustive analysis of federal legislation affecting the disabled.

The federal government has shown it is firmly resolved to remove the barriers facing the disabled in various key areas and thus ensure equal participation by all Canadians in our society.
There is also a proposal for establishing a committee of deputy ministers with a mandate to improve co-ordination of federal activities designed for people with a disability. Departments and federally regulated agencies will thus be able to continue the excellent work they have done so far.
Personally, I feel that this legislative review is an important step in our joint effort to promote equality in every respect for Canadians with a disability.


THE LATE FATHER GERARD DION
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, a prominent figure died this week, Father Gerard Dion, a former professor at Laval University in Quebec City. I would like to pay tribute to Father Dion who instigated a review of electoral behaviour and electoral policies in Quebec during the 1950s. At the time he heralded the changes of the Quiet Revolution which started in 1960.
Father Dion was a hard worker, endowed with unusual frankness and courage. His death is a great loss to Quebec society, and the social or political role played by Father Dion proved decisive for Quebec.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech before Parliament on November 1, 1990, our Prime Minister reaffirmed our government's commitment to educational reform. He called for a new approach to education which respects all Canadians' fundamental rights and sets national standards which will allow our children to keep up with their counterparts abroad.
Education is recognized as a vital contributor to personal, societal and national development. We need a system that works and one attuned to the future demands of the country and the economy. Canadians need a system whose results are beyond question. Our children must be put on equal footing and they must have at the minimum basic literacy and numeracy skills.
All members should join me in applauding the fact that, through the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children, our government is committed to a reduction of illiteracy and the provision of educational opportunities for our children which prepares them for productive employment and life-long learning opportunities.


SOCIALIST AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of Canadians the first of many socialist awards of excellence. The nominees are: number one, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca whose self-righteous indignation on the plight of the underprivileged seems to pale in light of his personal abuse of poor printers; number two, the member for Trinity-Spadina-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to remind hon. members that the Order under which we are making statements is very specific. It is not to be used in an attack on an hon. member. I am sure the hon. member would not want to abuse the rule.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport tabled his response to the transport committee report on a substance abuse strategy for the Canadian transport industry.
His policy is wrong and it is not "Made in Canada".
We had hoped that the government, which recently rediscovered a little backbone in its rejection of American attempts to impose U.S. trade laws on Canada, would have found enough courage to tell the United States that Canada will not submit to their "or else" demand that we impose American drug testing laws on Canadians.
A U.S. perception of a risk to American safety when most concerned Canadians, including the minister and the transport committee, have stated repeatedly that "no significant risk" exists in Canada is not an acceptable reason to violate the basic rights and privacy of a quarter million Canadians.

Also, the U.S. is now learning that its testing regime is both extremely costly and unproductive and is turning to alternate strategies like performance testing and increased supervision.
Why adopt a failing strategy? Is it a smoke-screen to cover his failure to deal with the real dangers to transport safety in Canada, such as overworked and inadequate air traffic control and the consequent closure of airport towers across Canada?
New Democrats would support a genuine safety strategy that concentrated on education, counselling and employee assistance programs. Safe performance, not exposure, should be the goal and the test of a sensible program.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval West):: Mr. Speaker, these are sad times in Canada when Quebecers and Canadians are seering their identity in a union that will make us a nation of various ethnic groups. So far, we had acknowledged, accepted and learned to live with our cultural differences, but today we are faced with a kind of confrontation that may lead to the break up of our society.
We must not let ourselves be overcome by hostile feelings, Mr. Speaker. Together we must work towards national reconciliation. We must forget our patriotic struggles. We must live for the future. We must build for the future.
I want to ask all members of this House to work together so that we can all build a country where people will want to live and where there will be a future for our children.
Let us not be self-centred or masochistic, Mr. Speaker. Live and let live, and let us all work together and leave our descendants a properous legacy.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the government keeps its commitments to official
languages. In addition to tabling its draft regulations for the 1988 Official Languages Act, our government signed on November 3 a general agreement with Manitoba to promote official languages. The agreement will, among other things, make it possible to review, translate and publish the Statutes and Regulations of the Province of Manitoba in both official languages; to implement French services at Manitoba Hydro, the St. Boniface General Hospital and public libraries in Francophone regions; and to renovate and expand the Centre culturel franco-manitobain.
Mr. Speaker, these are concrete examples of the kind of leadership this government has shown with respect to official languages.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we all know that in spite of their rhetoric, the Liberal senators in the Liberal caucus could have defeated the GST on many occasions.
They could have defeated the GST when leave was sought to introduce the legislation into the Senate. They could have defeated the GST at first reading. They could have defeated the GST at second reading. They could have defeated the GST while the Liberals had the majority during GST committee work in April, May and June.
At all stages, the Liberal senators supported the GST. However, if there is still any question where the Liberals really stand on the GST, I have before me the 20th report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking chaired by Liberal Ian Sinclair and including Liberals MacEachen, Perrault, Kirby and Buckwold.
They unanimously recommend that as soon as possible the federal government should introduce legislation to implement a broad based multi-stage sales tax. In other words, the Liberal senators in the Liberal caucus urged the Mulroney government to implement a GST. Shame on the Liberals for speaking against the GST while working quietly behind the scenes to have it implemented.

November 8, 1990


FORESTRY
Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, on August 24, the federal Forestry Minister submitted a proposal for renewal of the forestry agreement to his Quebec counterpart.
Despite what was said by Ministers Remillard and Cote, Forestry Canada is prepared to proceed immediately with negotiations on the agreement, and they need not worry about the availability of federal funding.
As far as our government is concerned, forests, and especially privately-owned forests in Quebec, are among our priorities.
We cannot afford to keep those who might benefit from this agreement waiting any longer. That is why I urge Ministers Remillard and Cote to sit down and start negotiating. Everybody's time is precious.


Mr. Saint-Julien:: Wake up, Quebec!


THE BROCKVILLE INCIDENT
Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who viewed the program entitled "The Brockville Incident" on The Journal this past week are finally in a position to judge fairly Brockville's flag burning episode that took place a year ago last September.
Until now, the event has been slanted and distorted, and generally misunderstood in many parts of Canada.
The entire incident illustrates how easy it is for a small group to get attention through the power of the media merely by using an unorthodox and unacceptable means to protest.
It also illustrates just how easy it is to pit one part of Canada against another, one Canadian against another. A country is much like many other things, Mr. Speaker. If you want it to work, it will but if you do not want it to work, you can usually find a cause that will promote its failure.
Let us hope that this program allowed Canadian viewers to finally judge what was to some Canadians a major cause of rift in international relations and internal relations, but was to most merely an isolated incident by a misguided few.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Government of Quebec for amending its goods and services legislation to exempt books and publications from this tax. The Government of Quebec has acknowledged that culture is not taxable and confirmed its emphasis on developing our culture.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the federal government, once its bill has been ratified by the Senate and has received royal assent, will immediately table an amendment to exempt books and publications from this tax, thus following the lead of the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, when will we be able to congratulate the federal government on having done so?


FOCIQ 90
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, from November 15 to 18, 1990, the Olympic Stadium in Montreal will be the site of the first super trade and industry fair in Quebec. This event, called "FOCIQ 90" is being organized by the Quebec Chamber of Commerce together with its 230 affiliated chambers, in co-operation with Promexpo and with the collaboration of the federal and provincial governments.
Ihking its inspiration from international trade fairs in Germany and Japan, FOCIQ 90 is intended to be the most impressive showcase for industry and trade in Quebec to date. Six different fairs will be set up under the same roof, to offer trade delegates from more than 40 foreign countries, 75,000 business men and women and 1,000 exhibitors endless opportunities for exchanging ideas. This event will include more than 180 lectures by ministers and prominent business people on subjects related to the the themes of the fair.
November 8, 1990

On behalf of Mr. Jean Lambert, president of the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, I invite you all to attend this unique event.


CONSUMERS GAS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, surprise, surprise, Ontario's newly elected premier has taken up gymnastics. It seems that back-flip Bob has done a flip-flop on the sale of Consumers Gas.
Is it not strange how, after going to New York on bended knee to entice American businessmen to invest in Ontario, our silk stocking socialist premier announces that he will allow the sale of Consumers Gas to foreign interests?
Only last March, then opposition leader Big Dreams Bob said that Consumers Gas should be a public utility. He promised that if he were elected premier, he would stop the sale.
Someone should inform federal NDP members that while they have been waging war on the Tories who are trying to sell off Canada, their provincial cousins at Queen's Park are selling out Ontario. The self-righteous New Democrats have started to break their promises. They are back-pedalling, back-tracking, and flip-flopping left and right.
Truly this is the height of hypocrisy. Why is back-flip Bob cosying up to big business? This leaves all of Ontario wondering what type of government has been elected. Are they Tories in NDP clothing? What other surprises does broker Bob have in store for-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Plant closures in western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada have become a daily occurrence across our country. The government's policies of high
Oral Questions
interest rates and a high Canadian dollar are making us uncompetitive internationally. This is what is causing unemployment throughout our country.
When is this government going to give some substance to its oft repeated but empty promises of assistance to those put out of work by its impossible policy of combining its free trade agreement with high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar? When is this government going to replace its tight money policy with a policy of full employment?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the hon. gentleman will realize first of all that the bank rate today went down considerably, 12 basis points.
This is a clear sign that our policy is working. We do want interest rates to come down, but we want them to come down and stay down so that we can profit fully from the free trade agreement and other policies of this government.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, this government knows and the Minister of State for Finance knows perfectly well that tinkering with interest rates is no solution. He knows too that plant closures and unemployment are a direct result of the government's failure to put its own house in order.
To finance its growing deficit, the government not only absorbs a major part of domestic savings, but it goes abroad to borrow more at yet high rates. The result is that Canada, piece by piece, is being mortgaged to foreigners. The result is that Canada has become less competitive, plants are closing, and unemployment is increasing.
How does the government propose to correct its foreign exchange imbalance when its own policies of a high interest rate and a high Canadian dollar are crippling our export industries?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will take the job creation policies of this government any time over the policies of the Liberal Party.
I would ask the hon. gentleman, if he really cares about job creation, to talk to his colleagues in the Senate and tell them to get on with the GST, which is a tax that will precisely improve the over-all capacity of Canada to

November 8, 1990
Oral Questions
create jobs and to compete. This is what he should be doing instead of talking, if he really means what he says.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to have to talk a long time to convince Canadians that the GST is a job creation program. The government has only two policies: higher interest rates and higher taxes. However, every time this government raises taxes it fuels inflation and every time this government raises interest rates the cost of borrowing goes up, further fuelling inflation.
The government's policies are pricing Canada out of world markets. The Conference Board of Canada stated this week: "Interest rates have increased significantly since the beginning of 1988 which has had a major adverse impact on Canada's trade performance", and the Conference Board concluded: "such a strategy will likely retard the recovery and dampen the degree of the upturn".
When will this government bring in a policy of full employment and a new budget in place of its policy of unemployment and recession?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will certainly realize that inflationary pressures are the reason we have high interest rates. There is no running away from it, as the Liberal Party did in 1980 and caused a very deep recession.
After seven years of record growth, it is normal the excess capacity is there and has to be taken out of our economy. This is what is happening now. We are trying to prevent runaway inflation.
It is happening. Interest rates are coming down, as the hon. gentleman was able to realize from the Bank of Canada rate today.


PERSIAN GULF
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
While the U.S. is announcing a major increase in the number of troops being sent to the gulf and Secretary Baker is now seeking support for a resolution that would
authorize the use of force against Iraq, non-aligned members of the Security Council have put forward a resolution that attempts to broaden the peacekeeping role of the Secretary General, the establishment of an air peacekeeping force, and measures to seek a regional settlement of the dispute.
Can the minister tell us what is the position of the Government of Canada on these different initiatives? Will the government be supporting the peacekeeping proposal which is now being considered by the Security Council?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
As he knows, the Security Council has found the remarkable success of the last three months because there has been extensive discussion of texts within the council itself. That has been the case with regard to some of the matters relating to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. It has been the case with some of the matters relating to other events in the Middle East where there has been an ability for the Security Council to act.
That kind of discussion is now going on, and I frankly do not think it would contribute to the process of consensus in the Security Council were I to stake out a position on elements of those proposals here on the floor of the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister will probably know that following the recent hearings of the Standing Committees on External Affairs most of the testimony has been of a nature of counselling a course of patience for this country and for all countries involved in the crisis and, in particular, suggesting that we give the sanctions time to work.
Has there yet been at the United Nations or within the Department of External Affairs a clear assessment of the effectiveness of the present economic embargo? Will the Government of Canada as a member of the Security Council be putting forward measures at that council which would broaden and strengthen the application of economic sanctions as a way of giving a clear message to Iraq without continuing to talk about an escalation of military hostilities?
November 8, 1990


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is a continuing assessment of the effectiveness of sanctions. I think that question has to be answered in two ways. Are they effective in their breadth and in the degree of support by the outside world? Are they effective in changing behaviour in Iraq?
The answer to the first question, are they effective in their breadth and in the degree to which they are respected, is very much yes. That has to do in part with the existence of a very effective naval blockade in which Canada is playing, I may say, a commendable role. It also indicates the degree to which there is firm international support. We are monitoring that. We are the vice-chair of the Security Council subcommittee on sanctions.
As to the other question, the impact on Iraq itself, there is some impact. It is not an impact, I have to tell the House, that looks like it will change Iraqi behaviour in the short term. Nonetheless I agree with the hon. member in his observation that we want to continue to press on sanctions and other peaceful means to make Saddam Hussein understand that the world is resolute in requiring him to leave Kuwait.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As has just been discussed, we hear increasing escalation of war rhetoric, indeed an increase in troops and tanks by the United States, the United States seeking Soviet support of a U.S. led attack, and many declarations by Margaret Thatcher from Britain and others talking about escalating war. I want to ask the minister whether he is talking at all about escalating peace.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs send a strong common sense message to the whole world that he will not commit Canada to being involved in an offensive war, without the full approval of the United Nations and the full approval of this Parliament once it is assured that all peaceful attempts have been made to resolve this situation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party is given to long prefaces which include lists of statements that are not always accurate. Consequently I
Oral Questions
do not want to be seen as agreeing with any or all of the several statements in her preface.
The position of the government is very clear. We are working to ensure that there is a peaceful resolution. We are working to ensure that if force needs to be used it would be under the umbrella of the United Nations. We are working very hard to achieve that.
We certainly want Saddam Hussein to be in no doubt about the resolution of the rest of the world, including Canada, that if he does not respond to peaceful pressures force will be used.
The hon. member is suggesting that we should build in some delays that would allow, I think she said, the full satisfaction of Parliament as to an action that we might undertake. I presume that means the satisfaction of every member of this House of Commons. She knows that would mean that Canada could then be rendered in a position where we have offered to support international action but when the time comes to act we are unable, because of the delays of our parliamentary system, to support that effective international action. I think on consideration she would not want Canada to do that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I and all Canadians would feel that in a democratic country a full and open debate on whether this country goes to war is not a delay but an essential part of what this country's foreign policy should be.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, many countries support the economic blockade of Iraq because they all want to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in the gulf. Today, when he appeared before the External Affairs Committee, Gwynne Dyer said we should give economic sanctions a chance to work.
My question for the minister is this: What kind of information has he received from the United States and the United Nations on the current effectiveness of the blockade? Is he prepared to give sanctions a chance to work?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I jsut answered an identical question by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
The minister is saying that a debate in Parliament on whether Canada goes to war would be a delay. The minister is not prepared to give us any details on whether the economic sanctions are working, which is the reason we went to the Middle East in the first place.
Why will the Secretary of State for External Affairs not give this House some indication of the information that he has on whether or not economic sanctions are working?
Surely the people of Canada have the right to know why we are talking about going to war without having shown to the Canadian people whether or not the sanctions are working.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member was in her seat when I answered precisely that question from the member from Winnipeg. I do not know if she was in the House when she was in her seat, but I gave the answer. I will give it again. The answer is that the question about the effective sanctions has two elements. One is whether there is evidence that sanctions are changing the behaviour of Saddam Hussein. So far there is no evidence that sanctions are changing the behaviour of Saddam Hussein.
The other aspect is whether sanctions are being broadly supported by the international community. All the evidence is that they are. In part that is due to the existence of the naval blockade, and in part, the success of that blockade is due to the exemplary action of Canadians who are serving in that region. Of course, it is the position of the Government of Canada to give those sanctions time to work. Of course that is our position. Perhaps the hon. member would like to go back-I see you rising, Mr. Speaker, so I shall not continue.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
Once again I bring to the attention of the government that industrial plant closures and cutbacks, along with major lay-offs in the forest industry have created very serious economic and human problems across the upper Ottawa Valley and eastern Ontario in general. Far more than 3,000 jobs have been lost after the gains and the losses have been balanced.
Will the minister give us a commitment today that his department will come forth with economic measures to assist eastern Ontario in a useful and practical way?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, no one in this House is pleased when plants go down and when there is economic disruption. The hon. member knows what we need to do is to work with the various industry sectors to see what can be done with each of these industry sectors in terms of future development and to try and prepare a kind of business plan, if you like, for the future. We are doing this now.
I do not think there is much more that we can do as a government except pour more money in and that is not possible.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister.
Since January 1989, Cornwall has lost 1,100 jobs; Renfrew, 1,600; Hawkesbury, 250; and Alexandria, 325, including 100 layoffs at the Consoltex textile plant in the last two weeks. When will the government face up to its responsibilities? When will it give us a development program for Eastern Ontario? Do we all have to lose our jobs before we get anything?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has said to this hon. gentleman many times, no one likes plant closures.
November 8, 1990

If the hon. member is going to talk about plant closures, then I think it is important to talk about those that have closed in recent months. If he strings off a list of plant closures over the last three or four years, that is not fair in terms of this economic problem.
We acknowledge we have a problem and we are going to try to resolve it.


