1990-10-18

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report on the twenty-third annual meeting of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this morning it is my duty to present a petition signed by 30 Canadians who are vigorously opposed to the new tax on goods and services which the Conservative government proposes to introduce on January 1, 1991. These Canadians say that the Conservative government has inflicted 31 tax increases on taxpayers since they came to power in 1984, that introducing this tax would be unfair, since it is a hidden and regressive tax, and that it would increase inflation and make things very difficult for Canadians. Your petitioners strenuously object to this new tax which, in their opinion, constitutes an unprecedented assault on the incomes of Canadian men and women, which will not only force them to pay higher taxes but also increase inflation, interest rates and unemployment.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, most of whom live in the community of Sarsfield in Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, a lovely village where I have the privilege of residing.
The residents of Sarsfield in the riding of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell strenuously object to the Tory government's plan to introduce the GST, and they humbly call upon Parliament to reject the proposed unfair tax on goods and services.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to deposit, for the House of Commons and the government, a petition signed by a significant number of Canadians respecting their disapproval of the imposition of the GST.
They petition this government to come to its senses quickly and to recognize that close to 90 per cent of Canadians across this country, young and old, north, south, east and west, are definitely against this kind of GST tax.
They humbly pray that the government listen to those concerns and to those voices right across the land.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of 100 of my constituents from the Dover area, essentially Elliston, as well as from Catalina, Port Union, Little Catalina, Melrose, and the Bonavista area.
These constituents are very concerned that the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is the highest in the country. They are devastated that they require not the usual 10 weeks that they have been used to over the past 14 or 15 years but require in fact an additional four weeks

October 18, 1990
Routine Proceedings
to qualify for the whole year of unemployment insurance.
Given all the other factors, the terrible success rate of the fishery of Newfoundland this year, the impending gloom and doom of the goods and services tax, and other economic downturns, these constituents are very concerned about this issue.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to introduce immediately the variable entrance requirement without delay so, that they can have their 10 weeks and get on with their unemployment insurance.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway.
They point out that the proposed goods and services tax of the Minister of Finance is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for taxpayers' ability to pay.
They point out that the government has not yet addressed the unfair taxation system which places an unreasonable burden on lower and middle income taxpayers.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and to ensure that, if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, it must not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.
Finally, they call upon the government to cease its proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax and to bring in real and effective tax reform.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today from people in Canada.
The first one is an anti-GST petition signed by people from communities of Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids and The Pas, Manitoba, from my constituency. They are especially concerned with the effect that the GST will have in being charged on educational expenses and figure skating, for example. They call on the Parliament of Canada to reject the GST and would ask the government to make sure that the GST is not implemented.
In addition, I have a petition from people in the communities of Snow Lake, Thompson, Matheson Island and Easterville who also call upon the government to make sure that the GST is not implemented. They believe that it is a regressive tax and that it will hurt people. It is a tax on consumption and it is not real tax reform. They believe it is not in the best interests of Canadians.
From other parts of Canada, Corner Brook, Pasadena, Gallants, Gillams, Meadows, Cox's Cove, Benoit's Cove and Red Bay, over 395 people have signed petitions against the goods and services tax. They believe it is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.
Also on the topic of the GST there are 538 names from the communities of Corner Brook, St. John's, Deer Lake, Benoit's Cove, Halifax and Summerside, saying that they reject the goods and services tax. They also believe that it would be an unfair hardship on low and middle income Canadians. They believe that the imposition of this tax will create an onerous burden on small businesses. The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which will be of special interest to the member for Peace River and, if he were in the House, it would be of interest to the member for Athabasca yet again to hear me present a petition on the topic of northern tax benefits. This is signed by people from my riding and it joins people from other parts of Canada, especially northern Alberta, who have rejected the task force report on northern and isolated areas.
They believe that the report issued on October 27 of last year fails to address the realities of the high cost of living in northern areas across Canada. The undersigned call upon Parliament to reject the recommendations of the report and develop a fair and equitable tax benefit
October 18, 1990

program, which recognizes the financial needs of people in northern and isolated areas.
I am sure that members from all three parties in this House would love to present petitions on behalf of their northern residents.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the very famous riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I notice this petition was signed in part by people from the community of St. Albert, where I understand there is a very famous cheese factory.
These people like so many thousands, in fact millions, of other Canadians are opposed to the goods and services tax. It is a source of amazement to me that, having presented as many petitions in this House as members of the opposition have presented, the government has not already withdrawn the tax.
In any event, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax which, as they recite, is an unfair, regressive tax measure.
The petition itself indicates how this Liberal Party of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, is strongly opposed to this tax which represents an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians across the country, not just those in St. Albert in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: M. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents from a number of communities in the great province of Ontario, expressing their concerns about this government's proposal to proceed with the goods and services tax.
They call upon and pray Parliament will reform the current taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations and will reduce the tax burden on the average Canadian.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise, under Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by many concerned Canadians.
Routine Proceedings
Dairy and poultry farmers of Canada are concerned that marketing systems may be in jeopardy due to the implementation of the free trade deal and the current round of GATT negotiations.
These marketing systems have worked well in the past in Canada and these petitioners call on government to protect these marketing systems in the current round of GATT negotiations.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by many of the residents of Malpeque. These petitioners are concerned about the Canada Post decision to discontinue rural Saturday mail delivery. They state that due to the rural nature of Prince Edward Island, its residents should not be deprived of adequate postal services, and call upon Parliament to reverse the decision and allow rural life to flourish in Prince Edward Island and not decline under measures such as the cancellation of Saturday rural postal delivery.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen -Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 to present yet another petition against the goods and services tax.
I spoke yesterday of presenting petitions from sea to sea to sea. The petition I present today is from people in Sackville and other points in New Brunswick, Fredericton and other places, as well as places in Ontario and in the province of Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, these people who have petitioned the House of Commons state that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, culture and education. A literate and productive society will be negatively affected by the application of the GST. They petition Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a large number of petitions circulated by Rural Dignity in Prince Edward Island.

Routine Proceedings
These petitioners feel that the Canada Post Corporation has a mandate to improve rural mail delivery in Canada and in Prince Edward Island. Considering that the profits of Canada Post were $149 million, these petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reinstate the six-day mail delivery service in rural Prince Edward Island.


QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice of my intention to rise this morning on a matter of privilege.
As you know, Sir, privilege, roughly speaking, constitutes that which infringes on the ability of a member to perform those functions for which he or she was elected.
Privilege also can be breached when there are threats of intimidation or attempts at bribery towards a member in order to solicit a certain vote or action.
Beauchesne's fifth edition, article 67 states:
It is generally accepted that any threat to a Member, attempting
to influence his vote or his actions as a Member, is a breach of
privilege.
I wish to raise the events of this morning, Mr. Speaker, and ask the Chair to consider whether or not those two elements of privilege are contained in those events.
This morning a duly called meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, which was called seven days ago under Issue No. 50, Meeting No. 66, 111090 at 4 p.m. At this meeting this morning not one government member attended. The meeting was called pursuant to Standing Order 106(3). The notice states as follows:
Consideration of a request made pursuant with Standing Order 106(3) to review the sale of lands to the Hamilton Harbour Commission and resuming consideration of a request made pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) to review the sale of CN Route Canada by Canadian National Railways to Transport Route Canada Inc. and the several other incorporated companies either involved in the sale or amalgamated as a result of the sale.
That was circulated by the clerk of the committee.
The steering committee of the Transport Committee met under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, with government members and opposition members in attendance, and agreed that a meeting would be held this Thursday.
Since that time the chair of the committee, the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has tendered his resignation, both as chair and as a member of that committee. That is an important element, but not the significant one in this matter.
How can I and other members perform our tasks on the committee if the committee cannot meet? How can we represent the interests of our constituents and other Canadians in matters such as CN Route, Hamilton Harbour, et cetera? Has Standing Order 106(2) been thwarted by the action of the government members?
You, Sir, have maintained consistently that you have no authority over the internal workings of committees. I would maintain, however, that this morning's events had nothing to do with the decision of the committee, or process in committee, or the adherence to rules in a committee. The committee never had an opportunity to decide or have a process or enforce any operating rules.
It was the action of individual members. Perhaps it was a collective decision of the government members of the committee, perhaps a decision of their Whip, but it was their decision to boycott the committee. That is infringing upon my ability and the ability of others to function as members of that particular committee. I repeat, I am not asking the Chair to consider the actions of a committee, I am asking the Chair to reflect on the actions of individuals outside a committee meeting.
I cannot and will not reflect on the motivations of those members. But I will say that it has been brought to my attention that this may have been done as a method of encouraging me to agree to the 49th report of the striking committee. It has been suggested to me that, since I am the chief Whip of the New Democratic caucus, and since I am charged in that capacity with
October 18, 1990

general stewardship of committees from our perspective, that I might have some influence on whether or not the 49th report is adopted.
I am not suggesting that the transport committee is being boycotted as a means of coercing me into adopting this report, I am only raising the question that if this should prove to be the case, would that be an infringement upon my privileges?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you review the matter and give us the benefit of your consideration.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on the same point of privilege. As the transport critic for the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus and as the member who put in, under Standing Order 106(3), that the Transport Committee come together-which it has to do within 10 days on this question of the Hamilton Harbour-I feel, quite frankly, that my rights to do a job on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, certainly have been violated this morning by the non-show of the Conservative government members.
All members know that the quorum of the committee is eight. All members also know that when the Conservative government members intentionally stay away, en bloc, it basically paralyses the work of that committee. If this is left unchallenged, it would set a precedent that I do not think would be too helpful either for this place.
Whatever the issue at the transport committee, whether it is the Hamilton Harbour situation, or the CN Route, or the election of the new chairman, we can differ between political parties as to the outcome. The positions taken by committee members whether they be on the government side or the opposition side can be debated and we can dispose of the business of the country. That is the job we are supposed to do.
But it is quite frustrating, to say the least, when despite our best intentions and despite the fact that we asked for this meeting according to the standing provisions of this House that, not only are we unable to put forward our positions but there is no business at all.
Routine Proceedings
Quite often you hear that for the backbenchers of Parliament, the greatest opportunity is in the standing committees. We tell our constituents and we tell those who visit this place that, by and large, the greatest work done by individual members of Parliament is not necessarily in that 45-minute daily broadcast known as Question Period but, in fact, behind the scenes, in the standing committees where we cross the t's and dot the i's, in terms of the legislation passed by this place.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that when the standing committees come to a halt and are unable to function and do the work, not only is it a disservice to the subject, but it is infringing absolutely on the privileges of members of Parliament. It is in committee where members probably make the greatest contribution.
I know the member for Hamilton East and others wish to speak on this point. I would ask on behalf of myself and our caucus, Mr. Speaker, that you seriously look at this point of privilege because it affects the rights of members of Parliament on all sides. If ruled out of order, it would set a very dangerous precedent because not only will it paralyse the work of the transport committee, which has a number of interesting dossiers in front of it, but the work of other committees.
I hope that your deliberations on this matter bring it to an early resolution so that we in this place may have the direction of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton East. Briefly.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker. In determining whether in fact we have aprima facie case of breach of privilege which I believe you will find, Mr. Speaker, you should be aware of the fact that Hamilton City Council has already looked to all their federal members of Parliament for leadership.
I know for a fact that the member for Hamilton West was in Hamilton last night, had that assurance and gave the full assurance to the city council of Hamilton that this issue as going to be dealt with under the Standing Orders, which was our full right.
When a member of Parliament gives that commitment to a city council that has passed a unanimous resolution

October 18, 1990
Routine Proceedings
to see the removal of a particular chairman, obviously it infringes upon that member's capacity to do his job if the meeting is cancelled by the non-show of other members of Parliament.
I know, for example, that on Tuesday, October 16, there was a headline in the Hamilton Spectator. "I wash my hands off Harbour Commission. Scott". Certainly there has been a debate in the city of Hamilton about whether members on all sides of the House are discharging their responsibilities and making sure that the public trust is honoured in this particular case.
Obviously that has not been the case. There are some who do not want to do their job. On this side of the House, we want to do our job. The member for Hamilton West and the Liberal transport critic were infringed in that right today by the decision of the Tories not to participate, and effectively to muzzle the transport committee which is taking charge of this dossier because the Minister of Transport will not. So I think there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
If you do find this so, Sir, we will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear by now, certainly it was clear to me some time ago, that what we have is a complaint. We do not have, I believe, a question of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's a muzzling. It's a muzzling.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: All three opposition members have brought up the issue of attendance. At the beginning of September of this year there had been 1,143 full committee meetings in this session of Parliament.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What are we getting paid for?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If they want to talk about attendance, Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to provide them with a record of the number of times that there were no representations from the Liberal Party or the NDP. The only reason the meetings could proceed is because government members were present.
I would remind hon. members also, Mr. Speaker, because they raised the issue of a meeting this morning, that the normal practice in this Chamber is for consultations to occur to set up an agenda. They chose to go a route where no consultations took place.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's false. They can't proceed without opposition members present.