An hon. member:: We'll be happy to.


LAND CLAIMS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Yesterday the minister of Indian and northern affairs announced that the 20-year old massive Dene-Metis comprehensive land claim is dead. Under the new cabinet endorsed regional land claim strategy, some of the western Arctic Dene and Metis are in, and some are out.
We applaud those that are in, however, the balance of the Dene-Metis population who are alienated, essentially sidelined, and casualties of a regressive, divisive outdated land claims policy and brutal negotiating tactics of the federal government want to know what noble and honourable plans this government has in store to deal with their land claims.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate the agreement that was initialled and signed could not be completed for all members of the Dene-Metis nation.
I do not think that the member with all her concern for the people in the north would want us to step back and not continue with settling land claims. We are moving ahead with the groups that do want to continue in that area. We will also continue to move with all other groups who want to sit down and talk about land claims.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
In a speech on September 25, the Prime Minister referred to the success of recent case law in recognizing aboriginal rights. Now that the government has walked away from and replaced the Dene-Metis comprehensive land claims, I would like to know if the Prime Minister will let the courts decide whether the rights of the aboriginal people in Western Arctic are legitimate, or is he afraid he will be faced with a judgment like the decision with Sparrow and Sioui?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, we did not walk away from the agreement with the Dene-Metis.
The Prime Minister made a commitment in this House that we would continue to work on land claims. We are doing that. There are groups that are meeting. There are groups that are having discussions with the native community. We have brought them into the discussion. They will stay in the discussion, and we will act on the outcome.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, since Parliament was recalled in September, we have been asking the government to tell us what really happened during this summer's Mohawk crisis on the grounds that a smart country can learn from its mistakes.
The RCMP has just investigated themselves over one incident on one night. Claude Ryan is investigating his own Quebec police forces, and the Conservatives on the aboriginal affairs committee of this House are trying to shut down the parliamentary inquiry.
My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Does she agree with me that nothing is really being investigated in a comprehensive and an independent way? Will she, on behalf of the government, announce a full, public, independent, comprehensive inquiry into the Oka crisis?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, that is an extraordinary question, and it raises a whole lot of issues that have to do with a whole lot of different departments of this government, including the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Department of National Defence.

November 8, 1990
Oral Questions
I would be remiss if I did not point out to the hon. member that there is an opportunity for this issue to be discussed in a parliamentary committee. I understand the terms of reference have not been set, and certainly there has been no concern expressed on my part as to the scope of that inquiry. I believe that is probably the best form to do it.
The short answer to his question is that I have no plans to introduce such an inquiry.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister recalls that last spring the federal government made many promises to the aboriginal people about dealing very soon with their constitutional concerns.
What I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister today is whether or not action will be taken immediately to deal with those constitutional concerns now instead of waiting until after Spicer reports on July 1.
While he is on his feet, can he now give a commitment that there will be some representative appointed to the Spicer commission from the northern territories, because they are now unrepresented on that commission. It is a very important part of Canada.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for the aboriginal constitutional dossier, the House will have heard me say before that no one is more disappointed than I am that the Meech Lake Accord failed to be ratified, because that accord and its companion resolution put into place a process which would have guaranteed meetings on a regular basis and an established process for addressing aboriginal constitutional concerns.
With the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and with the lack of a disposition among the provinces to engage in constitutional discussions, it is not possible to proceed with that. As the hon. member will know, the federal government cannot unilaterally institute constitutional discussions.
However, that being said, I believe that the Spicer commission will in and of itself involve Canadians in discussing some of the very vexing questions in front of us, including the questions of collective rights in Canadian society. Those that are asserted both by particular linguistic groups and by our aboriginal community.
At the same time, we are proceeding with a great deal of determination in those areas that do not require constitutional change and where we can show our bona fides and our very strong intention to better the lot of aboriginal people in this country.
I refer, in particular, to the land claims area where there is a considerable amount of effort being spent, particularly in my own province of British Columbia, in the area of aboriginal justice. I believe in that area we can make progress without constitutional change.


CANADA POST
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Canada Post.
The government continues its destruction of rural postal services in Canada. Closures, privatization and even removal of the Canadian flag and the corporation's emblem. Furthermore, the minister gave preferential treatment to the Minister of Public Works when the corporation cancelled its project for a commercial outlet in Central Nova. Why the double standard, one for Canadians and one for ministers?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post continues to open up new postal outlets in conjunction with commercial outlets, which are frequently open longer hours than the corporate-run postal outlets. The service has been improving. Everywhere these changes are made, whether rural Canada or urban Canada, when they go back with a post-change survey, they find that customer satisfaction is 70 per cent to 80 per cent.
November 8, 1990

Every time we can make changes that save money and improve efficiency and satisfy 80 per cent of your customers, I think it is a good idea.
If the hon. member wants to represent the 20 per cent who are unsatisfied, I will represent the 80 per cent who are satisfied.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in my area there have been many closings and I have never, in all the time I have been a member, seen the protests by people, and rural Canadians across Canada. They are the strongest of protests.
In light of the fact that in some cases if it is good for one minister it is good for that area, if it is not in other areas of Canada.
Is it the minister's opinion that all these Canadians should stop their protests, stop their petitions, because it means absolutely nothing to him that the postal services across Canada are going down, that many thousands will be without postal services in the next few years, that this minister wants no more protests? Is it not worth protesting if you are not a minister?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be suggesting that the postal structure that was in place and appropriate to the society of Canada 40 or 50 years ago should remain in place today and no changes should occur.
Changes are occurring which customers by way of independent surveys are saying they approve of. They approve the service. We have an independent auditor so that every quarter we measure the effectiveness of the postal system operations and the efficiency has been increasing.
What is going on now, of course, is labour negotiations for a new contract and some of the leadership are finding it profitable to go out and try to make a political issue out of some of their concerns in the hope that they can achieve through political pressure that which they cannot achieve at the negotiating table.
I do not think the hon. member is serving her constituents or the taxpayers of Canada well by continuing to reflect just that point of view.
Oral Questions


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with veterans and other Canadians who have been told that a beeper which summons emergency health services does not fall under "medical devices" in the goods and services tax schedule. This would make them tax exempt.
The Department of Veterans Affairs must consider this to be an essential service since it pays for the beeper under Blue Cross.
My question is to the President of the Treasury Board or the revenue minister. How can they justify taxing this device which can mean the difference between life and death?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Canadian Legion is considered a non-profit organization in the area of GST and therefore would not be obligated to pay or collect the GST.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, officials within the revenue department tell us that this is not so.
I would ask the minister, if this beeper is exempt, would he tell me where in the schedule of the proposed goods and services tax it says that the device is tax exempt?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. speaker, the hon. member knows that questions of this sort should be put on the Order Paper.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members laugh but one of the problems with all of these members-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: I guess they do not want to hear the answer, Otto. Why don't you just sit down?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lums-den.


MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Twelve thousand Canadian merchant seamen served their country during World War II. Approximately 3,500 are still surviving. Twelve hundred and fifty-nine of them

Oral Questions
died in combat, one of the highest casualty rates of any allied service during the war.
Both the United States and United Kingdom recognize their merchant seamen as veterans. Canadian merchant seamen who served in dangerous waters during the last great war seek today what they have sought since the end of the war, equal recognition, entitlement, and benefits now received by their fellow World War n veterans. This year, for the first time, the Royal Canadian Legion supports that position. These men were awarded all the World War II decorations. If that does not make them veterans, I do not know what does.
Will the minister today give his assurance that he will either amend Bill C-87 today, or bring in additional legislation immediately that will give these merchant seamen, who served in Canada's merchant navy during World War II, veteran status?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this government and governments for the last 45 years have dealt with this particular problem. We recognize with great sincerity the contribution that was made by the merchant marine during the time of war. It is for that very reason we have put in place all the programs we have for the merchant marine.
Essentially, they do get the military decorations, but they do not get the CVSM, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal, for example and they do not get the Defence Medal.
Second, we do give them disability pensions and we do give them prisoner-of-war compensation. They do not get War Veterans Allowance, but they do get civilian war allowance. There are lots of things that they do get. We have treated them very, very well, it seems to me. The problem is they were not part of the Canadian Active Service Force in time of war.
However, I want to tell the hon. member that we have the matter under consideration. It will be discussed at a meeting of all the veterans' groups, not just with the Royal Canadian Legion. There others as well. We set that up as a topic for discussion on October 24. It will be discussed over the period of the next few months.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who I understand is away on business, I will direct my question to the Minister for International Trade. The minister, I understand, has been notified of the question which concerns the Fraser River Estuary Management Program funded by both the federal government and the B.C. government.
Over the past five years that program has been mandated to monitor and assess the environmental health of the lower Fraser River. The five-year funding is now essentially grinding to a halt and the management committee of the program has applied to the government for a three-year extension.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the only one of three federal agencies not yet committed to the continuation of the program funding. Is the Department prepared to commit at this time the funding needed to continue the program? Alternatively, would the minister be prepared to bring these matters before the next cabinet meeting and encourage his cabinet colleagues to consider this important environmental initiative?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, the interest of the government and the success of its programs with reference to salmon enhancement is well illustrated by the fact that this was one of the greatest years for the salmon fishery in British Columbia this century.


An hon. member:: Are you taking the credit for the salmon run?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, we are taking the credit for that. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that the government cast aside its modesty and started taking credit for a great many of the things that it has done.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to the clean-up and sustainable development of the Fraser River Estuary, that is a high priority with the government. The Minister of the Environment will be outlining the details of his Green Plan in the next few weeks. The hon. member can be assured that the Fraser River will have a central part in this great environmental Green Plan which acts. While all the opposition does is talk, this government acts, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CRIME PREVENTION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
The Netherlands, as I said yesterday, have allocated $17 million to crime prevention and that amount is going to be doubled by 1994. The minister has given $195,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, but this program cannot come into place because she needs the approval of five other departments which are reluctant to make their commitments.
When European countries are giving millions of dollars to the cities to fight crime, why can this government not even put into place a program for $300,000 to fight the increasing crime rate in Canada?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, aside from obvious factors such as the fact that The Netherlands, for example, is a unitary state and Canada is federal and, therefore, we share jurisdiction for crime prevention with the provinces, there is an enormous investment in crime prevention by the requisite jurisdictions across the country. I think comparing national figures is misleading, to say the very least.
My own department puts just under $1 million a year into crime prevention with respect to the support of research, but this is a commitment that involves a number of government departments. I would suggest to the hon. member that I repeat the offer that I made to him yesterday. I will correspond with him or invite him to a briefing where I will lay out before him all the things that the Government of Canada does in the area of crime prevention.
The hon. member must know that we are among the most active and effective participants in the UN conferences on crime prevention and that our international involvement is extremely important particularly because, as a country which shares an undefended border with the United States, we have a significant stake in international co-operation in crime prevention. We have brought in
Oral Questions
an enormous range of changes in legislation and I am very happy to advise the hon. member. I hope he will, in the future, compare comparable statistics and not ones that have no relevance to what we are doing.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, not only is the government not putting the money in place, it is not even agreeing to set up a crime-prevention council, as have European countries and Australia. The Canadian government seems to want to hide its head and hope the problem goes away.
Why will the government not set up a crime-prevention council so we could co-ordinate what effort there is here in Canada to fight the increasing crime rate in the country?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it may or may not be appropriate to set up a crime-prevention council, but there exists at the moment a very sophisticated and functional series of networks between three levels of government in the country in order to co-ordinate and consolidate crime prevention activities.
If it is appropriate to set up a council, then that is something we could certainly look at. But it is, in fact, a kind of knee-jerk response, if I may say so, of the Liberal Party that when it sees a problem, it wants to set up a new organization.
We have principals who are working in crime prevention and who conduct police forces in this country. They are working in a co-ordinated effort on behalf of all Canadians and I have no reason to believe that that is not functioning well.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
We all want to protect the defenders of humanity and we want peace. However, we cannot allow volunteers for research to take health risks in order to solve their financial problems. Reportedly, Mr. Trottier volunteered mainly because he was broke and stayed because he needed the money.

November 8, 1990
Oral Questions
Will the minister agree that enticing with extra dollars Canadians who are poor or broke to serve as subjects for human experimentation is unethical? If the answer is yes, why did the government permit it to happen? Will the Minister now put a stop to it?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we believe that it is appropriate, before drugs are put on the market in Canada, that they be tested on volunteers. If the hon. member disagrees with that, he is certainly free to indicate that he is.
Does the hon. member believe, for example, it should be tested on people who are not volunteers? Second, does he not believe that people who are asked to give of their time and inconvenienced should be compensated for that? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that, in the case of the test for HI-6, it involves some five separate stays of up to 60 hours in order to have the tests conducted and have follow-up tests done? Does he not believe that it is appropriate, where people put faith in such studies, they should be compensated for their inconvenience?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House believes that the drug must first be tested in human beings in a clinically-controlled fashion before it is placed on the market. We equally believe that compensation should be given, but given only for loss of time from work and to help with their meals, not as a bribe to poor Canadians.
Doctor Agnes Klein of the Health Protection Branch is quoted in today's issue of The Calgary Sun: "This is normal practice" referring to the fact that no animal testing for cancer with HI-6-


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


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, no testing had been done on animals before it was tested in humans.
Will the minister agree that the sequence of testing should be first on animals before human volunteers? Why has the minister got it backwards? Is he not concerned that even low doses of a carcinogen could produce irreversible damage in human beings?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member is suggesting that the compensation these individuals received for up to five stays of some 60 hours apiece, 300 hours of participation, was too high. If he believes that, he should say so.
The hon. member says that no studies have been done with regard to animals. There have been a succession of tests done by DND over the years since 1981. The program involved efficacy testing in seven animal species and one avian species: mouse, rat, guinea pig, dog, monkey, swine, and chickens. It also involved rats. It involved just about every species but rat packs.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is based on all of the information. In addition to that, around the world over 120 persons in Sweden and Yugoslavia have had exposure to the drug. We are not aware of any danger to human beings as a result and we have reviewed all of the medical literature relating to it. We believe it was a safe test and we believe it was ethically conducted.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I too like many others have asked some questions about GST and I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a small-businessman and I am actually looking forward to moving the federal taxation system from the MST to the GST. But, like many others, I come from a province that will have more than one taxation system. I would like to put this question to the minister. Is he and the Minister of Finance doing anything to harmonize the two taxation systems?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for a veiy valid question.
For two years we have worked closely with the provinces to get them to agree to a national sales tax. Unfortunately, they were not very forthcoming. Now that the GST is virtually adopted, they are coming onstream. As you very well know, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec has announced a two-stage harmonization of its sales tax with the federal GST. Saskatchewan is currently negotiating with the federal government on the possibility of harmonizing, so we are heading in the right direction. I thank the hon. gentleman for his question.


PARCEL DELIVERY IN NORTHERN CANADA
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
For several months, a task force has been carrying out consultations and studies on the impact of unfair cuts in federal subsidies for air parcels in northern Abitibi and northern Canada.
My question is this: can the minister confirm that the study has been ready for two weeks and that several public servants and special assistants at Canada Post and Indian Affairs already have a copy? When does the minister intend to table this report publicly, in the House of Commons, for the benefit of hon. members?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Indeed, I would like to point out the fact that it is through his representations, both in the House and to my colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, that this study did take place. It is being studied by the officials of my department and, as soon as we receive a copy of the report to table, you will receive a copy.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday, gas prices increased by 10 cents a litre in Saskatoon and 17 cents a litre in Regina overnight. Also, yesterday in committee, the chairman of Petro-Canada said: "recent increases in gasoline prices have been due to speculation and not the fundamentals of supply and demand."
Oral Questions
Can the minister of energy commit himself today to initiate an investigation into these dramatic price increases and make big oil companies justify this attack on Canadian consumers? Is he on the side of Canadian consumers or on the side of oil companies?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to energy prices, I have said in the House before that the government will monitor and continue to monitor them. In fact, I made an offer to the NDP for a full briefing on the pricing policy. I also suggest that the hon. member take a look, for example, at the Ontario government with respect to increasing taxes. I guess they think that gasoline prices are not high enough. That is a new first policy they have expressed on energy.
Second, when I take a look at their position on consumer gas, they say one thing in opposition, but they are sure open to pricing once they get into government.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is Crime Prevention Week, but Canadian women still live in fear.
The tiny town of Iqaluit has experienced three sexual assaults in 10 days. On Canadian campuses, young women have to be escorted between buildings because of the alarming increase in sexual assaults. This government has spent millions publicizing and justifying the GST.
Will the Minister of Justice promise to spend some dollars on a campaign to educate Canadians and to de-escalate violence against women?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this government has a $40 million program on family violence that includes the problem of violence against women.
I think the hon. member would agree that this is not a partisan issue. It is one that deeply concerns all of us and requires us to examine fundamental attitudes that have a way of being perpetuated in one of our institutional settings.
One of the things the Department of Justice has been doing is giving strong support to the Canadian Judicial Centre, which has been a pioneer in trying to raise the awareness of those who sit in judgment in our courts on the question of gender bias.

Point of Order
If the hon. member has not seen a copy of the video on gender bias that the Canadian Judicial Centre has put out, I would be happy to provide her with one. She indicates that she has seen it. I think those are the kinds of things that we can do through the Department of Justice.
There is a federal-provincial task force on women and the law that wants to look more deeply into questions of this substantive law as it affects women. The hon. member will know that the question of sexual assault is a serious one. It is a reflection of attitudes and a reflection of law enforcement. We are determined to try and attack the attitudes that lead to this social blight.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Nicephore Soglo, Prime Minister of the Republic of Benin.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence for us to be reminded today of the 25th anniversary of an election that took place in 1965. At present, there are four members of that class of '65 who are still members of this House.
They are the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, and the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.
Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen have served their constituencies well. I know everyone wants to join me in wishing them the very warmest congratulations on achieving their 25th anniversary.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition is very happy to join in congratulating those four members of Parliament.
We all recognize their outstanding contributions to Canada and to the people they represent. We think strongly that they are good examples of public commitment, and we encourage them to continue-maybe not 25 years-but somewhat into the next century.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too want to associate my party with the comments made by the two previous speakers, and to say that in their own special way they are great Canadians.


MEMORIAL TO FATHER SEAN O'SULLIVAN
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion.
There have been discussions with the opposition parties. I think that you will find that there is unanimous consent to put the motion and to adopt it.
I do so on behalf of the Prime Minister. I know that this motion has the support of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
In their absence, I understand that the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Brant will be prepared to second the motion that I propose. It speaks for itself.
That, in recognizing that the late Sean O'Sullivan was a member of this House of Commons, left political life to continue his service to Canadians as a priest, devoted much of his time as a priest being a friend to and caring for members on both sides of this House, and was taken from us by the ravages of cancer at the age of 37, with his life and faith serving as an ideal and an example for all Canadians, this House hereby sets aside the sitting room at the Wellington Street entrance to the East Block as a meditation room open to all people of all faiths, and we hereby declare our hope that this room, dedicated to the memory and ideals of Father Sean O'Sullivan, and those like him, will serve to remind all members of Parliament and all Canadians to reach out to one another in a spirit of friendship and caring.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there agreement?
The motion reads as follows:

November 8, 1990


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for clarification regarding the ruling on my statement under Standing Order 31.
I want to point out that on November 1, 1990, the Chair allowed the member for Abitibi to engage in an attack on the member for Burin-St. George's to take place in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I am not sure where the hon. member is going. If the hon. member is challenging the ruling of the Chair, that is not appropriate.
If the hon. member is having difficulty in-


Jim Karygiannis: Clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for clarification. I can give the hon. member clarification, and I shall.
On January 17, 1983, Madam Sauve, then Speaker, touched on the question of what is appropriate comment in statements by members.
The hon. member who has risen was stopped by me earlier today after I listened for a few minutes, or at least some seconds, and it became clear, at least I thought it was clear, that the hon. member was making a personal attack on another hon. member.
As a consequence, I had to stand and interrupt him.
On January 17, 1983, Madam Sauve said this: "The time set aside for members' statements should not be used to make personal attacks." She went on and said: "It is clear that personal attacks are not considered to be matters that should be raised."
That is the rule that we have tried to follow in this House. It may well be that that rule has been transgressed, and I might have missed it.
I assure the hon. member that I do listen carefully. If I erred in letting that rule be transgressed at some other
Business of the House
time, then I very much regret it. I think that we must bear with the rule and I think that that is the general feeling of the House.
I thank the hon. member for raising it. If he would like to discuss it further with me, of course he can see me in my chambers.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could tell the House what business we are to deal with when we come back here on November 19, and possibly that week.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an order made today, we will adjourn at the end of this day's business and the House will not be sitting tomorrow, sad as that makes me. I am going to have to find something else to do tomorrow. I do not know what. Next week is the scheduled parliamentary break.
We return on Monday, November 19, at which time I propose to call for a continuation of second reading, hopefully to completion, of Bill C-85, having to do with airports devolution; followed by Bill C-90 which has to do with the extension of the charters of the chartered banks of Canada.
On Thesday, I would again carry on with Bill C-90 if it has not been completed on Monday; and commence second reading on Bill C-88, which is the establishment of Canada's participation in the European Bank for Reconstruction. Wednesday, again these are subject to changes, but the proposal would be Bill C-76, the Aeronautics Act, and Bill C-92, financial administration, both of which are technical in nature.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just thought that if it would make the minister feel better, as government House leader, if tomorrow he wants to come into the House and maybe answer some questions for a change, we would be more than pleased to ask him those questions.

Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to gain the floor in order to extend my thanks and those of the other members named on the occasion of their 25 years in this House. I want to thank those who spoke on our behalf.
It is very true that the motion just put by the Deputy Prime Minister and adopted by this House shows that there is a great deal of the human factor left in this institution. I want to say how proud I am to serve with the members who are in the House. We have some great talent here. I think they will have a very successful future in Canadian politics.
Mr. Speaker, I would be very remiss if I did not thank my constituents up the Ottawa Valley in Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke and the other boundary divisions prior to that for their loyalty over the years and for giving me the opportunity to sit in this House and represent them. I consider that a great privilege and a great honour. It is indeed an honour for all of us here in this House to try to represent Canadians and to represent Canada on the international scene.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this business who are sometimes left out and seldom get recognition. I am talking about my wife and family. I want to extend a very sincere thank you to Lois, to Sherri and to Doug for their tremendous loyalty and patience over the years, to all my personal friends, to those people in our individual parties at home who support us and stick with us and do some of the dredging in the trenches for us from time to time. We all owe them a great debt.
In thanking all those people, I want to once again say to all members of the House that there is nothing that we cannot overcome by way of challenges facing Canada today, be it national unity or whatever, if we all have the sincere will and the desire to overcome it together. Let us work together. We have a great nation. Yes, we have challenges, but we must have the will and the desire to do it. We must continue to build this great nation of Canada into what the Fathers of Confederation and others who sat in this place before us wished us to do, so that we will be leaving a great past for others to build on in the future.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member rose on a question of privilege. If ever there were a prima facie case made, I am sure that was the one.
While I am on my feet, I have three different motions that I need to bring before the House. On the first one there have been consultations and there is unanimous consent for this motion:
That, the report sur les circonstances ayant entraini la requisition des
forces armies canadiennes pour venir en aide au pouvoir civil, which I
am now tabling, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice
and the Solicitor General.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation that is prevailing at the moment, we are delighted to consent to this motion.
However, I would like to have the parliamentary secretary clarify for the House the fact-and perhaps he can speak to this briefly-that there are two Notices of Motions for Production of Papers on the Order Paper, one in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier which asks for copies of all papers and correspondence exchanged between the governments of Canada and Quebec concerning the deployment of Canadian forces in Kahnawake and Kanesatake. I believe that is what this report is about.
There is another one in my name requesting copies of records and the tabling of the total cost of deployment of Canadian forces at Oka, Quebec, which are required under the National Defence Act to be filed with the government in any event.
I also note that my other Notice of Motion calls for a copy of the report by the Quebec attorney general to the Secretary of State of Canada setting out the circumstances behind the calling of the Canadian forces to Oka, which I assume this report is.
It appears that the parliamentary secretary has inadvertently answered by this tabling one of my Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, which again leads me to wonder why we did not agree to it on Wednesday.
In any event I wonder where the document is. Has it been tabled in this House? If so, when? It appears to be referring a document that has been tabled and I have not seen it tabled. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could enlighten us on that point.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I apologize profusely to the member for accidentally answering one of his questions. It certainly was not my intention.
Seriously, I would be happy to have a look at the motions and his request for papers, as I have done in the past, and attempt to get complete answers.
I should say that by way of tabling I did that just now. If the House would request that I do it by reverting to Tabling of Documents, we could do that. However I did not think that with consent for the motion that it was necessary.


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, before we give our consent, I have a question for my hon. friend.
Based on the unanimous motion of this House the matter of the crisis was referred to the aboriginal affairs committee for study. Yet, if I heard correctly when my hon. friend introduced his motion, the matter was referred to the justice and solicitor general committee.
It seems that it would be more appropriate to have it referred to the aboriginal affairs committee. After all, it has been given the responsibility of examining the whole issue.
I would like to seek clarification from my hon. friend on that issue.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it is true that there has been consent to refer the issue of the Oka crisis over the summer to the Indian and aboriginal affairs committee. However, in this particular case we are dealing with a report from I believe the solicitor general of the province of Quebec. It was decided, in conversations with the other parties and with the members of the justice committee, that we would table this document with reference to them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think we are being asked for unanimous consent. Before we give unanimous consent, I want to make it perfectly clear that while it was discussed in the justice committee to do just that we in the New Democratic Party felt that since the Oka issue had been sent to the aboriginal affairs committee for examination it would be the appropriate place to send
Privilege
this report. After all, if they are studying this issue in detail, this report will be an integral component of that evaluation.
Simply, I want to say that we will give our consent-


An hon. member:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I guess we will not give our consent, then.
Mr. Coopen Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am really sorry to hear that. I certainly gave the New Democratic Party the motion at the beginning of Question Period. It was my understanding that this came from discussions within the justice committee of which their party is a member.
I am disappointed that we now find ourselves in a position where we have asked for the consent of the House, with the understanding that I had it before I did it. As hon. members know, it is not my practice to ask for consent on motions unless I am fairly certain that there is an agreement on it.
The other unanimous consent motion that I seek to put before the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Did the hon. member have consent to table the document?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps I could help a bit. I am the New Democratic Party member on the justice committee. We have not agreed that the justice committee, from our point of view, examine this matter. As our House leader said, we think it is part and parcel of the general examination by the other committee.
I gather this is the report of the attorney general of Quebec as to why the army was called in. It is under the National Defence Act of Canada. The government actually does not have to table anything under the act, but it is attempting to table something.
I personally would like to see the government table a report. However I wonder if it might be possible for us to give our consent. I certainly would consent to the government tabling the report, but not necessarily with reference to the justice committee.

Routine Proceedings


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to understand that before I move with consent motions in the House, it takes a great deal of discussion involving a great number of people.
I cannot, on my own, stand in this House and do one-half or one-quarter of something I thought we had agreed to. At this point I have no choice but to withdraw the unanimous consent request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered.
On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following request to revert for a few moments to Statements by Ministers so that we can allow the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make a brief statement regarding Remembrance Day.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is important that we seek clarification that not only will the Minister of Veterans Affairs have an opportunity to make a statement-and we are most anxious to hear his statement-but that the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party spokespersons will also have an opportunity to make statements. That was my understanding of the agreement. In other words, we will just follow the usual traditions of the House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Statements by Ministers usually mean Statements by Ministers followed by statements from the other two parties, and that is what I intended.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th day of November, 1990, at 5.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill.
Yours sincerely,
Judith LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will know that Sunday, November 11, is Remembrance Day in Canada. In fact most of the civilized world honours this particular day.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to remind the House and all Canadians that next Sunday, November 11, is Remembrance Day.

It has been very heartening in recent years to learn that attendance continues to rise at Remembrance Day ceremonies across the country. On November 11, let us hope that once again Canadians of all generations will join members of our 600,000-strong veteran population in paying tribute to those who served their country in time of war.
The year 1990 has given us many reasons to be especially thankful for those who went to war on our behalf. This year we celebrate the Battle of Britain. Canadian pilots were in the Hurricanes and in the Spitfires which 50 years ago won this great battle, giving the allies time to regroup. This was a major psychological victory for the allies who, up to this point in the war, had little to be happy about.
This spring the people in The Netherlands turned out in the hundreds of thousands in ceremonies all across the country to hail the return of those young Canadian soldiers who had liberated their land 45 years before. Every Canadian can reflect in the glory of the adulation showered on our veterans. The streets of cities and villages alike were adorned with maple leaves and signs emblazoned with "Welcome back, Canadian liberators" were everywhere. The Dutch people sang O Canada with great gusto. They have never forgotten the sacrifices and the achievements of the youngsters from across the Atlantic 45 years before. It was a pilgrimage of considerable pride.

This summer, as Canadian forces moved toward the gulf, it was something like a rerun from 40 years ago when Canadians volunteered to go to Korea in support of the United Nations.
Later this month, members of this House will be in Asia in the company of our Hong Kong veterans, the first of our troops to see action and the last to see freedom.
The anniversary of these campaigns tell us that the reputation won for Canada in the mud of France and Flanders in the First War was well and truly maintained.
On Sunday, we will be saluting all those who risked their lives for strangers in other lands. In particular, we will be thinking of the more than 110,000 Canadians who did not return home to their loved homes.
Let us also remember the many others who did not serve in uniform but whose lives were changed vastly by what happened in some far away land. I am thinking of the spouses, the parents, the sisters, the brothers and the relatives-in fact all those who took part in the war effort-who looked after those who came home disabled in body or mind. Their service has been unending; their love is timeless and unbroken. Through the Veterans Independence Program and other initiatives we have been able to make life easier for veterans and those who cared for them.
As we stand in silence on Remembrance Day and reflect on the sacrifices that war brought throughout our history, let us in 1990 ponder the words written by Lord Byng after the battle at Vimy Ridge in 1917, when he said:
There they stood on Vimy Ridge that 9th day of April, 1917, men from Quebec stood shoulder to shoulder with men from Ontario, men from the Maritimes with men from British Columbia, and there was forged a nation tempered by the fires of sacrifice and hammered on the anvil of high adventure.
Those are powerful words, marking the point in time when Canadians came of age and became a full partner in the family of nations dedicated to promoting and preserving democracy and world peace, and we have not looked back since.
Routine Proceedings
As Canadians, we have so much to remember and so much to be thankful for.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition critic for veterans affairs, it is an honour for me to rise today and pay tribute to those Canadians who fought for their country and for freedom. We honour today not only those who died in two world wars and Korea, but those who continue to deal today with the aftermath of their struggle.
When Canadians think of what Remembrance Day means in their daily lives, they think of the poppy. In the weeks preceding November 11, they see the Royal Canadian Legion's familiar poppy boxes in stores and church halls. In return for a donation of spare change, they get a small flower, modest in spite of its blood red colour which they pin on their lapel. This has become such a common rite of late fall that perhaps people do not think of the significance of their actions.
Canadians wear the poppy as a symbol of respect and honour for those who fought for our country. I do not think that there is anyone who, if asked if they remember our war dead, would deny that they do. I do fear, however, that not enough Canadians would do so without a reminder, even with their blood red flower on their coats. I regret that not enough people think of our ongoing responsibilities to war veterans.
On Remembrance Day, all across the country, people take time from work and from school to gather around war memorials, to lay wreaths and to bow their heads for a moment of silence at 11 a.m. We try at that time to visualize the 114,000 Canadians who gave their lives so that we can live in freedom. Moment of silence is a small gesture of respect to those men and women. But after we raise our heads, after we return to work and to school, our responsibility does not end. We have not done enough no matter how sincere our tribute.
We have an ongoing responsibility to today's war veterans, spouses and widows and dependants, those who were willing to make the same ultimate sacrifice for freedom and who live among us today. These aging Canadians face special problems. The war did not end for these people in 1918, 1945 or 1953. It is manifest in their daily lives by disabling physical conditions and by the personal conflict and grief felt by all who experienced war.