An hon. member:: That is a lie.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Our members-


Mr. Speaker:: There may be a difference of opinion about what is being said, but I do not think we need to be shouting about lies. The hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, they used the provision of the Standing Orders to cause a meeting to occur.
My members had alternate plans for the use of their time at the same time as the meeting was called. We had an option; we could have sent substitutes, but in our opinion the subject matter was too important to not have at least a reasonable proportion of regular members in attendance.
More importantly, on what they would like you to believe is a question of privilege, they are indicating that somehow their privileges have been affected because they are blocked. The Standing Orders require on an annual basis, within ten sitting days of the commencement of a Parliament, that the membership for Standing Committees be reported to the House and one of the very few decisions, other than naming members, that lies in the hands of the Striking Committee is to name the size.
Those decisions were made and that report was presented to the House. The Whips on the opposite side named their members to sit on the committee and everything was done according to the rules. All of a sudden the opposition, not the government, blocked the coming into force of those committees which had been reported to the House by the Striking Committee.
If the opposition has complaints about the functioning of committees, I would suggest that the only people, from a party basis, who might have a question of privilege because of the difficulty in committee are the members of the House who are willing to support the Striking Committee report. Those members who are not in support of that report are, in effect, blocking the continuation of committees in a normal, functional and effective fashion. It is in fact those who rise in the House to address you, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege that have the solution in their hands. They can move at any time the adoption of the committee report, a debate
October 18, 1990

can ensue and the House can divide. They do not want to face the House on the issue of the Striking Committee report. That is their choice. The government has decided at this point to leave that report on the table.
It is normal practice in the House for negotiations to take place either among Whips or House leaders when there are problems. The Liberal Party House whip came to me on Monday of this week at five o'clock to discuss the issue. We had a very good discussion that did not result in any solution, but that is the nature of the place. Not every discussion results in a solution, but it is part of a process to resolve a problem.
I agree with my hon. friends, not just in the case of transport, but in the case of a number of committees, that there are problems. That is why the House in its wisdom set down a set of rules for a Striking Committee report within ten sitting days of the commencement of the fall session. That is why the Striking Committee reported. There is no problem with the Striking Committee report in respect to the composition of the House. All we have to do is accept that report and the place can function. All the Whips have the power to substitute. They can change members. It provides recognition for the independents in the House in proportion to their numbers relative to the size of the House. It is a good report.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you wanted to get into the issue of motivation, which some members seem to do, those who choose to block unanimous consent for the adoption of the report are indeed the group that want the committees to be in trouble. If they are apportioning blame, do not put it on government members. Put it clearly where it belongs, on those members of the opposition who will not accept the Striking Committee report.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not need to hear further argument.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has risen on a question of privilege. The hon. member for York West has clearly joined in on that question of privilege, and there may be others. The hon. member for Hamilton East spoke and I notice the hon. member for Hamilton West is here and he might want to say something about it, but I have a procedural matter before me.
I have listened carefully, of course, to the hon. member for Calgary West. I will consider carefully what
Routine Proceedings
has been said here. I suggest in the meantime-and it is only a suggestion, I cannot force it-it might be wise if some discussions took place. The situation the hon. member complains about is, for whatever reason, at the moment the committee is not meeting and as a consequence not functioning.
I have some doubt as to whether it is a question of privilege. But because the committee has come to a complete stop, I am prepared to at least look at the matter carefully and report back to the House as soon as is appropriate. In the meantime, as I say, it might be resolved by further discussions. I thank all hon. members for the intervention.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I appreciate the Speaker's concern. I appreciate that the Speaker wants to get on with the business of the day in this House. But what I must request that, when considering everything put before him thus far in the argument, he should also be clear of the facts of this case and not to be clouded by the issues raised opposite by the hon. member from the other party.


Mr. Speaker:: My difficulty here is that I have the point.
One of the reasons that I feel I do not need to hear a lot of further intervention is that we may get further and further away from the basic of facts.
I have the point and I assured the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan that I understand completely the point he is making, which I might remind hon. members was made in a very concise and careful way.
I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West that, if there are further complaints or arguments that need to be taken, perhaps they could be taken in another place. I think perhaps that is enough discussion on the matter. Certainly, I have enough with which to report back to the House. I know hon. members would want to appreciate that.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
As I understand it-you can clarify me of course if I am wrong-if I am prevented from doing my duty for my constituents in this place, whether it is in the House or in the form of a standing committee, I may rise and point out to the Chair that those privileges have been breached.

October 18, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was undoubtedly detained on important business. The point the hon. member is making is the point I have to decide.
It has been presented to the Chair in this question of privilege, and that is exactly what I will be deciding.


NEED FOR PROMPT RULINGS ON QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with questions of privilege, I would remind the Chair that we raised two questions of privilege which were very important and very urgent, especially regarding the right of the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie to sit in this House. Mr. Speaker, I think waiting for weeks and weeks, when there is a major question mark in the minds of some members of the public as a result of this question of privilege, is tantamount to shirking our responsibility to ensure that members of this House have every right to sit in this House, and I am sure we all agree! However, we hope that very shortly you will take away the doubts that were used concerming the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
Furthermore, although at this very moment, planning operations for the Hibernia project are underway, we have yet to receive a reply to the question of privilege we raised, and although the legislation has not yet become law, considerable sums of money are being invested in this project.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I submit, with respect, that both questions are urgent and pressing and are an excellent example of the need for raising questions of privilege, and that any delay in dealing with these questions is an embarrassment to most of us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken. For the time being, my answer is: soon.