November 8, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Remembrance Day gives us the opportunity to express our gratitude and respect for the living and the dead in a personal way by wearing a poppy, by laying that wreath, by bowing our heads in silence.
Our ongoing expression of gratitude and support is expressed every day in a collective sense through the benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Remembrance Day is more than bowing our heads and listening to our community leaders utter fine words in honour of the dead, although that is a sacred aspect of the day.
That part is relatively easy, as any school child released from class to stand beside the cenotaph can tell you. The hard part is manifesting those sentiments in our daily lives. The hard part is remembering as we grumble daily about our problems and our complaints, that we live in the greatest democracy on earth, and that we owe this to our war veterans and to our fallen comrades.
This year, we have an even greater motivation to give thanks for what we have, to honour those who sacrificed so much for our country. Since last Remembrance Day, the Berlin wall has fallen. Czechoslovakia has elected a poet as its president, and the Germanys have united.
The world has marvelled for a year at the human capacity for understanding, for unity and for peaceful change. The lesson of Remembrance Day lies not only in horrific images, memories of bloody trenches and the bomb at Hiroshima. It also lies in the images we watch on our televisions this year of East and West Berliners destroying the wall together, of the people of Prague bringing down a dictatorship not with guns, but with burning candles.
I hope, as we all do, that these images are evidence that we are beginning to understand what John McRae was trying to tell us in his poem In Flanders Fields. We have an opportunity to use such hard won wisdom in the Persian Gulf situation. All Canadians hope that this war will not break out, that we will not have a new group of war veterans. But if it should happen, and I pray that it will not, I hope that we will continue to show our honour and our respect for these war veterans, both on Remembrance Days to come and on a daily basis, through veterans' benefits and programs.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach November 11 when Canadians will attend services of remembrance, let us continue to honour those who served Canada in her hour of need.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the fine remarks of the minister and my colleague.
I am honoured to rise, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, to share with the House some thoughts and feelings about Remembrance Day. The motto for this important day is "Lest We Forget". That phrase expresses the whole purpose of Remembrance Day, to remember those members of our shared human family who lost their lives in war. Our Canadian sons and daughters who died while serving their country in the wars they have fought are honoured again, as well they should be.
It is important that we do set aside a special day each year to honour, not only those who have fallen and not only those who served Canada in that way, but we should take the day and the hour of the armistice to remember the needless horror and futility of war. The motto, "Lest We Forget", is engraved on our hearts, but have we always kept the pledge implied in this phrase? It is with profound sadness, Mr. Speaker, that I suggest that we have not.
There are many Canadians who served in our forces and many who have died in that service who have not been adequately remembered or recognized. We have long treated with contempt the memory of those Canadians who served with the Republican forces during the Spanish Civil War. These heroes counted in their number Dr. Norman Bethune. These were the first Canadians to enlist in the war against fascism and dictatorship. It is the eternal shame of all democratic governments which refused to come to the aid of a democratically-elected government when invaded by Franco, with the support and assistance of Hitler and Mussolini.
Many Canadians joined the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and fought honourably, in the same war which the governments of Canada and Britain did not join until 1939. Many of those who fought with the "Mac-Paps" were taken prisoner and tortured. Canada said nothing. We have never officially honoured these brave ones nor

has any Canadian government extended to them the recognition they deserve as war veterans.
I want to say that the Canadians who served in the Republican forces were in no way comparable to the Canadians who joined the U.S. military to fight the war in Vietnam. Those who helped the U.S. in Vietnam were not defending a democratically elected government, instead, they were helping a superpower invade a small nation.
Mr. Speaker, no Canadian government has granted war veterans' status to merchant seamen. I will have more to say about that when we get to the bill at second reading stage. But I want to say of the sailors in Canada's merchant marine who sailed in dangerous waters for the allied cause during World War II, that without the supplies and ordinances merchant seamen brought from Canada to Europe, Canadian and other allied forces would have been helpless to defeat fascism.
There were more combat fatalities among the merchant seamen during World War II than there were in the Royal Canadian Navy, and many merchant seamen were captured and held as prisoners of war, in some cases for up to five years. Yet when World War II ended, the merchant seamen who had risked so much and had contributed so greatly to the war effort did not receive the benefits received by regular sailors, soldiers and airmen.
I am sure very few Canadians know today about another piece of our history that I must mention, and that is what our First Nations did in Canada's first overseas military expedition, which was the Nile expedition of 1884-85. It was Canada's first overseas military campaign. It was also the first time that Canadian Indians volunteered for an overseas war. General Wolse-ley, who put down the Red River Rebellion, was so impressed with the expertise of the Indians as voyageurs, he recruited some of them to help the relief expedition up the Nile.
Fifty-six Mohawks and 30 Ojibwas were given a noncombative role as voyageurs to transport a British expedition up the Nile River to rescue General C.G. Gordon at Khartoum.
Sixteen members of the contingent of First Nations died in the expedition from drowning, disease or combat
Government Orders
engagement. All the voyageurs were decorated for their service in Egypt, but we owe it to their memory to specifically praise their service on this occasion.
A memorial cross at Fort William Mission testifies to their contribution to our history. And of course we owe it to the memory of those who were first here and first to serve to see to it that their descendants, Canada's First Nations of today, are at last allowed the dignity which comes with control of their own affairs, which is surely their right.
Finally, Sir, I want to remind the House of something I said last year on this occasion. At that time I suggested the best way for Canada to remember her war dead was to do its best to make and keep the peace. This is a point I would want to make again.
We could be at war again soon. It is my hope that we as a nation will do all that we can to keep the peace. If we must go to war to stop aggression, it must only be done under the auspices of the United Nations. In the war which may come there will be no victors. And if the human species is to survive, we must learn never again to make war.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As a symbolic gesture I would appreciate if hon. members would rise with me for a one minute silence.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre-Government Information Systems; the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier-The Citizens' Forum on the Future of Canada; the hon. member for Nunatsiaq-Indian Affairs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that Bill C-87, an Act to amend the statute law in relation to war veterans, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.

November 8, 1990
Government Orders
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House at second reading of Bill C-87, an Act to amend the statute law in relation to war veterans.

I am also delighted that the long-standing tradition of non-partisan, all-party support for veterans legislation is being continued today with the passage of this bill, hopefully at all stages. My critics, the member for Hillsborough and the member for Regina-Lumsden, have my thanks for their co-operation.
In a number of speeches this summer, but most particularly in June at the Dominion Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion in Vancouver, I gave veterans a preview of the direction I was heading with this legislation. The reaction to the types of changes envisaged was extremely favourable and this feeling was reinforced when veterans and their organizations had an opportunity to review the bill following first reading.
The preview I provided centred on three key areas. First, we are sweeping away decades of out-dated paternalistic and just plain clumsy approaches to the administered accounts. I think a word of explanation here is in order.
When veterans or their dependants are unable to manage their finances and have no one to assist them, Veterans Affairs will step in and provide the assistance. We are currently helping approximately 1,000 veterans and their dependants with administration of their veterans benefits. Efforts have been made to improve our system of administered accounts. Less than 20 years ago, some 10,000 individuals had their accounts administered by Veterans Affairs. Today, as I mentioned, we have only about 1,000 veterans and dependants in this category.
The changes reflect a significant turnaround in thinking, both at Veterans Affairs and in society at large. Simply put, our heart was in the right place, but nothing beats the help that can be provided by a caring relative or friend. They can give the added dimension that we just cannot. That is why we have made such a large effort to encourage veterans or their dependants to voice their own preferences for a third party administrator.
Nonetheless, we can only go so far with the current state of our laws and regulations on administered accounts. They are, as I have said, archaic. Bill C-87, which we are dealing with now, will enable us to give veterans
and their dependants, in the 1990s, 1990 service and that is a development all of us can applaud.
Let me provide just one example which is the second key element of this bill. For decades Veterans Affairs has followed ordinary banking practices with regard to administered accounts. The assumption has been that the accounts were like chequing accounts. A service was received and the cost of the service was provided through waiving interest on the account.
Well, times have changed. Financial institutions pay interest on virtually every type of account and Bill C-87 will permit Veterans Affairs to fall into line with modem practice. With the passage of this legislation, Veterans Affairs will pay interest on administered accounts effective January 1,1990. The interest this year will amount to approximately $3.5 million. That, Mr. Speaker, is the type of change I had in mind when I said that we want veterans and their dependants to receive 1990s service and treatment.
The third area I wish to highlight is related to the reform of the administered account system. The Royal Canadian Legion has proposed that, when a veteran whose account is administered by Veterans Affairs dies without a will or an heir, that veteran's administered funds should go into a special trust fund for the benefit of other veterans.
This is a proposal whose time has come. Bill C-87 will allow us to establish the special trust fund and help those veterans and dependants who are most in need. I can think of no better way for these unclaimed benefits to be used. The fund will truly exemplify the special bond that exists between those who fought side by side in Korea and the two world wars.
The amendment related to the trust fund and to administered accounts are the most significant measures in the bill. They are important, necessary, and good news items for veterans and their dependants, but there are other measures worthy of mention.
First, we are proposing to remove an anomaly which denies benefits to widows or widowers. These are the surviving spouses of what is known as the Class 21 pensioners, those whose disability is assessed at under 5 per cent. These particular pensioners receive a lump sum rather than monthly payments, but nonetheless are entitled to receive a monthly attendance allowance if

their health problems make it necessary to have attendant care in the home. However, with the death of the veteran, the surviving spouse lost this monthly allowance at an already difficult time. The amendment will treat these individuals in the same manner as the widow or widowers of other disability pensioners who continue to receive the allowance for up to one year after the death of the veteran.
In this regard, I want to mention that the government has acted to help recently bereaved spouses of disability pensioners through the one year continuation of pension benefits. We believe this is a compassionate practice and we have extended our help to other areas as well.
This summer, I was able to announce that surviving spouses of veterans who had been receiving VIP, or Veterans Independence Program benefits, would be able to retain groundskeeping and housekeeping assistance for up to one year after the death of the veteran. The change took place, effective September 1 of this year, and it again represents further progress in our desire to help recently bereaved spouses get through a most difficult time.
Bill C-87 also includes dozens of amendments designed to provide policy consistency, to improve wording, and to streamline procedures. They are non-controversial housekeeping measures. In fact, this is a comment I wish to underline.
Following first reading, the major veterans organizations-the Royal Canadian Legion, the National Council of Veterans Association and the Army, Navy, Air Force Veterans Association-poured over every word in this bill. They discussed virtually every clause with my staff and officials and, in fact, with me personally. Then, we met to talk about the items where any questions remained.
My approach was quite simple and straightforward. If there is anything in Bill C-87 that raises any doubt or uncertainty about it being of either a benefit or housekeeping nature, let me know and I will resolve it here and now, or we will put it to one side for further discussion. I might add that we have done that in several cases.
Government Orders
The amendments I will be moving in Committee of the Whole reflect the consensus that all of the veterans organizations have reached. They have been studied and broached by both the Liberal Party critic and the New Democratic Party critic. It was consultation at its best. I want to thank the veterans' organizations for their invaluable comments and their insight. This bill is a better one because of their contribution and I am the first to acknowledge that.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would like this opportunity to speak to a point all Canadians feel, particularly at this time of year. While we can never repay the men and women who did so much for Canada in wartime, nor can we ever stop trying to pay the debt we owe, Bill C-87 is intended to benefit further veterans and their dependents, but there is more we all want to do in the future.
The veterans organizations, through their appearances before parliamentary committees, in their meetings and their conventions, and in their day-to-day representations, bring forward dozens of good suggestions and recommendations. Parliamentarians and interested Canadians also raised positive and constructive ideas for improvements. We have been able to do quite a bit. In fact, I have announced eight new improvements this summer alone.
I would like to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House who are making possible debate on Bill C-87 today. The spirit of co-operation is appreciated. Hopefully, we will get through second reading, referral to Committee of the Whole, and clause-by-clause study of the amendments and bill today.

I again want to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House who are making possible today's debate on Bill C-87. The spirit of cooperation is appreciated by veterans and their dependants.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address second reading of Bill C-87.
I would like to begin by again paying tribute to the men and women whom the Department of Veterans Affairs and the associated agencies are there to serve. Over
100,000	said men and women sacrificed their lives in three wars to keep this great country of ours free. Of course, we also honour and cherish the veterans who

Government Orders
came home, but who continue to struggle with the disabilities, the memories of the war, and the companions they lost. We bear a great responsibility and concern as well for the spouses, widows and dependents of these veterans.
As I took the time to examine this bill with the various veterans associations, such as the Royal Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans Associations, which includes among others the War Amputations of Canada, I came to the conclusion that there were many changes that were needed in this legislation.
It is the bill's intention to pay interest on funds held in trust accounts for veterans and administered by the department. I regret that it took so long to see this come about. The Auditor General recommended in his report that Parliament for the year ending 1986 said that interest should be paid on such accounts. This initiative, of course, is one ray of hope in a bill which in many other cases is in need of further improvement.
There are several aspects of this bill which cause concern to the veterans organizations and to myself. I would like to discuss for a moment those concerns. Many veterans' issues have yet to be addressed by the government, issues which cannot wait for resolution much longer. Veterans, of course, make up a small segment of our population and they may not be considered to be a high priority by many Canadians. In view of the sacrifices made by these men and women, this is an attitude which we must fight every step of the way. We owe our freedom and our democracy to these outstanding Canadians, and the concerns and the needs of them and of their dependents must be addressed on an ongoing basis. Veterans are fortunate to have such organizations as the Royal Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans Associations to talk to the Department of Veterans Affairs and other areas of government on their behalf.
Of great concern to veterans and their associations is the effect of the clawback. The passage of Bill C-28 by the other place means that Canadian veterans will be forced to subsidize the deficit which this government has failed to reduce effectively.
Also, there are many veterans who do not require chronic care in a hospital setting, but who do need a support system at home. Therefore, the department
offers The veterans Independence Program. However, some veterans, such as those who did not serve outside of Canada, are not eligible for certain benefits under the program. I feel this discrimination between veterans is unfair and must be corrected to ensure that all veterans receive equal treatment.
I believe that the passage of this bill without the positive changes in the following areas would be a terrible development on our system of veterans benefits. I just want to quote some of the sections.
Clause 4, paragraph 14(3)(b) states that "any of the commission's duties" should be changed to specify "nonadjudicative duties". This would leave no doubt that while duties may be delegated, the power of adjudication cannot be delegated.
There are many clauses which I feel need correction and as we go through the clause-by-clause examination, I will speak to them. There are some apparent drafting errors as well that must be corrected. One is that appeals to entitlement boards, amending subsection 81(1) of the Pension Act in clause 28 to restore the words "or whose award has been cancelled or reduced". These words are necessary to allow a pensioner to appeal a decision to cancel or reduce an award on grounds other than a change on the basis of entitlement, in particular, when a pension is stopped under new subsection 106(22).
Second, in dealing with the stoppage of pensions for the refusal to be medically examined, the new subsection 106.22 of the Pension Act in clause 31 of the bill should be changed by replacing the word "minister" with "commission". This would leave in place the avenues of appeal which now exist and would ensure that adjudication is performed by the independent commission, rather than by the minister.
Of understandable concern to veterans organizations is the apparent change of mood on the part of government with regard to benefits. The implementation of the clawback, as I stated earlier, the charges for board and lodging, the restrictive policy in regard to hearing loss assessment, the placing of restrictions on the number of days a year that treatment allowance for pensionable disability can be paid and the restrictions regarding the effective dates of retroactive payment of treatment benefits are just a few concerns.

I am worried by the apparent tendency toward delegating responsibilities from the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans' Appeal Board to departmental ministers. This is a dangerous precedent, because if adjudication duties come under the auspices of the bureaucrats, responsibility and accountability are in danger.
I am also concerned with the response of government resolutions arising from veterans conventions, which is either too slow or lacking altogether. Some areas of urgent priority to veterans are the elimination of delays in addressing pension applications. I know it has come a long way, and it has a lot farther to go, of course.
The ineligibility of widows to benefit from pension increases assessed after their spouse's death, the payment of proportionate rather than full pensions to widows, payments to serving members of the forces through sustained disabilities which restrict promotion, transfer and review of the basis of disability pension rates, inequity of the War Veterans' Allowance Act which must be corrected is a requirement that veterans or their widows must be a resident in Canada when applying. Before the allowance can be paid outside of Canada, the recipient must have a continuous total of 12 months residency in Canada.
This may seem quite all right at the outset. Many people, some of them who did not return home from overseas after the war, live in the United States or other places. They would benefit greatly because these people are not the people who are buying shares in Air Canada or Petro-Canada. These people are living far below the poverty line, and it would seem only fair that the veterans or their widows who cannot return to Canada be eligible for this allowance.
The War Veterans' Allowance Program is intended to meet the basic needs of veterans. In order to maintain a reasonable quality of life, some additional income from casual earnings, interest on savings and rentals are exempted from calculating income. However, the last increase in the casual earnings exemption was in 1985 when it went from $100 to $140.
Government Orders
Veterans' associations believe that an exemption of at least $500 per year is more realistic and that increases should be at least equal to the Consumer Price Index gain since 1985.
I cannot stress enough how important and how urgent these matters are for our veterans and their dependents. They must be addressed now, not in a matter of years.
Another matter which has been raised by the veterans and others across the country is recognition of the contribution made by merchant seamen during Canada's war effort during the two world wars and Korea.
While merchant seamen were not members of the Armed Forces, they played a crucial role in the war effort. Without the merchant navy, our forces would have been deprived of vital supplies of food, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, fuel and other essential items which were necessary to ensure our victory.
We have the cold statistics of men killed and ships lost to remind us that although the merchant seamen were not members of the Royal Canadian Navy, they ran the same risks and too often paid the same price.
They did it for the same reason. They did it to defend their country and its values. They deserve the same recognition and the same support that we give veterans of the forces.
Since 1941, the Government of Canada has recognized the equality of service and sacrifice of the merchant navy by awarding the Silver Cross to the widows and the mothers of those merchant seamen who gave their lives in war.
It seems strange to me that we recognize the equality of service and sacrifice with this medal, but we do not recognize the equality of service when it comes to granting equal benefits to those merchant seamen who returned. To put it bluntly, if a merchant seaman was killed, he was a hero. If he returned, he was a forgotten civilian.
In 1962, in response to pressure from the Canadian Legion and the Merchant Navy Association, the Canadian government made an effort to recognize the service of these people by passing Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, which granted them the equivalent of war veterans allowance. In view of this, it was not too much to expect that when the government extended what is now called the veterans independence program, or VIP, to the recipients of the war veterans allowance, the merchant seamen would be eligible for VIP, but they are not.