Mr. Blaikie:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your admonition and, indeed, ruling that further discussion of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan ought to go no further for fear that it might lead into other matters.
The fact is that this point and others that have been raised in the last little while cannot be separated from what I would see as the over-all condition of the House, which I would ask Your Honour to have a hard look at. I do not know when all this started. It is easy to point fingers but the fact of the matter is that I feel we are sliding into some form of anarchy.
I am reminded of a Yeat's poem which, to paraphrase, goes: the blood-dimmed tide of anarchy is loosed, everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned.
You, Mr. Speaker, have a special responsibility to protect the House of Commons, where democracy either succeeds or fails in the country. I would ask you to take a hard look at this issue and at every other issue and seize the authority that all Canadians and indeed, all members of Parliament, in their heart of hearts are looking to you to exercise in restoring some dignity and order to this place. If you are not able to do that, then I fear the worst for the entire political process.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might take some advice from our esteemed colleague and simply get us all out of this particular problem so committees can function simply by giving unanimous consent at this time to the Striking Committee report to set up the standing committee.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Out of regard for many years experience in this place, I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg- Transcona for a minute or more longer.
I must point out that one of the ways we do retain order is to operate under the rules. We are slipping a bit. It is not with any malice of forethought, I am sure.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity that the member on the government side just took to introduce a kind of partisan strategy into what I intended as a very well meaning message to the Speaker and to all members of Parliament is just the sort of thing that I was being implicitly critical of when I spoke up.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: How is that partisan? Explain yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: I think under the circumstances it would be wise if we moved on.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am going to relate very indirectly to what
October 18, 1990

has been said. It is a point of order and it is not a point of privilege, and I would invite you to consider that.
Standing Order 106.(3) of this House specifically says:
Within ten sitting days of the receipt, by the clerk of a standing committee, of a request signed by any four members of the said committee, the Chairman of the said committee shall convene such a meeting-
The point I would like to make is that by the government deliberately not producing members for that, they are are causing the standing order to be breached. The event that is supposed to occur under the standing order cannot, by virtue of the fact that the government does not constitute the requisite quorum. I believe that point has not been raised by other hon. members. I would invite the Speaker to-


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that that point has been raised. I fully understand what took place. If one wants to refer back to the argument of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, I complimented him on the fact that it was extremely concise and did cover these points.
I think this is why we should move on to Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and, encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the United Nations Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2 and for the despatch of members of the Canadian Forces to take part in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula; and That, upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
Government Orders
and on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):
That the motion be amended after the words, "Canadian Forces" and read:
enforce these United Nations resolutions;
That this House censure the government for not recalling Parliament at the earliest opportunity to fulfil its legitimate function of consultation and debate as to what role Canada should play in the resolution of the present crisis; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
and on the subamendment of Ms. McLaughlin:
That the motion be amended by adding the following after the word "resolutions"
And further, that Canada work at the Security Council to seek assurances that no country will undertake offensive military operations against Iraq unless they are under UN command and explicitly authorized by the Security Council.
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset, as the associate critic for national defence, as a Newfoundlander, and as a Canadian and somebody who has had some experience in the events that have culminated in the Gulf crisis, that I am delighted to stand and speak about this momentous occasion in Canadian military and, indeed, Canadian political history.
By way of an overview of what I plan to do in the next 20 minutes, I want to comment on certain specifics of the what, why, how, when, and where of this particular subject. I want to dispel maybe some of the phoney issues, the make-believe issues in this particular crisis. I want to look at the human aspect of it because this is something you cannot dehumanize even if you wanted to. It is an aspect that many members in the House had direct association with.
I see the hon. minister for health and welfare who, indeed, I am sure would share a lot of the views I will mention this morning and expound upon.
Then I would like to in a more macro sense, having gone through these micro issues, perhaps give you what I believe to be an overview of maybe the way we should be doing business in future in consideration of our defence policies in Canada. We have been doing defence policy in both parties pretty well the same way since World War II and maybe this is a chance for us to have a look at this crisis, the evolution of world order, and maybe get some

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
ideas of going about planning our defence business, both our policy and our budget, in a different manner.
I want also to say at the outset that if I say anything that alarms or confuses people, I apologize for that. Certainly that is not my intention. While I do sit on this side of the House, it is not my intention this morning, although I can do it and have done it, to be partisan. On any views that I express, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the Houses to bear that in mind.
Looking at the what, Mr. Speaker, by way of review, just very quickly, right now as I stand in this House of Commons and if my information is correct as of last night at nine o'clock, we have 1,488 members of the Canadian forces, men and women, in the Middle East. They are deployed in three ships, HMCS Athabaskan, Terra Nova, and Protecteur. I am delighted to say parenthetically that at one point in time in my career I managed to have these three ships under my command.
We have an element of the CF-18 fighter squadron now based in Qatar in the Middle East, essentially from 409 squadron, but I know there are elements from 421 squadron and I believe some from the air maintenance squadron, number one air maintenance squadron and indeed perhaps even elements of the other squadron in Germany, that is 439.
Why did we take this action in Canada? I think it is very important to understand at the outset why we are there. There have been all kinds of accusations made as to why we participated in this. I would like to think of this with a clear and objective mind and the best way I can put it-and I wrote it down last night-is that, in my opinion, we took action not out of national hunger for conflict, but presumably out of the moral responsibilities shared by committed nations to protect the world from a very evil force.
I believe that we cannot remain silent in these kinds of things because peace is more than just the absence of war and its preservation by our world system and world order extracts an obligation.
I am delighted, as a Canadian and as a former member of the Canadian forces, to see that we as a country exerted and extracted this obligation from the Canadian people. We met our commitment and I think we did it
proudly and effectively, as you may judge from my comments that may follow.
I would say that that is my opinion, and I would be less than honest with myself and my colleagues on this side of the House if I did not say that I believe the Canadian public would have been better informed and the idea of precisely why we dispatched at that point in time the members of the ships' company and their support force would have been clearer to the Canadian people if there had been a debate in the House of Commons.
I can understand the preoccupation of the government with wanting to get on with it. In fact, the hon. associate minister of defence last night, and I believe rightfully so, in her mind at least, indicated that there really was not time for parliamentary debate. In any case, the debate, as required by the National Defence Act and the rules of how we run this country, would have taken place by the time they had reached the war zone or the defence zone, the hot zone, if you like Mr. Speaker. I accept that, but I certainly would be concerned that had we had a debate in time before the ships reached the zone and had the decision and the vote been, in the unlikely instance quite frankly I believe, then we would have looked rather silly in the international scene if we had had occasion to recall these ships.
I do not fully buy her argument, although I know where the motivation came from. I will speak briefly to that later, Mr. Speaker.
How did we do this? I think we did it for a number of reasons, but how we did it I think is interesting. I have stood in the House of Commons, I have stood in uniform, I have stood on the bridge of my destroyer, I have stood in public forums and, quite frankly, I have been embarrassed by the way that the Canadian forces have been maligned and by a confusion of the state of equipment with the state of the personnel. I do not think it was an intentional confusion. I think it was a conclusion that perhaps had been drawn or wrongly concluded, or wrongly inferred from the logic that may follow from that sort of premise. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that absolutely nothing is further from the truth.
I am referring not just to the uniformed members, of our men and women and their leaders and their subordinates, but I am also referring to the often unsung members of the Department of National Defence, those who are not in uniform and who indeed are, in their own
October 18, 1990