Government Orders
Basically, for the purposes of the VIP, service on the high seas during these wars in the merchant navy is not considered equal to non-voluntary service even when such service was performed only on Canadian soil. Merchant seamen are instead categorized with all other non-service personnel under the title of civilians. The United Kingdom and the United States have legally recognized their merchant seamen as having served in active military service and they are entitled to equal benefits.
Do members of the Canadian merchant navy not deserve the same? I agree with the veterans organizations in saying yes, they do deserve our honour and our support for their sacrifices, and this should be clearly demonstrated by giving them full status under veterans' legislation.
Another group who served Canada, and for technical reasons do not receive the benefits they deserve, are those who at the end of World War II were absent without leave and never returned to their units. In 1946 an Order in Council categorized these veterans as deemed never to have served, which meant that while they would not suffer any consequences for the service offence, they were also deprived of any benefits provided for members of the Forces. This, in spite of the fact that many had good front line service records, and in some instances many were wounded in action.
We believe that a system should be established which would review the cases on an individual basis as requested by appellants. Individual cases could be investigated and when appropriate, honourable discharges could be granted. Veterans just want these cases to be judged on the individual merit by an easily understood and accessible system, such as a special committee. If a favourable decision is made, then such veterans or their dependants would be eligible for benefits.
Like the merchant seamen and others, there is another group of veterans whose experiences and special needs too often go unnoticed. I tell you that they receive full benefits, that they go unnoticed and yet they made a great sacrifice to the nation, and I am talking about the prisoners of war. We tend to forget what these people went through.
During the years which we like to consider as carefree in our teens and our twenties, Canada's service men and women experienced hell on earth. Because of this sacrifice, we live as free men and women in the greatest country in the world, and we are deeply in their debt. Veterans serve, not just as a living reminder of the wars fought for Canada, they remind us that we must do everything within our power to ensure that no Canadians ever again have to make such sacrifices if at all possible.
I would like to quote the Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald, a former Minister of Veterans Affairs, as he spoke to Bill C-40 in July, 1980. He said, and I quote: "In this modem age, society is often accused of neglecting both the contributions of our forebears in building this great country called Canada and their needs as they age and experience infirmity. It is often stated that the measure of the social conscience of a nation lies in its treatment of its aging and dependant population".
While veterans remind us of so many valuable and painfully learned lessons, they must never be regarded as relics. We must ensure that they receive every benefit that Canadian society can provide to them. We must also be willing and able to provide support to a new generation of Canadian veterans should conflict arise in the Persian Gulf.
All Canadians hope fervently that the crisis will be resolved peacefully. We cannot let our hopes blind us. We must be prepared for any development and we must be ready to support all of our veterans, both present and future. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am very pleased that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has agreed to establish the study group to deal with various issues, some of which I have discussed.
As the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, I would hope to participate in this group. I look forward to working with the government and veterans to try to resolve the urgent matters before us.
I know that our goal should be a common one, to make the lives of Canadian veterans as healthy and as comfortable and as dignified as we possibly can. It is the least we can give to those who have given so much. We live as a free people, not by chance but because when that freedom was threatened, the men and the women of the army, the navy, the air force, and the merchant marine
November 8, 1990

and many others were willing to put their lives on the line. Many paid the supreme sacrifice. Many were wounded and the result is that we are free today.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach this November 11 when members of Parliament will attend Remembrance Day services across the country, let us make certain that we have indeed kept the faith with those who served Canada in her hour of need.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. This bill amends several pieces of legislation that we support.
We in the New Democratic Party find much to support in the bill. For example, we are pleased to note the bill would require government to use proceeds from the estates of veterans who die without heirs to be placed in a trust fund and used for the benefit of other veterans, rather than going into general revenue of the government, which has been the practice for years, and which I submit is long overdue to be corrected.
We are glad to see the extension of the attendance allowance to class 2 widows. We are glad to see that a means test for disabled children of deceased veterans is removed. Of course, we have always opposed means testing for social programs.
In the main, this is a progressive piece of legislation. It extends some benefits to veterans and their dependants and puts into statute law some of the more generous practices of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Specifically, there is now legal provision for clothing allowances for veterans whose disability cause wear and tear on their clothing. Again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on a positive move.
However, this government has not shown itself either willing or able to listen to the electorate, nor even to take constructive criticism. It was with some delight and surprise I was able to note that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has listened to veterans organizations like the Royal Canadian Legion, Army, Navy, and Air Force Vets, and I am a member of both, and the National Council of Veterans Organizations, and drafted amendments to C-87 to meet the concerns of those groups.
Government Orders
Again I congratulate the minister. He has shown some sensitivity that we all appreciate.
Part of Bill C-87 is concerned with the operations of the Veterans Appeal Board. One of the provisions lengthens the terms of members from five and three to seven and five years. We also see this as a positive measure to allow members of the board to become more expert in their work before they must leave the board.
I would like to take this opportunity again to congratulate the government on the quality of appointments it has made to the Veterans Appeal Board. It is fair to say that many of the present government's appointments to boards and commissions have been something less than judicious and appropriate. Thankfully, appointments to the Veterans Appeal Board, not only from this government but previous governments, have remained to bob the pork barrel.
In fact, I would like publicly and in the House to congratulate the Veterans Appeal Board for the fine work it has done over the years. I humbly submit that I would like to see this government, or the next government-which could be my party-take appropriate measures to ensure that appointments to the Veterans Appeal Board will remain relatively non-partisan.
While I am on the subject of the Veterans Appeal Board, I would like to suggest to the minister that he might want to consider introducing legislation in the near future that would allow the board to hold hearings from time to time across the country. We could run into a situation where a veteran who has an appeal is not satisfied with the pensions advocate who appeared on his behalf when he made application and he wants to appear himself or have a lawyer represent him. This means that one or both of them have to go to Charlottetown.
In those instances I would think that once or twice a year the board should meet in different places in Canada to make sure that the veteran is satisfied with the representation that he can.
It is with mixed feelings I say that the minister's department is responsible for meeting the needs of fewer and fewer war veterans. I cannot say how glad I am that this has been the case, but more needs to be done.

November 8, 1990
Government Orders
In future there will have to be further improvements and increases.
This summer that we might end up with more war veterans. We hope that is not the case but, even as we speak, we are drifting closer and closer to a war. We must be fully aware of what this means.
I do not want to see the Department of Veterans Affairs lose any of its importance. That is why I encourage the minister, and I will support him, in his fight for veterans, even if it is with his own cabinet colleagues. I just hope he would fight harder sometimes.
In any case, the government must do all it can to help bring a peaceful resolution to the Arabian gulf crisis, and for many reasons Canada cannot afford any more wars.
I have what I believe to be and what my legal advice indicates is a reasoned amendment which I will move at the end of my remarks. The bill is intending to help veterans and their dependent survivors. I have congratulated the minister on that. The reasoned amendment I will move calls for this House to proceed no further with Bill C-87. My party and I want to give the government an opportunity to change the statutes or amend this bill before us now to extend war veterans benefits to Canadian merchant seamen who made at least one trip through dangerous waters during World War II.
I should say at this point that we are anxious to have this bill pass through all stages by the end of the day, even if it means, Sir, that we will have not to see the clock. It is shameful that this and previous governments have for 45 years refused to recognize adequately the contributions of these courageous Canadians made during those terrible years.
In response to the minister's answer to my question during Question Period today, I had the feeling that he was trying to leave the impression that the merchant seamen are getting really great benefits even though they are not recognized as veterans. I want to remind the House and the minister of some of the benefits the merchant seamen do not get, that Armed Forces veterans, firefighters, and civilian supervisors get.
For example, a clothing allowance on discharge, they all got it but the merchant seamen got zero. The other three groups got rehabilitation grants, but the merchant seaman did not. The Armed Forces veterans got medical and dental care free for one year, but the merchant seamen only get it if they have a pensionable disability. Surely that is not equal treatment. The others got out of work benefits, but the merchant seamen, perhaps, maybe. The Armed Forces veterans got temporary incapacity allowance, but the merchant seamen did not. The others got vocational training. For the seamen it had to be marine related and they had to be under 30 years of age. Many of those seamen were in their fifties and early sixties, sailing during the Second World War. When they came out, they could not get those benefits.
The others got benefits while they are waiting for returns, but the merchant seamen did not. The Armed Forces veterans got university treatment, but the merchant seamen did not. Federal Public Service preference, yes for the Armed Forces veterans, but no for the merchant seaman. For disability preference, yes for the Armed Forces veterans and the civilian supervisors, but the merchant seamen had to have a handicap. The Veterans Land Act, only if seamen were war disabled. If they are disabled, they are not going to be able to farm any land. Veterans insurance, yes for the other groups, but conditional for the merchant seamen. Veterans business and professional loans, yes for the Armed Forces, but no for the merchant seamen. Reduced rail transportation when they were on leave during the war, Armed Forces veterans got it but no for the merchant seamen.
That is a list of benefits the merchant seamen did not get as compared to the war veterans.
I would like to move a reasoned amendment before I sit down. There is much to praise in Bill C-87. It is clearly intended to help war veterans and their dependent survivors. I look forward to helping pass this bill at all stages today.
I congratulate the minister for taking the initiative in this regard, but I take this opportunity to remind the minister and the House that as a nation Canada has still failed to repay its debt to some veterans of the war against fascism. That is why the reasoned amendment I will move today if it is ruled in order calls this House to

proceed no further with Bill C-87. My party and I would like to give the government an opportunity to change the statutes or, by an amendment to this bill which we can do in 20 minutes, extend all war veterans benefits to Canadian merchant seamen who made at least one trip through dangerous waters in World War II.
It is shameful that in 45 years the government has not recognized the contribution those merchant seamen made. There were 12,000 of them-that is the equivalent of a full Canadian army division-who served in our merchant fleet during the Second World War. There are only about 3,500 of them left. We lost 1,259 of them, which is greater than 10 per cent, to death. Nearly 200 were imprisoned, some of them for up to five years, having been captured in 1940-41 by the Germans. There were those who died in the run to Murmansk and in the Battle of the Atlantic. This was the highest casualty rate, proportionately, of any allied force during the last great conflict. This is puzzling, since merchant seamen have been awarded many of the same medals given to Canadian Armed Forces veterans. The United States and the United Kingdom have recognized their merchant seamen as veterans. Since January 1988, U.S. merchant seamen have become eligible for full benefits from their veterans administration.
Of course the Royal Canadian Legion has passed a resolution calling for the Parliament of Canada to recognize our merchant seamen as full war veterans.
On this issue, the ball is in the government's court. I hope the minister or someone from the government side will tell us why this minister and previous ones have so far failed to act, for 45 years, to give merchant seamen full war veterans benefits, status, and recognition.
Therefore I wish to move:
That this House decline to proceed further with second reading of Bill C-87, an act to amend statute law in relation to war veterans, because it fails to provide for the extension of veterans benefits as outlined in the bill to certain groups heretofore excluded from designation as war veterans, said groups including
1) Canadian Merchant Seamen, registered with the Canadian government between 1939 and 1945 end of hostilities in the Pacific, who made at least one trip through dangerous waters.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Minister of Veterans Affairs while I am looking at the amendment.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, my comments were to be on the amendment. I do not know whether or not you have ruled that it is in the right form. Perhaps you could make that decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe it is in the right form. I have no problem with that.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I just wanted to make a few comments on it.
This government and all previous governments since the war have dealt with the issue of the merchant seamen. We fully recognize that they served under some very dangerous conditions and that they paid the supreme sacrifice in many cases. However, no previous government decided to take the additional step which would term them as being veterans and give them all the benefits of other veterans.
I think what I have done is a good step. I indicated it in Question Period today. Naturally we will not vote for this amendment. The Royal Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy, Air Force Association, and the National Council of Veterans Associations, along with members of our department and members of the portfolio which would include the Canadian Pension Commission, Bureau of Pension Advocates and the Veterans Appeal Board, would like to put this thing to a major study with all groups present to see if there is anything that can be done and if we can reach a meeting of the minds on this particularly thorny issue.
It is my position and the position of the government that at this time the referral of the matter to that particular veterans study group would be far more profitable than to pass this particular amendment. Therefore, the government will be voting against it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will propose the motion to the House now, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
Mr. Beqjamin, seconded by Mr. Blackburn (Brant) moved:
That this House decline to proceed further with the second
reading of Bill C-87, an act to amend statute law in relation to war
veterans, because it fails to provide for the extension of veterans

Government Orders
benefits as outlined in the bill to certain groups heretofore excluded from designation as war veterans, said groups which include the Canadian Merchant Seamen, registered with the Canadian government between 1939 and 1945 end of hostilities in the Pacific, who made at least one trip through dangerous waters.
The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke on debate.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address briefly Bill C-87, an act to amend the statute law in relation to war veterans, I would just like to add to the words of my colleague from Regina-Lumsden that there is no better way for us in this House to pay tribute to the Canadian men and women who served in the two world wars and the many other conflicts in which Canada has been engaged than to act in support of the bill before us to improve the benefits and pensions of those who have served in Canada's forces in all of those conflicts.
Concerning my colleague's amendment to define those who served in Canada's merchant marine as veterans entitled to full veterans benefits, I can recall well the father of a good friend of mine-in fact the friend was the best man at my wedding-who three times was torpedoed and dumped into the North Atlantic while on the Murmansk run. He survived all three times. I can think of very few others, no matter which branch of the services, who perhaps earned full benefits and full pensions more than that gentleman and others who, like him, put their lives on the line in the most dangerous theatre of operations.
There is another group in addition to those in the merchant marine who I and my colleagues believe should also be recognized. These other Canadians who have never been given the recognition due to them as war veterans are those who went to Spain to fight fascism during the Spanish Civil War.
There cannot be more than 200 or so surviving Mac-Paps who were of course the first from our land to fight fascism. They were not paid well in Spain. They were given weapons and basic provisions as their reward for helping to try and stop Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini. For their courage and self-sacrifice, their own government declared them outlaws because they violated the Foreign Enlistment Act.
Imagine in the years just before World War II that it was against the law to fight against the most vicious tyranny the world had ever seen, but the Mac-Paps, the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and others risked imprisonment to stand up for democracy and made their way to Spain on their own where they served with honour.
Many were decorated by the Spanish Republican Government. Many were wounded, captured, tortured, or killed in the fight to stop the fascists and the Nazis.
I have often said that if the democracies had listened to the Mac-Paps and others, we might have headed Hitler off and perhaps stopped the sequence of escalating aggression that resulted in World War II. Many of the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion came back to Canada, joined the Canadian forces and continued in the war against fascism.
Now all they want is recognition as veterans. They are not even asking for benefits, though they certainly deserve them. Most importantly, they deserve to know that their country no longer regards them as outlaws for being among the first Canadians to try to stop the spread of fascism.
I hope that the minister will act soon to include as veterans, members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who helped the democratically elected government of Spain defend itself against a fascist invasion during the Spanish Civil War.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the remainder of these gallant freedom fighters may finally be allowed to take their rightful place of honour and stand as a unit before Canadian cenotaphs on Remembrance Day. It is well past time.
I would move:
That the following words be added to the previous amendment:
and members of the Mackenzie Papineau battalion and other Canadians who fought with Spanish Republican forces during the Spanish Civil War.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Negatived on division.
Amendment to the amendment negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Negatived on division.
Amendment negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
On clause 1-
Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of amendments I would like to table for the committee's consideration. I would ask at this time for unanimous consent that they be deemed moved by myself and seconded by the Minister of National Health and Wel-
Govemment Orders
fare. They will be considered disposed of later as we proceed in the clause by clause consideration of the bill.
In order to be of assistance, I made sure the opposition parties received copies of these amendments earlier.
I think it is only fair I ask that if any other members have amendments, they be tabled now or in the next few minutes so all of us in the committee have an opportunity to peruse them, to consider them and to make a decision on them.
Hopefully, I will be able to get this legislation which is so very important for our veterans through very shortly.
I have some of these amendments to move.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There are two motions in the package which would be out of order at the committee stage. They are the amendments to delete clauses 16 and 24. The way to accomplish this at the committee stage would be to vote against clauses 16 and 24. I will, therefore, deem the other 10 amendments to be moved by Mr. Merrithew, seconded by Mr. Beatty.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, my question is for the minister. It deals with the cut-off date for the Korean war, July 27,1953.1 wonder why that date was never extended and why the bill before us is not extended to cover those veterans who left Canada after that date.
I know one constituent who is offended by the cut-off date. I wonder if the minister could perhaps tell me how many veterans are affected? I realize there are fewer veterans still around who receive the veterans allowance. I am specifically dealing with the veterans allowance under this cut-off date because all other veterans have had all the other benefits except the veterans allowance from that date.
I would like to know how many veterans would have left after that date to go to Korea. I think it is well worth knowing in light of the crisis in the Gulf. We can pass an order retroactively but there is no order that the troops presently in the Gulf are in a theatre of war or in an aggressive theatre at this present time.
My first question really deals with that date and how many people have been affected. They were sent to Korea as of that date and therefore disallowed from war veterans allowance after they came back.