way, and when the circumstances require, every bit as dedicated as the men and women who indeed put their lives on the line as 1,488 people are doing right now, and to their families as well who indeed make the same kind of sacrifices, although it may not be over the same period of time.
I have to make reference-although the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Halifax and members from the other side of the House have made mention of this, but I feel that I want to do it one more time and I do not think it would be too often if every single member of this House got up and did it-to what we saw in Halifax, something that we have not seen for a long time. We have seen the turn to of HMC dockyard and their talented men and women, their supervisors, their management teams. In two and a half weeks, with the supervision and co-operation of the three ships' companies, in fact the ship repair unit and everybody involved in the maintenance, repair, we saw a refit, in this case it was a retrofit of defensive weapons, and indeed the ships' companies.
I remember in one case, the Athabaskan, the dockyard put in 4,000 hours in one week and people were working 16 to 20 hours a day with four hours sleep a night. Over a period of a week, and in some cases longer than that, that extracts a tremendous toll and it requires a great dedication and talent to be able to accomplish that.
I use this not in a flippant way, but it is an order of magnitude with some experience behind it. I would estimate, and I could be wrong by an order of magnitude of 50 per cent, that the retrofit of the defensive weapons that have put our ships and our men and women in a much better position where they are right now in defence of their country, what was accomplished with the total cost in round figures of $15 million in less than three weeks, that had we done it in the normal way we do it, through the bidding procedure and through the procedures that are laid down, it probably would have taken 20 times as long and may have cost 10 times as much.
I think it is a reflection on what we can do when we put our backs to the wheel. I do not think I need to elaborate on that any more, but I would say that every single member who has spoken here has in some way made
Government Orders
reference to that kind of dedication. I think it has made all Canadians, not just people from Halifax, not just the men and women in uniform or the civilians from National Defence, but all men and women in Canada very proud of what has happened.
Somewhat later of course, Mr. Speaker, you are aware that we dispatched a squadron of CF-18s. The purpose of that was not as clear to me as it was in dispatching our ships.
However, I do not want to put water in the wine by discussing my opinion on that. Suffice it to say the decision was made and the aircraft were sent. I am assured that their purpose there was primarily for the defence of our ships.
They could be called to defend our ships on a national basis. I am prepared to accept that, although initially I was a bit concerned why we needed to send aircraft. Aircraft and ground personnel are not as easy to move around in the Middle East once you get them there as ships are, Mr. Speaker. You can get them in and out.
The other aspect of this I would like to comment on is we are the 50th in order of magnitude armed forces in the roughly 200 countries in the world. That puts us in the top 25 per cent. In NATO, we are sixth or seventh, depending on how the size of our forces is counted. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are not 50th in talent, in leadership and in the dedication of our men and women.
I would venture to say, and this has been borne out by NATO exercises over the last 20 to 25 years, that the men and women in our ships, aircraft, ground crews, maintenance squadrons, support forces and in the land troops deployed to look after the low flight missile defence systems, are as well trained as any of the armed forces in the world. I would say that they are among the best, if not the best.
I stand here with great confidence and with great pride that those who are there want to be there. Those who are there are proud to be there. While the business of being away for Christmas is not a very pleasant thought for anybody, it has to happen. We do not have any real indication of how long this is going to go on. If that should happen, I know that they will do it in the knowledge that they are doing it for their country and for

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
the reasons that they joined. They have agreed to support their country.
There has been a great debate over the ships, how old they are and that sort of thing. They are not new, and they are not young. By way of comparison, and I do not mean this to be a minor comparison, I have a Lee Enfield rifle at home that was built some time in the First World War. It is as accurate now as it was the day it was manufactured. Sometimes the age is not the best indication. There is no question our ships are old and the machinery is old.
I know for a fact that there are 12 United States destroyers in the Middle East right now that are older than the Athabaskan. Also, I know that there are ships in the Middle East that are perhaps better equipped against attack by a missile system or super system that the Iraqis do not have.
I think it is important for all members of the House, and indeed the Canadian public, to realize that because of the specific refit that those ships received, because they were retrofitted with defensive system specifically against the known Iraqi threat-Exocet missiles, Mirage aircraft, chemical warfare and the other range of activities that the Iraqis are likely to put upon us-I would venture to say that our ships are probably better off than some of the other ships that are over there that are designed for general purpose threat.
I think one can draw his or her own conclusions from that. I am sanguine that we, as a country, have outfitted our ships as best we could under the circumstances. I know that Commodore Summers was very pleased that he received the kind of fighting suit that he had. While they may all be referred to as a last ditch system, they were found to be effective when they were needed. I refer to the Falklands. Although ships were sunk, these systems were very good.
The other thing regarding the Falklands is that the ships of the Falklands campaign did not have the long range and air early warning of 200, 300 or 400 kilometres that our ships presently have. That was one of the big weaknesses of the Falklands war. This was drawn out.
Our ships do have the mutual support benefit, and they have the coverage that is provided by our aircraft.
I see time is running out on me here, but there were a couple of things that I wanted to mention specifically. I do not want to go through the great list of where the people are from. Since I am from the maritimes, I would want to mention specifically that I am very proud of the effort from the maritime provinces.
In Newfoundland alone, we have 142 members who serve in this force. That is 9.5 per cent, and Newfoundland makes up only 2 per cent of the population. In the maritimes itself we have 621 out of 1,488. That represents 41 per cent of the men and women who are serving, while the maritimes in fact make up only 9 per cent of the population.
I know that in the case of my riding, again if my count is right, I am looking at 45 members from Bonavista- Trinity-Conception. I want to mention three of them because they have been written up in the newspapers. Their parents and their grandparents totally support what they are doing. They believe what they are doing is right. I think we should take comfort from those kinds of personal stories.
I am referring to Clifford Miller. Clifford is from Georges Brook. He is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Miller. Georges Brook is very close to Clarenville. Mr. and Mrs. Miller strongly support their son being there. They are very proud that he is there. In fact they note that he made a special move to make sure that he did get included on this force.
There is also young William Cumby. He is a marine engineer. He is the son of Ches and Viola Cumby from Harbour Grace. In fact, his grandfather, Chesley, Sr., served in the Second World War in the navy as well. Both his grandfather and grandmother wish him the best and believe that he is doing the best for his country. I think it is safe to say that in both cases they are very proud of the men and women involved.
You might find it of interest, Mr. Speaker, that the Protestant padre in HMCS Protecteur, although he travels in the other ships, is Captain Baxter Park from Bay of Islands. I believe that is in the riding of the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.
Mr. Speaker, you are cutting me off a bit early, I believe, but I do want now to mention in a more macro sense some of the things that concern me. If we look at