November 8, 1990
Government Orders
My second question is, in light of the declining number of Canadian veterans, could there not be a clause to include these people that would have at least gone to the end of the Korean war? In a letter to me from the minister it says: "The courage of the Merchant Marine is well documented. The service they rendered to the war effort is undeniable and all Canadians are grateful for their work. However, many veterans who served with the Armed Forces during wartime are still not eligible for the VIP program. I refer to the people who went to Korea as such".
I would like to know if the minister is aware of the numbers of the merchant marine who might today still be around to be able to take advantage of the VIP program but, more important, how many Koreans veterans were denied the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Program?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, questions on legislation such as this quite often refer to items which are not in the bill.
I might add that the questions do not even pertain to clause 1, but I will undertake to get those figures. There are some very good reasons why that date was chosen or else it would not have been chosen. I will undertake to get that. Naturally I would not have those kinds of figures at my fingertips at this time.


Coline M. Campbell: I think clause 1 allows us to question all parts of the bill. All I am asking the minister is why these people were excluded in these amendments in the bill before the House. I was just wondering if he had some explanation, besides just no explanation, as to why we had a cut-off date. It is very important at this time in Canada's history as we send troops over to the Persian Gulf who go not knowing what their rights or benefits are. I know it can be passed by Parliament retroactively as it was done in the Korean war and the date was selected. I know that there are veterans who were hurt by that cut-off date.
It just seems to me as we have this omnibus bill helping veterans-and I have nothing to say against the bill-why we could not include the few veterans who are not included for those benefits?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, I fully realize that one can discuss many items under Clause 1. The important thing is the date that was chosen. I suspect, it was the date of the signing of the truce. There were quite a few veterans of course who served in the Third Battalion that
went over after that signing of the truce. I would know many of them personally.
Again, I cannot get the numbers the hon. members has asked for and I would suggest that we could discuss that at a future time. If she wishes, I will put it in writing. I will be glad to find those numbers, but I do not have those at my fingertips at this time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Perhaps the Chair can help the House. The clauses can be divided into blocks as follows. Clauses 1 to 3 can be approved in one block, and so on. We will approve clauses 1 to 3 as one block right now.


Coline M. Campbell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe that once we leave clause 1, one cannot talk in generalities on the bill. Is that not correct? One has to then speak on the clause.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is true, but the Chair was just trying to be helpful. We will continue with clause 1, the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.


Neil Young: Mr. Chairman, while on clause 1, I want to make reference to the war veterans allowance.
As the minister knows, funds are fairly tight at the present time in the federal government and any further drain on benefits available under legislation affecting veterans is of concern to all of us.
Is the minister aware that, three days before Remembrance Day, there are some 40 commissionaires, who are all veterans and who work at the Toronto Pearson International Airport, who have been given termination of employment notices? I understand that these notices have been given to more commissionaires across the country. Is the minister aware of what the drain will be on the war veterans allowance for these elderly veterans who will no longer be employed by the federal government because of cutbacks?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member did give me notice of this. Unfortunately, it was well into the middle of Question Period and I was preoccupied by many other problems during that time, as he might well imagine. I did try to find out more about it by sending out for information.
I am told that the Corps of Commissionaires have a contract with the RCMP and the RCMP has indicated that, due to budget problems, it is not going to renew the contracts for a certain part of that. While it is regrettable, I will undertake to pursue the matter with the Solicitor General to see if we can get more details about it.
November 8, 1990


Neil Young: I appreciate the minister's response, Mr. Chairman, which is in the tradition of veterans affairs ministers around here. I would simply encourage him to do that, to lessen the anxiety that these veterans have at the present time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a quick point that the minister may want to examine. The Corps of Commissionaires and all security services are the responsibility of the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport has delegated the handling of the Corps of Commissionaires to the RCMP, but it is still the responsibility of the Department of Transport and I do not think they should get that kind of treatment.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise the House that the Minister of Veterans Affairs did tell me that the matter was going to be raised. We certainly appreciated the notice, because it gave us an opportunity to do a quick investigation into the situation.
I should tell my hon. friend at this moment it is my personal opinion, and I will get to it one of these days, that a lot more work could be done around airports by commissionaires than the RCMP. That happens to be a view I hold. However, from the security aspect of it, the RCMP in its wisdom uses commissionaires, which I fully encourage. I do not know anything more than the specifics which the hon. minister gave to the House. As has been indicated, we will certainly look into it further.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4


Steve Eugene Paproski: We have an amendment to clause 4.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, I believe you will receive the unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole to include all of those ten amendments to be read automatically into the motion amending clauses as we come to them. So, we would assume Clause 4 would read "Clause 4 as amended".
Government Orders


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There are two amendments to Clause 8. Shall the clause, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 14 inclusive agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There is an amendment to Clause 15. Shall the clause, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 16


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, we have had discussions, of course, with the veterans groups as we indicated prior to the introduction of this bill. This was meant to cover all aspects of retroactivity. The veterans groups indicated some concern with that. We think that, because of their concern, it would be better at this time that we delete Clauses 16 and 24. The government will vote against Clauses 16 and 24 since amendments are not in order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are Clauses 16 and 24 negatived on division?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let us get unanimous consent first. If it is withdrawn, we have to have a vote.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Let us do it this way. Is Clauses 16, first, negatived on division?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 16 negatived.
Clauses 17 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 24 negatived.
Clauses 25 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 28

Government Orders


Steve Eugene Paproski: On Clause 28, there is an amendment. Is the amendment agreed to?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 28, as amended, carry?
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 29


Steve Eugene Paproski: Clause 29 has an amendment. Is the amendment agreed to?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 29, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 30


Steve Eugene Paproski: Clause 30 has an amendment. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 30, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 31


Steve Eugene Paproski: Clause 31 has an amendment. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 31, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 64 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 65


Steve Eugene Paproski: There is an amendment to Clause 65. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 65, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 66


Steve Eugene Paproski: Clause 66 has an amendment. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 66, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we did a good stroke of business today. I want to assure the minister that the matters we raised earlier this day will not be dropped and he will be hearing about them some more.
I also want to thank the minister. He was kind enough to send me some notes to use for a response to his statement today. He does not know me well enough because no one has ever found me at a loss for words on any subject. It was a nice gesture for him to make. I did not use them, but maybe I will save them for next year.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the critics, particularly, and members of the House. I agree with the hon. member from Regina-Lumsden and with my critic from the Liberal Party, the member for Hillsborough, in whose riding my department resides. I thank them personally for their co-operation.
The veterans groups across Canada have watched very closely what has happened. I think we have shown them an exercise in consultation and listening. What we have done is good for them and good for their colleagues. I fully agree that, while we have not done everything we can do as yet, the eight new improvements we have announced since June and what is included in Bill C-87 will bode well for the welfare of Veterans.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to. Bill reported.
George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden said, we have done a lot of work in a short period of time. I believe we have a lot of good things here for the veterans. We have a lot more things that have to be worked on.
I am pleased that a study group has been established. I look forward to many of the meetings that this group will be having in the upcoming months and years to participate in this.
My feeling is that the number of veterans are decreasing. Therefore, the amounts of money should increase and more people should be receiving the benefits as time goes on for many of the problems they have had since the Korean War, particularly, the latest group of them. We have to look to the people who will be coming back from whatever takes place in the gulf and other areas that may continue. I just want to say that I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in this debate and in the Committee of the Whole today. We have accomplished much, but we have much, much further to go.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Young (Beaches-Woodbine) that Bill C-225, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of members of the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak briefly on Bill C-225, which was brought to this House through the private members' system by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Private Members' Business
This bill has a long and honourable history in that it goes back to 1984, when it was first introduced by the then member for Lachine, Rod Blaker. At that time, it came out of an all-committee discussion and was backed by members of all parties in that committee because there was a feeling that something had to be done with respect to the staff of members of Parliament, the people who work for MPs.
The motion was brought forward by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine to the committee. Again there was a recognition that certainly the situation had changed over the years in respect of the employment status of people who work for members of Parliament.
In years past, when there was a much smaller staff, there was a revolving pool of staff members here on the Hill and it operated like the Public Service does, except that they worked continuously in members' offices, worked for members from different parties and served as a pool of experienced people. A lot of their work was much less political, perhaps, than what it is today. It was basic research, secretarial, and so on.
With the increase in members' staffs, obviously there was a need to do something. The all-party committee recognized this and the hon. member for Beaches- Woodbine brought forward this motion. I think it has reached its intended objectives. It has forced members to focus on the whole question of staff relations here on the Hill, to look at how they are handling their own staff relations, how their caucus handles staff relations, and I think some very useful debate, inside and outside of the House, has occurred as a result of this bill having been put forward.
I think there is still broad support for the principles that motivated this bill. In other words, there needs to be some protection for workers who are employees of members of Parliament. In other words, they cannot simply be there, subject to the political whims and so on that are so much a part of this business and not even be able to avail themselves of the basic employment rights that members in any other sector, doing the same kind of work, would have with respect to working conditions and so on.
In consultation with the member for Beaches-Woodbine, it seemed to us that there had been some misunderstanding of the intent of this bill as shown by some of the references made by other members in the debate and other comment on this bill, that somehow or other its effect would be to entrench another level of privilege into the House of Commons system and that it might create some unfair advantages. In other words, the technical aspects of this bill had not been really solidly addressed.

Private Members' Business
I think the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine drew attention to that in his remarks on October 16 when he said that there are some flaws in this bill and that he recognized that they can be corrected in committee. He said too that he recognized that there are some weaknesses in the language of the original bill as it was drafted in 1984. He said he would be prepared to work with the committee to strengthen the language in the bill. He said:
I would hope that we could perhaps have some witnesses from the Public Service unions, even some members of the staff of members of the House of Commons, and any others who may be interested in having some input into making the bill say what it is we mean it to say.
My own perspective on the question with reference to the member for Beaches-Woodbine is that we are making it possible for the staff members of members of Parliament to be able to bargain collectively and to have recognition of their rights to do so.
We have attempted to do that within the New Democratic Party caucus. We like to think that we take that kind of thing seriously and we have tried hard to make it work. On balance, it surely can be said that our experience has been that the pluses have far outweighed the minuses. We are very happy with our experiment with collective bargaining for our staff members. We feel that it would certainly be useful to members of other caucuses to examine this concept as well.
In this day and age where there are all a lot of sophisticated bargaining techniques and contracts, the special circumstances which pertain to the people who work for members of Parliament can certainly be addressed in the collective bargaining context. What it needs is some legitimization through legislation.
There I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-22, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons) be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
I would ask all members to support this amendment.


Mr. David  Bjomson@Selkirk-Red River: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on the bill now before the House in this Private Members' hour. I am somewhat concerned about what the amendment actually will entail, and how far I should really go in my comments.
This is a bill to extend to the staff members of the House of Commons priority to be appointed to the Public Service. This priority will take effect when their employment is lost as a result of members of Parliament ceasing to be members of Parliament.
Unlike a number of bills which come forth during Private Members' hour, this is one which touches all of us directly in our roles as members of Parliament. Actually, it touches us in several ways and for this reason I would like to add a few remarks to the discussion today.
This particular piece of proposed legislation is designed to provide equitable treatment to all staff members of the House of Commons, that very noble and honourable staff that serves us both in our constituencies and here in Ottawa. That staff on many occasions serves as the hands on link between ourselves and those people we represent for this honourable House.
Before rising to make these remarks today, I thought very carefully about the stated principle underlying this bill, that of equity or equality of treatment. Indeed, the bill manifests to provide equitable treatment for the staffs of members of the House of Commons in relation to the treatment afforded to some parliamentary officers.
I asked myself if the reason such a priority was not afforded to the staff of the members of the House of Commons was that at the time of the legislation was put in place in 1966 and 1967, it was not foreseen that members of the House would have their own staffs.
While on the surface this may be appear to be the case, I cannot think of any point in Canadian history where a member of the House did not need staff back in the constituency, particularly at a time when transportation was not at the stage that it is today.
November 8, 1990

What may be different is that they were not formally recognized as staff. There is no question in my mind that the staff in my office, and indeed in the offices of other members of this House, are extremely competent people and would be an asset to the Public Service of Canada.
The question of equality of treatment again is one which is very prominent and prevalent in the minds of Canadians these days, as it has been for quite a while. We in this House are sometimes likened to those living in a fishbowl, subject to scrutiny from all sides and from top to bottom. One must ask how the public would perceive this proposal, and whether it would be seen not as an issue of providing equitable treatment but rather as a form of preferential treatment for a select group.
The issue of equality is an important one. However, I must note that I would be gravely concerned if, in an attempt to provide what one might call equity of treatment, the public were to view this as an attempt to provide preferential treatment under a different guise. The proposal would provide a priority for appointment to the Public Service without competition and in priority to almost every other person in Canada.
There is no question that we, as members of the House of Commons, owe the fact that we are where we are because of those who have served us so well and who continue to service us often times through successive elections and through successive sittings of the House. Indeed, there are some members of the House who have been in such roles for the last 20 to 25 years. As was noted today, there were four members honoured by the fact that they have had 25 consistent years here in the House.
To them, we have an ongoing debt of gratitude. What perplexes me, however, is the concern that, in attempting to provide this group with a provision that may be only a token of their worth, we might unwittingly expose them to unfair criticism for being privy to what some might call a "back door route" to the Public Service.
Private Members' Business
Is the provision of a priority for appointment to the Public Service the proper course, or is it that some changes to the provisions in the House of Commons staff rules might be more appropriate?
In the research that I have been able to do on this topic, I have not been able to determine with any certainty whether in the minds of the members of the House at the time the Public Service Employment Act was enacted, the reason that this priority was not extended to the staff of members of the House was because such staff was not officially recognized at that time.
I would note that when the legislation was enacted, there was an accompanying clause introduced in the legislation stating quite clearly-at least this appeared to be the statement at the time: "no employee shall (a) engage in work for, on behalf of or against a candidate for election as a member of the House of Commons,-or engage in work for, on behalf of or against a political party;".
I do not want to dwell on this point because I understand that this particular section of the Public Service Employment Act is currently under review in the Supreme Court. I only wish to indicate that over the past few years, Public Service unions have put considerable pressure on the government to loosen the restrictions on the political activities of public servants.
Indeed, our government is on record as supporting the view that any restrictions on the political activities of public servants should be no greater than are necessary to maintain a politically neutral Public Service. The challenge to date has been to determine just where that boundary lies.
The section of the Public Service Employment Act enacted in 1967, that the bill before us today proposes to amend, represented a major step forward in opening the way for federal public servants to participate in the political process.
This legislation was based on the recommendations of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on employer-employee relations in the federal public service. While retaining the restrictions on working for, on behalf of, or against a political party or candidate for election, the legislation specified that an employee did not contravene the prohibition by attending a political meeting or by contributing money to the fund of a political party or of a candidate.

Private Members' Business
I would like to draw my remarks to a close with the observation that over time in Canada, restrictions were placed on the ability of public servants to participate in the political process. The restrictions imposed today are fewer than they were in the earlier days of the Civil Service Act, although even these have been the subject of challenge.
The rationale for restrictions has also evolved from being an attempt to remove a form of patronage to addressing the concern that involvement in political activity by public servants would call into question by the public and by political and administrative superiors the confidence in the integrity and impartiality of of the Public Service from the development end through to delivery.
We in Canada have come a long way in this area. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the loyal staff who have served me so well and continue to do so would and could, if they determined to pursue a career in the Public Service, do so in a manner which will bring credit upon the service and upon themselves.
It would trouble me greatly if the credit that these people so deservedly merit were to be denied them on the grounds, however unsubstantiated, that they gained entry to the Public Service of Canada through what some people have called the back door route.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have just reviewed the amendment to the Public Service Employment Act. The debate is on the amendment.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to a bill which I think is absolutely gross, and that is the amendment to the Public Service Employment Act proposed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party.
Bill C-225 proposes to amend the Public Service Employment Act and give to members' staff certain rights and privileges which Public Service employees do not enjoy.
I think this is positively intriguing, to say the least, and it makes me wonder about the principles of the New Democratic Party which is always talking about defending the rights of workers, and then all of a sudden they blatantly ignore this principle.
We are managers and, in fact, the most senior public servants, since we make decisions concerning the Public Service. And here we are, giving our own stttff preferential treatment!
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an aberration!