this as an instance where the cold war is on the demise-it is not over yet-we see here a basic point in the crossroads in the evolution of international order. I would not have believed this could have happened, that we would have had 30 nations so solid in their support of the Security Council in the United Nations with no vetoes. I think this is a wonderful occasion.
We should take some measure from this, because since World War II analysts have been carefully endeavouring to evaluate the sufficiency of our force in a single, simple defence criterion, and that has been the extent to which our commitments correspond with our capabilities. Indeed the title of the last written white paper is Capability versus Commitment. I submit that perhaps a more appropriate assessment today should include the consideration of the degree to which the quality, size and utility of our forces parallel a more realistic evaluation of future threats.
Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity in the three or four or so minutes that I have to indicate some of the concerns that perhaps we need to look at when we plan our defence budget.
We no longer have the same bipolar world we had before. I do not suggest that traditions of the east-west conflict do not still maintain, but we do not have a world where we have one monolithic communism. We do not have two bipolar powers that always disagree in principle. In the past conventional thought focused on fighting a major conflict in eastern Europe. In fact the main battlefront is now one country, so the eastern front is not what it used to be.
We have new threats. We have the proliferation of missiles and high-tech weapons in the Middle East as we see today in Asia. We have the expanding drug war in Latin America, and we have the unending spectre of international terrorism that we see almost on a regular basis.
In addition to these changes we also recognize that military might, might not wield the same power of influence it did in earlier times. Instead we are looking at a relative power of countries in an increasing complex interplay of economic and military factors, as we see by the oil determinants, which together are impacted by the fragile disposition of modern domestic political systems. We have the emergent democracies in eastern Europe. In fact instead of one nuclear power in the Soviet Union, we may have 15 independent ones, which quite frankly
Government Orders
from an arms control viewpoint scares the living daylights out of me.
There are three key developments that we should be concerned about. Very quickly, they are the international threat environment that I just mentioned. The second development refers to efforts to forge a new approach toward devising strategy, and this is the inclusion of economic factors, as well as military and political factors. Third, we have items that concern us taking place in the United Nations like we have recently seen. The degree of co-operation that countries may now be able to have because the cold war does not constrain people to one side or the other, I believe is a harbinger of international order and perhaps an international peace force that we may see in the future. We may not be looking at peacekeeping, as was suggested yesterday; we may be looking at peacemaking.
In conclusion, if I could suggest that we are looking at a more macro, different view of the world today and if events of the past are to be recognized in a positive sense, we have to look at this major occurrence and apply it to our defence planning in the following manner.
For example, what are our objectives? The objective here is to contribute to world peace, to get Iraq out of Kuwait and to make it difficult for it to go back. What this has in a follow-on commitment is open to our imagination. What are our goals? What assets do we have? How willing are we to defend or preserve the peace and at what level?
In speaking to the motion, yes, I can agree that the House condemns the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. It is unprecedented. It is against world order. I can agree that we want the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate Government of Kuwait. I affirm unequivocally our support for the action of our men and women, the United Nations Security Council, those who have participated since August 2, and the dispatch that has taken place in the past.
I would be very concerned if we were to give a blank cheque for what happens in the future, because in this kind of situation the fear of a sudden escalation is something that I am sure concerns all members of the House. I sincerely hope that before we move into that kind of thing we would have a full, open and candid debate about the future of our Canadian Forces in the Middle East.

Government Orders


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House would bear with me for just a couple of minutes as I have a comment arising from the hon. member's intervention.
As the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception knows, I have nothing but the highest regard for both his contribution to his country while serving in uniform and for the depth and quality of his contribution in the House of Commons when he participates in debates related to the defence of Canada.
As my colleagues in the House of Commons know, one of the practices I try to follow in leaving a portfolio is to refrain generally from making public comment, because I know that my successor has a right to run the department without having me looking over his or her shoulder and without feeling any constraints based on my previous involvement there.
I do want to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the hon. member's remarks today to add just one or two comments in response to him. In saying that I want to associate myself fully with the remarks that the hon. member made about the quality of the men and women serving in Canada's Armed Forces and the tremendous dedication shown by the members of their families. Having spoken to the families of service people who are serving often under very difficult circumstances, and realizing the strains put upon those families of service people, I am very much aware of the human cost often involved in the decision to serve one's country.
I think all members of the House of Commons on both sides of the Chamber would want to support strongly the families and the men and women serving in the Canadian Forces and also associate themselves with the remarks made by the hon. gentleman when he referred to the tremendous contribution made by civilian members within the Department of National Defence.
My hon. friend will know that those of us on this side of the House will disagree with him on his feelings about the need to have called Parliament back early for a debate on this matter. I think he acknowledges that the provisions of the National Defence Act have been fully complied with. The government has made an effort from
the outset to ensure that the Canadian people and Parliament were kept fully informed of the reasons for our involvement in the Middle East and also of the nature of that involvement. The hon. member concluded his remarks by insisting that Parliament continue to be informed. I am sure that my colleagues, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will attempt to do precisely that.
I want to associate myself fully with the vast majority of the content of his remarks and congratulate him on what I think were very useful and constructive comments.
In times like this members of Canada's Armed Forces who daily demonstrate their patriotism and their love for Canada are called upon to make special sacrifices and literally to put their lives on the line in defence of freedom and in taking a stand against aggression. I think it is incumbent upon all of us in the House of Commons to set aside the normal partisanship that exists in this place to indicate that they have our full support as they go ahead. Let us indicate as well that the principles in support of freedom, the principles in support of the rule of international law, and the principles in support of those who would resist aggression, remain alive and well in the House of Commons and remain central to the hearts of Canadians from one coast to another.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for his contribution, which I think helps to fully underscore that point.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for his comments, realizing that there is a difference of opinion in that regard.
Irrespective of how the motions sit now-as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we have a motion of the government and an amendment to that motion by this party and an amendment by the NDP-I hope that we can put something together because I think it would be really important to the men and women who are serving our country if we could get all-party, unanimous agreement from the House. Whatever is going on should really have the full support of this House. As one of the 295
October 18, 1990

members I would do almost anything to be able to encourage that and to make any compromise that is necessary to have an all-party resolution so that the men and women over there could know that they are serving with full support, without any partisan disagreement or anything of that nature.
On another item, because the hon. minister did speak about the human aspect, I get upset when I see people trying to draw conclusions from certain facts that when added up really do not portray the full story that was perhaps intended, and intended with the best of intentions if I could add that caveat. I am referring to a couple of articles which have appeared in the media, and perhaps for good reason, but I think it is important to give my impression from talking to families and from talking to people who are aware of what is happening over there that morale is good. Of course there are concerns.
I would like to read three paragraphs written by Master Seaman J. B. Eldershaw, HMCS Athabaskan, in response to an article which indicates that there are concerns among the men and women on the ships, that there is ennui, and that they are upset about the patrols and how much time they spend on patrol, and that sort of thing. As a prelude to it and as a sailor, when sailors are not complaining you are in trouble because they always complain. God bless them; they have the right to do that. As long as people listen to them they are relatively happy. In the last three paragraphs, and they are short- he says:
Let me make it very clear: our morale is very high. In fact, I have never seen it higher and I've served aboard Athabaskan for the past four years.
Sitting around and waiting is always boring and this gives us a lot of time to think of things to complain about. The expression that a sailor is not happy unless he is complaining was coined for a very good reason.
There is always a minority who complain about everything. They are insatiable and are probably responsible for the article in question. These same individuals have finally realized that this is not a nine to five job and was never intended to be. My opinion of them is low and my advice to them would be, "If you can't handle it, get out of the navy. You weren't drafted, you volunteered."
It gives me great heart to hear from a fairly junior member of this force who has taken it upon himself to be concerned about these kinds of comments and concerns and to address them in a very forthright, honest, and candid manner.
Government Orders
I hope that will give relief to the parents, the friends, and the families who after all are going through the same kind of anguish, anxiety and concern as those who are serving are going through.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time in coming, but as one who was involved with this issue from the beginning, as the former external affairs critic for my party, I am very pleased to finally have an opportunity in the House of Commons to say something about the situation in the gulf and the Canadian response to it.
I had many occasions during the course of the summer, after the invasion of Kuwait, to call for the resumption of Parliament and to be critical of the government for finessing the requirements of the National Defence Act in such a way as to make it possible for Parliament not to have to come back until its scheduled return on September 24.
Before I say anything else, I would like to say that I appreciated listening to the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception. I understand that he had a distinguished naval career.
I was brought up in a house in which one was encouraged to have a great deal of respect for Her Majesty's senior service, my father having served in the Fleet Air Arm during the Second World War. I come from a family with a military tradition, if you like. My grandfather was in the First Canadian Mounted Rifles in the First World War, and then there was my own much less demanding service in the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada in Winnipeg. I would therefore like to associate myself with many of the things which were said by the member and also by the former defence minister about the men and women who served in Canada's Armed Forces.
One of the things I understood myself to be doing in the military, and I am sure my father and my grandfather before me understood themselves to be doing, was defending a way of life in which people had the freedom, particularly in Parliament, to be critical and analytical of the actions of their government, even when it came to military and foreign policy decisions. That is what I intend to do today, express my differences of opinion with the government about how it handled this particular issue.

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
There is no dispute about the unacceptability of the invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. Indeed, the unanimity of world opinion with respect to that is something that is to be greatly valued. I will talk about the value of unanimity and how everything ought to be judged in terms of whether or not it contributes to that unanimity shortly.
First I would like to go back to the week following the invasion of Kuwait, a week in which I was here in Ottawa, to retrace events and show how our criticism of the government evolved at that time. I begin by saying that the government was not, in my judgment, as concerned as it could have been in the past about what was happening in Iraq. This government and many other western governments contributed to the current situation in many ways, through unacceptable silence when Iraq committed acts such as the gasing of its own citizens, particularly the Kurdish population, through helping to arm Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, and also by generally giving out a message to Iraq-as indeed we unfortunately give to so many other countries-that we really are not all that concerned about what they do as long we are able to maintain good commercial relationships with them.
It was in that vein that the NDP called for the Government of Canada to impose sanctions on Iraq before the Government of Canada actually did. There was a bit of lag time between when other countries imposed sanctions on Iraq and when the Canadian government imposed those sanctions. It was not a long time but nevertheless it was not an automatic response on the part of the Canadian government. We had occasion to call on the minister to do that in the morning, and sometime later that day he did respond and impose the sanctions.
I had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of State for External Affairs early in that week. Without going into everything that we discussed, I had no impression at that time that Canada would by the end of the week be sending ships to the gulf. What I was trying to do in requesting and getting that meeting was to try to establish the basis for a bipartisan or tripartisan or collective approach to the problem.
It was something that did not succeed in the sense that the announcement about Canadian military participation
came after a meeting that the minister had with NATO foreign ministers in Europe, not after a meeting that he had with Canadian parliamentarians about what the Canadian response should be.
In that sense I just want to situate the announcement. I thought it was unfortunate from a tactical point of view that the Canadian announcement about sending the ships came prior to us as a country knowing the outcome of the Arab summit which was taking place at that time. I think if the government had wanted to look less like it was simply responding to an American request, even if it had waited a day, it would have been able to say that it was doing something which Arab nations were doing. There was an impatience there which I think helped contribute to a context in which Saddam Hussein was more able to make the case-I do not think he succeeded in doing so- that this was a sort of western gang-up on the Arab world, which I do not think is true.
I think all decisions have to be judged as to whether or not they contribute to these false perceptions. I think the government being impatient in that way contributed to that perception and in that sense is to be criticized.
I also think that the way in which the judgment to send ships came after a NATO meeting also reinforced the sense that this was the western industrialized world, not so much concerned about aggression, but concerned about protecting its way of life which is dependent upon the consumption of oil. Again, this is not something that tells the whole story about what is going on in Iraq and Kuwait, but nevertheless reinforces a perception which did not need to be reinforced. I think there is an element of truth to that perception but it is certainly not something that should have been reinforced.
The government demonstrated what we at that time, and still do, regard an impatience, in not giving the United Nations enough time to get its act together to put together the kind of real multinational or UN force under UN command that might have been possible. I say only "might" because it may not have been possible.
Our criticism of the government is that it did not really give that enough time. Canada has a special historical role, if you like, at the UN that it could have played out in this case in trying to put together a UN force. We did not need to be there, Johnny on the spot, after the Prime Minister's meeting with the President. If the goal was to deter an invasion of Saudi Arabia, then clearly the
October 18, 1990