Like those of my colleagues who have spoken before me, I have the greatest regard for the staff of members of Parliament, especially my own. We are not easy to work with. Our schedules are very demanding. There are the many added stresses brought on by rushed deadlines and the need to serve a large number of constituents with a great variety of problems.
Having said this, I must also recognize the tremendous effort of Canada's public servants, many of whom live in my riding of Carleton-Gloucester.
The act governing appointments to the Public Service is presently known as the Public Service Employment Act. It was enacted almost 22 years ago and may not be entirely relevant today. However, it has proven to be an act which has guaranteed that the Public Service remains neutral and free from political intervention. I believe that Canada is a tremendous role model in this regard. As governments change and new ministers head different departments, it is reassuring that they are given unbiased and politically unblemished information about the affairs of state.
There are three conditions mentioned in the bill for former employees of members to obtain priority without competition.

Without competition, I think that is totally unacceptable. This is even more surprising, coming from a party that is constantly bragging about defending the rights of workers. And now they turn around and deny their own Public Service fair treatment. I think this is grossly unfair.
The conditions for eligibility would be as follows: [English]
The person must have been an employee of the Public Service immediately before becoming an employee of a member of Parliament. While being employed in the office of a member of Parliament, the employee must have qualified for appointment under the Public Service Employment Act. The employee must have been employed by a member of Parliament for at least three years. I say, so what? What is this all about?

This is preferential treatment! This is not right, and it is unfair, as far as I am concerned.

It is my contention that, even if all these preconditions are fulfilled, giving these very dedicated employees such preferential treatment goes completely against the idea that an employee of the Public Service will be given his or her due reward because of merit.
As well, there is something that I believe some other members who have spoken to the bill have missed. Those of our employees who seek entry into the Public Service of Canada, following being employed by us, would be insulted to think that they would need preferential treatment. I have asked employees of members of Parliament, including my own, and they tell me that they can take the heat, that they can take the competition, that they are qualified. They have said that they would go to the race track in terms of the competition and stand in line with everyone else. They were absolutely insulted with the suggestion that they would need help, preferential treatment, political push to get into another job.
There is also a problem here with public perception. This is a difficult time for all politicians. The public would and should not stand for this. Opening the door to parliamentary assistants without competition-can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker-would be seen as an extension of the powers of members of Parliament. We must not be seen as just looking after our own-

-the New Democratic Party seems to want to do. They are trying to protect their people. But what are they doing to protect the workers who got jobs through competitions? I think this attitude is entirely wrong.
Private Members' Business

These are tough economic times. Many Canadians are looking for work. One of the ways in which the Public Service Commission has dealt with this government downsizing policy and the disastrous effect which it has had on employees is the work force adjustment policy. How will it seem to Public Service employees made redundant by the present Conservative government when our own employees are allowed to have jobs before those who have been let go because of bad government policy?
Some of my colleagues may make the argument that these conditions addressed in this bill already exist in ministers' offices, as well as in the office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the Senate. I submit that two wrongs do not make a right. This government patronage policy is wrong. Let us not extend it further by letting the NDP have this odd way of proceeding-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the hon. member has another minute or so, I will recognize him after we return from Royal Assent.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
["The hon. member will have seven minutes remaining in the debate when the bill comes up again.\nThe time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-86, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child tax credit)-Chapter 42.

November 8, 1990
Private Members' Business



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Young (Beaches-Woodbine) that Bill C-225, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Funk (p. 15352).
Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to continue my remarks as I object to this NDP bill suggesting a double standard with regard to the hiring of Public Service employees.

The Public Service of Canada is presently embarking on an initiative called Public Service 2000. It has been criticized for not having taken into account the ideas of employees' representatives. Let us not make another mistake by allowing the Public Service Employment Act to be amended and benefits such as these extended without a thorough investigation of all the ramifications included in the bill by parliamentary committee.
In closing, I would like to add that in no way do I wish to downplay the importance of our own employees at work on the Hill or in our ridings. But let it not be at the expense of a dedicated professional and non-partisan Public Service. Surely there must be more fair and creative ways of dealing with the future of those who work so diligently for members of Parliament. The normal route to a position in the Public Service is a competition based on merit. We must not impose any impediments to this process by attempting to do something for one group. I feel we are neglecting the rights of others and at the same time insinuating that our former employees are not educated, professional and motivated enough to obtain employment in a fair competition.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate which I feel is very important because it deals with our own staff, the staff of Members of the House of Commons. I wish first of all to congratulate the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine for introducing Bill C-225.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Members of the House of Commons are de facto public servants. The fact is that, more often than not, they are already hired and considered as such, except that they do not enjoy the same security as Public Service employees.
Mr. Speaker, we must be prompted by a sense of fairness and justice. Not so long ago, as members of the House, we granted ourselves some benefits, unquestionably well-deserved-and unquestionably also far from what we should get, when we compare our duties as parliamentarians with those of businessmen and professionals. It seems to me, therefore, that we deserve a better pay equity, and probably better job security and a better pension scheme as well.
Now, since we must decide that what is not good for us is not good either for our neighbour, and what is good for us is also good for our neighbour, we must realize that very often, if not always, the performance level of an hon. member depends to a large extent on the performance level of his or her personnel. Mr. Speaker, there is not a single member in this House who although well-intentioned could do a very good job, unless he or she has the dedicated support of a qualified and competent staff.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to my staff who so far have provided me with invaluable service. Very often, no mention is made of their contribution. As members of this House, we get all the benefits and honours, while our staff are really doing the job.
Consequently, if we really want to be fair and if we want to obtain the same treatment and security for our staff that we want for ourselves, it seems to me that Bill C-225 goes a long way toward correcting this inequity. If we think that our staff are already doing the same job as Public Service employees, it seems to me that they should be granted certain privileges or benefits.


BBHHHHHHHH
[Stage Direction]
After three years, an employee in the Public Service of Canada is automatically granted permanent status. So why should the same treatment not be given to the staff of parliamentarians? It seems to me this would make it easier for us to hire better qualified people who would feel more secure and work harder still. In short, that would enhance the quality of our own work as members.
Keep in mind that our employees have family responsibilities just like we do. They have to earn a living and pay monthly bills as we do. Before deciding to work for a member or seek employment elsewhere they have to take a number of factors into account, such as how much they will be paid, how secure their job will be and what happen if they can no longer work for this or that member as a result of an electoral defeat or some other event. Let us be frank about it, these employees are at our mercy. It is very easy for any member to sack an employee, for he or she can be laid off practically overnight with little or no recourse.
In the name of fairness and equity, Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-25.
I am sure that if all members of the House were to consider the matter very carefully they would have to reach the same conclusion.
If we expect our employees to be dedicated, industrious and fully supportive, and when the time comes to hire new staff and we want to get the best available, Mr. Speaker, we will have to offer them a minimum of security. The money they earn is not all that much! They certainly cannot expect to become rich after a few years, let alone retire without a worry in the world.
But at least, Mr. Speaker, if I may put it that way, we should have the decency and compassion to make sure that they can look further than the next electoral campaign. The employee should at least know for sure that if his boss is defeated or fires him-again that is another possibility-he will not be left pounding the pavement, he will have something else to do. He should be safe in the knowledge that he can find employment in a related field, because the work they do for members is similar to yet different from the duties of public servants.
A moment ago I heard one of my colleagues say that it is unfair because our employees do not have to go
Private Members' Business
through competitions or screenings and write exams. Of course they do. Mr. Speaker! The screening is done by the member. Before hiring a prospective employee, the member examines his work credentials and his background. Otherwise would it not be like saying the member lacks judgment? That is what it boils down to! The hon. member said that he could not see that because these employees were not administered exams like the others to evaluate their skills. That is to say that he cannot be the judge of that because he is the one who did the hiring.
It seems a little contradictory to me, Mr. Speaker. Why disagree if we consider ourselves as intelligent-I think we are-and fair employers! So, the test already took place, at the time the member decided to hire the employee. Therefore, the employee who passed the test successfully then will not be less intelligent the day he or she is laid-off.
There is another point to consider, Mr. Speaker, and it is that these employees, our employees, share our emotions. Sometimes, they work 40 or 45 hours a week, although they are paid for 30.1 know for a fact that my employees are still at work as we speak, Mr. Speaker, while civil servants went home an hour or two ago. Why not recognize the contribution they are making to our country?
Mr. Speaker, the fact that a bill was introduced by the government or by an opposition member should be irrelevant. We should set aside partisanship and consider this bill on its merits instead of rejecting it on the sole ground that it was introduced by an opposition member. That would be the equitable way of dealing with it, Mr. Speaker.
I wish therefore to propose a small amendment, if I may. I know that perfection is impossible and that this bill is not perfect, but I believe the following amendment-and it will be the only one-is relevant. I am against increasing government expenditures when a number of civil servants are already being paid to do nothing. These resources should be used before hiring people from our offices. With this small amendment, the bill would be perfectly satisfactory to me. In closing, I invite my collegues to support this bill in the name of fairness.
[Stage Direction]
Private Members' Business
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to participate in this debate.
I would like to commence by paying tribute to my own staff. This bill is about providing some measure of protection or priority for the future careers of staff who support members of Parliament. I would have to say, knowing the insecurity of political life from my own point of view and as all hon. members will acknowledge, we do not always look to the future with a great sense of security.
That same position and that same concern is obviously one which is in the minds of our staff much of the time. Yet, to their credit, certainly in the case of my own staff, it is a subject that has been discussed at the time of their employment. They know in the beginning that there is a sense of insecurity to political life and they have accepted that risk as they have accepted the job.
Having said that, I would say that both here in Ottawa and in my constituency, in Fredericton, I feel blessed with the services of four people who serve me well, but more particularly, who serve my constituency and my constituents extremely well.
The subject of employment in the Public Service and the establishment of any kind of priority for any person in terms of seeking a Public Service job must be underlined with the fact that there is no activity in a constituency office-certainly in my constituency office-that is so numerous and takes more time than attempting to serve those requests from citizens who are seeking employment. The days when politicians could point people in the direction of jobs or could engineer employment are properly gone. Employment in the Public Service today is an open and competitive process where merit counts above all other circumstances. In my view, that is the way it should be.
It is with some sense of apprehension and concern that I would stand and address this bill. I am concerned, on the one hand, that I would offend my own employees and all who serve members of Parliament so well by being reluctant to support a position of priority for them in their circumstances. On the other hand, this is balanced by the responsibility I have to so many citizens who desire to work in government services and who do not have the opportunity and to whom I have to say daily
that I cannot provide that opportunity directly. The best I can do is to serve as a reference or help process their application to ensure that they are instructed in the right way to approach government service.
My apprehension about this bill comes from the general principle underlying the proposal and, more particularly, the details of the bill. I have no quarrel with the basic original intent, but I have considerable misgivings about the way in which the bill has now been expanded.
What was the original intent of the bill? The original intent of the bill has merit. We all feel a sense of responsibility to our employees and the fact that they are in a very insecure position. When we compare that sense of responsibility and that desire to provide some direction for their future, it must be compared with what has currently been drafted. As I read that intent in the explanatory note of this bill, the amendment seems to target a very specific group.
The original intent targeted those with long service on the Hill on behalf of members. Those people, when their member ceases to be a member by virtue of resignation, death, or defeat at the polls, are no longer in a position to be employable. For people who have such long service, there is a very special case. The original proposal, as I understood it, was to afford a measure of protection to those long service staffers. They would then have some facilitation for their possible entry into the Public Service, providing they were appropriately qualified.
If the intent of this bill is to continue to afford such a measure to protection to such people, then I would continue to support that intent. However, I feel that this bill has become far more sweeping in its content and has gone far beyond what was originally intended.
The concept of a person employed in the office of a member of the House of Commons is not defined. I think we would all presume that reference is to members, staff here in Ottawa. It could just as easily be employees who are in the constituency office. This does not appear to be clearly specified and there is a need for clarity there.
I believe that to see persons who have served members and constituents for only three years as necessarily deserving a fast track into the Public Service seems like a very short time.
November 8, 1990

Worded as the bill is at present, the member's employee with only three years and one month of service to that member would automatically get priority for appointment to the Public Service. That would be not only over other public servants and other Canadians, but even over career public servants of perhaps 20 or 25 years who had suffered the unfortunate circumstance of a lay-off.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government in the past five or six years has deliberately at the request of Canadians, cut the size of the Public Service, cut the cost of government, and in the process eliminated well over
12,000	permanent jobs. There are many public servants who today are in that lay-off position with supposed priority for re-entry into the Public Service. It does not seem fair that a staffer in the office of a member of Parliament would automatically have priority over those long service employees who have been caught in the unfortunate vagaries of the downsizing of the Public Service.
Again, what does the bill mean when it talks of an employee? Lacking a better definition one must do what the courts of this land do and revert to the dictionary. There, Webster states that it is a person who is employed by another, usually for wages or salary, and in a position below the executive level.
Reverting to the bill's original intent, I have little doubt that the concept was intended for members who have been full-time, permanent, 40 hours a week, in the service of a member here on the Hill. As it reads at the moment, however, a person who has only been working one day a week, or for that matter, perhaps even a few hours a week in a member's office, would be eligible for this priority. Once again, that does not seem fair and certainly requires clarity and elaboration.
What does the word "entitlement" mean?


Raymond John Funk: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the member mid-flight, but I would like to point out to him, as I am sure he might have forgotten, that we are debating an amendment at this point which in fact withdraws this bill and refers it to a committee where the principles can be discussed, but where the objectionable aspect-
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the hon. member realizes that. I am also sure that he will speak to that.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am moving my case in that direction, and I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member.
The very fact that there are so many areas of clarification required brings me to the point that I do not think merely referring it to a committee and then bringing it back is adequate. I believe this bill needs a lot more attention, philosophically and in all kinds of detail.
In closing, I would like to recap some of the serious flaws that I have identified-and I hope you will give me time for the interruption that has occurred in my otherwise quite well organized remarks.
First, I feel that the original intent behind this proposal has become muddied and widened far beyond what was originally conceived, and I do not think an amendment to review it in committee would be a sound approach.
Second, I would like it clarified that this priority only becomes operative when the member by whom the affected individual is employed ceases, for whatever reason, to be a member. It should not be accessible by someone who has simply resigned or, in the extreme case, by someone who has been discharged for laziness, incompetence, or other misconduct.
Third, I believe this bill would only be applicable if it referred specifically to the Ottawa-based staff of members and, yet, as I think about that, I am not so sure that those who give their long service in the constituency should not also be considered. Again, I believe that perhaps it is more than just mere amendment and review that is required. The entire philosophy deserves some rethinking.
Fourth, I believe the concept of long service needs greater emphasis. Not only is the three-year qualification far too short, but under section 4.1(a) and 4.1(b), even this does not seem to be required.
Fifth, and I am coming to the end, I believe the concept of who is and who is not an employee requires clarification. To afford such protection to a person who has maintained only the most casual connection albeit for a three-year basis, would, in my opinion be intolerable.

November 8, 1990
Private Members' Business
Sixth, I have serious problems with the level of priority and the place of the proposed priority within the current priorities. In this regard I have two specific points to make. First, I would like to see this new priority given the lowest of the statutory priority considerations if the bill is passed, and, second, I would want the entitlement to be entitlement for consideration and not an entitlement for appointment.
To strike the balance between the intent and the bill, as it is presented, would be very difficult. There are employees representing us in the House of Commons who do deserve protection, priority, and understanding, but their experience should count in the final analysis and that should serve them well. Last, Mr. Speaker, we have to think of the other citizens of Canada, many of whom are in search of careers in the Public Service. For them the process is difficult, open, and competitive and that is the way it should be.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate. I am a member of the privileges and elections committee, the same committee that made this bill votable. I would like for a brief moment or two to go over the process of choosing a private members' bill and in fact what private members' hour is all about, including what we are trying to achieve and what McGrath suggested we try to achieve through the reforms to the House of Commons.
As you know, we draw by putting members' names into a draw bin. If they have a bill or a motion we put their name into two separate draw bins. We draw one for bills and one for motions. We draw ten for each and we make three votable.
We made this one votable because we felt that it was correcting an oversight in 1967 when members did not have any staff. Many members were concerned about this. It was done on a non-partisan basis, basically to bring forward the issue for debate and discussion. It has been the subject of healthy debate.
As you know this bill was originally introduced by a Liberal member in 1984, debated, the election came and it died on the Order Paper. It now has been reintroduced by a New Democratic member of Parliament.
It is ironic that the New Democrats wanted this bill to come forward for a vote at the committee and now they are backing off a little bit saying, "let us refer it to committee to discuss the over-all principle". I would assume they are facing pressure from the unions.
One other thing I would like to comment on is that when private members' bills and motions reach the House of Commons they are not perfect. They are meant to come to a vote on the principle and then be repaired or fixed up in a committee. Of course this one, as the hon. member just enumerated, has many flaws, including putting members' staff at the top of the priority list. I accept his recommendation that maybe they should be put at the bottom of the priority list. Perhaps what we are seeking is that they not be given priority but consideration in the draw or consideration for jobs when they come up.
For example, we have a computer bank in the Public Service and for each job opportunity five or eight names are drawn. Perhaps we could put members' staff in among those five or eight names so they would have to go through the competition process. But they would at least get to the competition. I think that is what we want to see.
All bills that have previously come before this House and previously gone to a legislative committee have had extensive amendments. In fact some would argue that some of the bills have not been very recognizable when they came back to the House.
That is the process of private members' hour and it is a healthy process. The Hon. James McGrath in presenting the McGrath committee reforms, of which this government accepted many, wanted private members to have more input, which they do.
The second point I would like to make is that members' staff make a tremendous contribution to the House of Commons and to the Parliament of Canada in the service of public policy. Most members' staff would be an asset in the Public Service and the way this bill is worded it would be upon death or defeat. So very few would get that far. So we are not talking about crowding out civil servants. In fact I would submit that we do not want to crowd out any civil servants.

Mr. Speaker, I know the time of adjournment is approaching and I would like to continue on at the next hour for private members' bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have seven minutes remaining in the debate when the bill comes up again.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked a question of the Minister of Supply and Services concerning the Auditor General's report and the 14 points that he put forth touching on the security of our computers, the information that we have in the memory bank of all our computers. The answer that the minister gave me obviously did not suit me, which is why I am here today. I could not let this go by without bringing to his attention some very important facts about the whole matter.
I do not pretend in any way to be an expert in this field; far from it. It is highly complex and I know it is a very expensive system to operate. You do not need a college degree to realize the way the computer systems are set up with the memory banks that we have, the data base, and all the rest of it is highly complex and very expensive.
However, I have to draw to the attention of the government some points that are very important. After I heard the minister, I was in touch with a gentleman who is a recognized expert in the field. Of course, we looked at this very objectively and as you will see, Mr. Speaker, from the points I am bringing out, it is standard procedure in a way.
Adjournment Debate
To begin with, I must say that after looking at the Auditor General's report, there is an element of neglect here, negligence if I may say so; negligence because it has been over five years that the Auditor General has been bringing attention to the fact that with all the data banks we have, it could literally cripple the operation of the government overnight if some kind of accident was to occur. Not necessarily all services could be affected, but a great number could be very much affected. It could cripple our whole system and it could be extremely expensive to get it back on track.
The reason why there is this negligence is the fact that there has been such a low priority given to the security aspect of our data banks. We have to remember today that more and more of our computer whizzes are out there and we are dealing with a lot of anonymous people who are becoming more and more capable with this computer age.
One term that the expert gave me was what he called the logical entrance whereby some people can actually get into a government data base, change the information that is in the data base on a particular individual, add information that is not there and should not be there obviously, or else simply take all the information in the data base and put it in their own memory bank. Needless to say, there is a question of confidentiality at play here and there is reason to be concerned. Those are the things that can happen, and it is a fact. I did not invent all this. This is a fact.
The expert said to me basically as it stands right now, it is as if we gave the keys to anybody passing by who knows how to operate a door. Therefore, with the lack of security we have, it would not be difficult to break into a lot of our data base information. That is factual. You would have to admit that if that is the case, it is not a very good management principle.
Look at our financial institutions. They manipulate a tremendous amount of information, highly confidential and they have taken upon themselves to have the best security possible. Still they manage to make money.
Obviously, there is a set standard that could be set up to protect the data bases that we have in the government; very important.

Adjournment Debate

Mr. Speaker, after demonstrating the negligence in this area, and I am not saying the government is fully responsible, because the problem may go back ten years, but for the past five years the Auditor General has said the situation cannot go on like this.
I spoke to an expert, and I told him: I don't want a complex answer, I want to keep it very simple, but according to you-he had read the Auditor General's report and he was aware there was some lack of security- he made the following suggestions:

To begin with, he said we should have set standards of security. This could be done over a period of five years. Set standards, followed by a workable plan not too far in the future but within a reasonable amount of time. A work plan.
That should be approached, and it should be looked into immediately by our senior management in the government, especially Treasury Board because it holds the strings.
There is no doubt that it could be expensive business. Nevertheless, there is a work plan that could be out. We could do it over a period of time because security is the cost of doing business.
Finally, we have to remember that all this information is an asset. All the information is government asset. There is the old saying in French:

"Celui qui possede Vinformation possede le pouvoir".
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and very briefly, I do not think we should criticize without offering alternatives, but we must have a plan and deal with the problem before mistakes are made that may cost us very dearly and cause Canadians to have some very serious doubts about the security of our information.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to respond to the question put by the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre about government information systems.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the concern raised by the Auditor General in the past year, the department has taken the issue very seriously and moved to create the information management sector within the department.
This sector oversees the secure handling and storage of the government's data banks. We have moved to create a secure regime. This is not mentioned in the report.

Mr. Speaker, the security of our computer systems is extremely important to the Department of Supply and Services and to all government departments and agencies. I can assure the House and Canadians that very strict security measures have been taken to keep any risk or damage to our systems to an absolute minimum.
Increasingly, detailed emergency plans have been provided to ensure maintenance of the government's daily operations, in case of computer failure.
Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the hon. member's concerns. Computers now play an important role in our daily lives, and we are increasingly aware of the potential damage that could be caused by pirates and viruses.
However, although I understand his concerns, I think the hon. member should realize that security measures are in place to prevent any violation of the confidentiality and integrity of the full range of information processed by the government.
Mr. Speaker, as was previously mentioned in this House by the Minister of Supply and Services, there are regular security checks, not only of computers in government offices but also in the offices of businesses that deal with the government. Furthermore, as the minister also pointed out, only very low level intelligence or information that represents a very low security risk may be processed outside government offices.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in stating before this House and before all Canadians that both government facilities and those of our suppliers are checked regularly and that security levels are maintained. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the fact that there has never been any serious damage to our systems reflects the effectiveness of our security policy and its successful implementation throughout our government services.


THE CITIZENS' FORUM ON THE FUTURE OF CANADA
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me on a current issue of great concern to Canadians. I am referring of course to the new commission, the Citizens' Forum, chaired by Mr. Keith Spicer. Made up of twelve members, this commission will be listening to the comments of Canadians on the future of our country.
In the House last Tuesday, November 5, I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister to find out whether or not additional people would be appointed to the commission, the better to represent all Canadians who, like me for instance, felt somewhat left out in the make-up of the famous commission.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, in one of my questions to the government I enquired if there was room for people north of the 60th parallel, Canadian men and women who we all know are very ably represented here by my colleagues from Nunatsiaq and Western Arctic. I also asked: Is there room for francophones outside Quebec? Is there room on that commission to listen to the million Canadians who live outside Quebec and whose mother tongue happens to be French, an official language of this country? I also asked the Deputy Prime Minister if we could expect to see a wider spectrum of representatives of ethnic groups, because I think that is important when close to one third of our country is made up of new immigrants, Canadians who represent a rather large variety of world cultures and languages, so as I said I think it is important that these people as well be consulted about the future of this country. I was told that no one else could be added to the membership of the Citizens' Forum.
Well, the very next Sunday, before the National Convention of Italian Canadians in Toronto, the Prime Minister said that there might be room for additional appointments. I was rather surprised because of what I had been told a few days before. Yet, the Prime Minister had said: "Yes, there is room for additional appointments."
Later on, we learned that Chairman Spicer himself had been reported as confirming the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State the previous day that there would be no new members.
Adjournment Debate
So, my question tonight to the Parliamentary Secretary is this: Are there going to be additional appointments to the Citizens' Forum? Could we have a clear, straightforward and precise answer to this question?
Second, how come the commission will not report to Parliament? It was a very specific question. Does the appointment of this commission means also that the government has abandonned its plans for reform? The House will remember that following the Oka incidents last Summer, the government had made the firm commitment to set up a commission to look into and possibly settle the land claims of our native citizens. Now we hear that the government has decided to put these concerns on the backbumer while the Spicer Commission is sitting. My question to the Parliamentary Secretary is this: Is it true that the government is going to set aside these concerns which he feels are justified, for an indefinite period.
Third question: Is this new Spicer Commission a substitute for the commission this Tory government has promised on native affairs? We want to hear a straightforward yes or no. This way, the Natives and I will know where we stand.
Also, could the parliamentary secretary indicate if, with the setting up of this commission, we can expect in this country a reform of our institutions? For instance, would it be possible for the Senate, a major concern for a number of Canadians, to become a better Senate, the elected one we want, or will we still have to wait until the commission has completed its study?
Mr. Speaker, these questions stem from the appointe-ment of this commission. I would not want the parliamentary secretary to answer all my questions tonight, but I should be quite satisfied if he could answer at least a couple of them.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the address by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
A suggestion is being made that the advisory group be expanded by the addition of members from the north, from ethnic communities and from francophone minorities outside of Quebec. Perhaps from other groups as well.

Adjournment Debate
I am sorry to have to say that the question betrays a failure to understand the innovative process the government has launched. The hon. member seems to have missed the point.
The key is that it is a citizens' forum in fact as well as in name. The word "citizen", and I will repeat "citizen", cannot be stressed too strongly. The forum is not intended to be an arena where elite representatives can debate once again among themselves. It is something quite different, a place where individual Canadians can speak out and engage in a dialogue among themselves. It is a place where individual Canadians can contribute their insight and their dreams in mapping a new national consensus.
As the Prime Minister pointed out when he announced in this House on November 1, the forum is an initiative for the people and of the people. I repeat, as the Prime Minister said, for the people and of the people.
This means that the 11 members of the advisory group are not there to represent a particular group. That is not the basis on which it is formed. They were chosen as distinguished Canadians who are committed to helping their fellow citizens to chart the path of Canada's future. This is why they are members of the advisory group. I would add that it is interesting that members selected on their basis of many ways do reflect, individually and collectively, Canada's diversity.
Their job is to listen and to facilitate a productive dialogue, not to defend the barricades on behalf of linguistic, ethnic, regional or other blocs. When they speak, they speak as Canadians sensitive to our unity as much as to our diversity.
The Prime Minister did indicate over the weekend that he was prepared to consider expanding the advisory group. He would listen carefully to any recommendations from Mr. Spicer that additional members be appointed. Surely, that is a normal procedure. If Mr. Spicer came back and said "We need more people", the Prime Minister would be duty bound to give that very serious consideration.
Canadians would expect that the Prime Minister do whatever was necessary to make the citizens' forum work. Mr. Spicer has now said publicly that he does not foresee a need for additional members. He points out, as I have tried to do, that the advisers do not hear as specific representatives of their community, but more as good listeners and communicators. I want to emphasize
as good listeners. It was quoted in The Citizen November 7, so the question is now purely academic.
It should be clear for all that I have said-


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


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to the issues I raised with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on September 24. One of those issues was the land question of Oka-Kanesatake.
I had asked the minister that day about the status of the land which the government had acquired over the summer which was supposed to be transferred to the Mohawk people of Kanesatake. At the time I asked the question the land which had been bought was still in the hands of the government. My point, then, was that it has not yet been turned over to the Mohawk people. My point is still valid. The land still has not been turned over to the Mohawk people of Kanesatake.
Only two days ago, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs announced he was prepared to begin negotiations with the Kanesatake Mohawk negotiating committee. We, on this side of the House, welcome that announcement. It has been a long time coming.
As I have said on earlier occasions in this House, we wish the land issue at Kanesatake could have been settled without the violence we witnessed this summer. We wish the government would have made such an announcement in the spring of this year. Had it done so, the whole ugly episode of arms and soldiers in Oka and Kahnawake could have been avoided.
Nevertheless, at least some kind of process is beginning now; and I stress beginning. There is a long way to go with these negotiations. Land, housing, economic development, community infrastructure and self-government are among the agenda items.
We want these negotiations to start soon. We want them to go well. We hope that the government will conduct itself in these negotiations with fairness and justice. We want a just and fair resolution of this issue for the Mohawk people of Kanesetake. We want a just and fair settlement of the entire land claim of the Mohawk people of Kanesatake, which, as the government knows, encompasses much more than the 97 acres the government acquired this summer.

My question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on September 24 dealt as well with the government's general approach and attitude to aboriginal issues and aboriginal rights. I asked how we could be assured that the government would follow through on its promised aboriginal agenda, given its record of broken promises and unfulfilled obligations.
In recent days, doubt and confusion have surrounded the government's commitment to aboriginal issues. On September 25, the Prime Minister announced his government's new aboriginal agenda. That agenda, in his words, has four main pillars: land claims, the economic and social conditions on reserves, the relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments, and concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.
On November 1, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, headed by Keith Spicer. There were no representatives from the northern territories appointed to the commission. Is it because, as the hon. member pointed out earlier, that this was a forum of distinguished Canadians? Is it because they could not find distinguished Canadians in the north? That is basically what he is saying.
The government has not listened to the appeals from this side of the House and from the north to appoint a northern resident to this commission. Once again, the north has been ignored. As I pointed out, the Prime Minister was quite prepared to consider it because he was under pressure from a certain ethnic group after apologising about past wrongs.
This past weekend, the government's federal-provincial relations minister said there will be no royal commission on aboriginal issues while the Citizen's Forum is at work. This royal commission had been promised to aboriginal people last June by the Prime Minister to try and entice their support for the Meech Lake Accord. When the accord died, so did the promised royal commission. Now it is clear that it will not happen, at least while the Citizen's Forum is at work.
Adjournment Debate
Despite the government's promise to accelerate the settlement of land claims, yesterday it closed the door on most of the Dene and Metis in the Northwest Territories. They then got into pressure tactics because the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs says that a freeze on development of land in the north Slave region will be lifted at the end of January. The development freeze was made to avoid jeopardizing the final land selection process. As soon as he announced that there would be not be any more negotiations, that land freeze was lifted. If that is not pressure tactics, then what is?
The government refuses to change its claims policy so that aboriginal people would no longer have to extinguish their aboriginal rights to achieve a settlement.
The government must recognize that there are serious problems with its comprehensive claims policy. These problems are not going to go away just because the government has agreed to negotiate more claims at a time, or because more resources will be devoted to these negotiations.
On this side of the House, we welcomed the Prime Minister's commitment to accelerate claim negotiations and devote more effort and resources to their settlement. But we were, and remain, skeptical about the extent of the commitment. We have heard such promises before. We have seen them broken. Not all the obstacles toward fair and just settlements have been removed.
The aspirations of aboriginal people in this country will continue to be frustrated unless the government shows, through real and positive action, that it is prepared to relinquish its control over the lives of aboriginal people.
Just to show the attitude of some of the members on the government side, two days ago the hon. member for Chateauguay announced that he was disappointed that the government paid $5.2 million to buy 39 hectares to give to the 750 Mohawks of the Kanesatake settlement. I agree that they should not have paid $5.2 million to the town. They should have given the land to the Mohawks, as well as pay $5.2 million for the use of that land over the last number of years.
This same hon. member also said: "The Indians are asking for three-quarters of Canada". I think that is being pretty generous.

Adjournment Debate


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's words this evening, events of the past summer in Kanesatake have forced all Canadians to think deeply about their country and its future and about the values that we share as Canadians. We need to understand why things went wrong, and why desperate measures were taken to draw attention to issues that should have been settled through negotiations.
We have in our country a tradition of discussion, negotiation and compromise, a process that respects the views of others and recognizes that no one side has a monopoly on justice and virtue.
I want to remind members of the action that the government has taken recently. On Tbesday, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced that he has agreed to commence negotiations with the committee, composed of the coalition of Kanesatake community groups and, additionally, had invited the band council to name a representative to the community negotiating committee. This is a fulfilment of a commitment made during the crisis at Oka this summer. The minister met with the Honourable Christos Sirros, his Quebec counterpart, on November 2. Mr. Sirros indicated that Quebec is prepared to commence negotiations with the Kanesatake representatives and to express his willingness to allow representatives of the parish and municipality of Oka to be a part of the provincial negotiating contingent.
The federal government believes strongly that the community of Kanesatake, as a whole, must be a part of the decision-making and therefore a priority of the negotiators will be to develop a ratification process. Clearly, any agreement reached by the negotiators will be taken to the community for approval.
Items on the agenda will likely include the development of a unified land base for the Kanesatake community, including final disposition of the recently acquired 97 acres; the provision of housing, necessary community infrastructure and economic development at Kanesatake; the grievance of the Kanesatake Mohawks related to the former lands of the seigneuiy of the Lake of Two Mountains at Oka and, in particular, to the so-called "common lands"; and the development of self-government agreement with the Mohawks of Kanesatake.
The minister has introduced the chief federal negotiator, Bernard Roy, to convene the first meeting of the negotiators at the earliest possible date.
We are hopeful that the negotiations will lead to the agreements leading to peace and prosperity for the community of Kanesatake.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, November 7, 1990, until Monday, November 19, 1990, at one o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 19,1990