American forces were already doing that and the Canadian ships were not required in order to deter Iraq.
If the goal was to enforce UN sanctions, at the time at which it was announced that the ships were to be sent the UN had not yet legitimized the use of minimum force to enforce the sanctions. Yet in a way the government was saved from more criticism by the fact that the UN eventually did sanction to the use of force to enforce the sanctions. When that decision was taken, that resolution had not been passed.
We feel that the government could have, in light of the comments that I have just made, put more of an effort into constructing an appropriate, forceful and certainly military, if need be, UN response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
I would like to make a few comments about the larger picture concerning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and some of the things that have been said about western, or particularly American or whatever hypocrisy, when it comes to the situation in Kuwait. I want to agree with some of those observations and I want to disagree with some others.
First of all, I think it is unfortunate that President Bush on occasion has been heard to say, and I heard him say it myself, that all nations who benefit "from the free flow of oil" should be sharing the burden with the United States in the gulf.
I think we have to make up our minds, and the President has to make up his mind. I heard him say last night on the news that this is not about oil, this is about naked aggression.
Well, I think it should be about naked aggression and I think it should not be about oil. But the President himself has said these kinds of things and it is in the saying of those things that he gives rise to the criticisms that he has received not just from non-Americans but from American citizens themselves. They are worried that what is really motivating the administration is not a great concern for the welfare and the sovereignty of Kuwait but an attempt to protect the American way of life, a way of life-including our own-that is excessively dependent on the consumption of fossil fuels, dependent on the consumption of a finite resource.
Government Orders
At this point we are consuming far more than our share of that resource, particularly when you consider that it is a finite resource. When I say "we" I mean North America, Europe and all who are concerned about oil supply. We need to be pushed on this, for it seems to me that if we can leave out the character and the ambition of Saddam Hussein for a minute, sooner or later as a civilization we are going to have to face up to the fact that we cannot continue to consume a finite resource, in this case oil, in the way we have been consuming it. We ought not to be prepared either to go to war or do any other thing damaging to the future of the planet in order to maintain that lifestyle for as long as we possibly can and to hell with the future.
It is with respect to this so-called defence of our way of life that much of the scepticism about what is happening in the gulf arises. People know that the international community did not mobilize to save East Timor from invasion and annexation by Indonesia. People know that. People know that in many other cases there has not been a similar degree of outrage.
I think some legitimate analogies have been made and some not so legitimate analogies have been made. I think the one of East Timor is actually the best as far as I'm concerned. There is an anology between Iraqi-Kuwaiti relations and Indonesia-East Timorese relations. Many other anologies are more complicated because the countries which have been invaded by another country have in some way or another, rightly or wrongly, been in a hostile relationship with the other country.
But in the case of Iraq and Kuwait, and in the case of Indonesia and East Timor this was not the case, and yet there was no comparable outrage. People are right in pointing out the inconsistency that attends this international outrage. But that does not make the outrage wrong. It just means that we should have this kind of outrage all the time when these kinds of things happen.
Those of us who point out these inconsistencies and these hypocrisies are not saying we should not be outraged, we are just saying let us be outraged all the time when this kind of thing happens. Let us have the international community focus itself like it has been focused in the last few months every time a small country is treated in this way by a large country, or by a neighbouring country, whatever the size of that country

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
may be. This is what we hope and this is what was originally intended to be the role of the Ehiited Nations.
In this post cold war era, we are at a very critical time in international relations. Will we finally seize and realize the original dream of the people who put together the United Nations and have the UN responsible for world peace and such actions as may have to be taken in the Gulf? Or, will we go from a situation in which we had two global policemen who cut up the pie to a situation in which we have one global policeman left, that is to say, the United States of America?
In this instance, the United States has been successful in working with the UN and having the UN approve many of its actions. To that extent, those of us who are UN supporters support the decisions taken by the United Nations. But it is incumbent on all of us to ask of every decision taken by the Canadian government, the American government, or any other government, does this decision contribute positively or negatively, first, to the maintenance of unanimity in the condemnation of what Saddam Hussein has done? Second, does it contribute positively or negatively to the strengthening of the United Nations?
It is in this sense that we feel any further action by the Canadian government in the Gulf ought to be only in the context of a UN resolution. If things were to proceed to a military confrontation in which Canada is involved without the sanction of the United Nations, and, in that sense, an entirely new context having developed for that military involvement, we would as a country be involved in an effort that would undermine seriously the possibilities for the UN finally to realize its role. We would be participating in an action that would establish, not the UN as the primary enforcer of peace in the world in this post cold war era, but rather the United States.
That is our concern. We hope the government will consider the amendment. We also hope it would be in this way that the House might come to agree on something. The government, in my judgment, has not done this as well as it could have done. There are ways in which we could have agreed. There are ways in which Parliament could have been involved. The government has chosen not to do that, and I very much regret that because I remember the former Minister of National
Defence, who is in the House today, made a point of coming to Parliament when he sent peacekeeping observers to Iran-Iraq. He very quickly made a statement in the House and provided an opportunity for the House to comment on that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Your party said I was wasting time when I did it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: No, I do not think that is the case at all. We did not think you were wasting time. In fact, on every occasion when ministers on the other side have chosen to make statements in the House, we always indicated that that was the procedure we were glad was being followed.
This is a procedure that could have been followed this time if Parliament had been called into session. Instead, the government chose not to do that, perhaps for other political reasons. Perhaps it did not want to face questioning in the House on Oka, or whatever the case may be, but I think we lost an opportunity which I genuinely believe was there to come together over this particular incident. Instead, it appears that the House will probably divide on this.
I think our people in the Gulf, and Canadians generally, should see this, not as a lack of resolve to do the right thing when it comes to Saddam Hussein and the situation in the Gulf, but as one of the continuing flaws in our political process, particularly in the way the government approaches these kinds of issues. It is not a lack of support in any way for the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is not a lack of condemnation of Saddam Hussein and what he has done in and to Kuwait. It is not a lack of confidence in the UN. It is exactly the opposite. It is a wish that Canada would do everything in its power to see that the United Nations becomes the principal instrument by which these kinds of crises are solved in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie on a question or comment.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his usual grasp of a very complex topic. I also suggest that he has brought a slightly different tone and probably a different plane to the debate that I have followed for the past couple of days.
October 18, 1990

Government Orders
Some of the things he has said, I suppose, are not music to anyone's ears, when questioning some of the motives of some of the actions. It is at times even embarrassing to hear some of the statements with reference to hypocrisy, but I think most of us appreciate and understand that this is true.
My concern is that the darker side of the issue, if you will, is very seldom heard in this House. I am sure that most Canadians are totally unaware of this darker side of the issue. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this is a rhetorical question, but I would ask my colleague why is this aspect not brought out on a more regular basis in the House?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie says is true, although I would think that there are actually quite a few Canadians who are aware of the dark side of foreign policy, if you like, that is to say that decisions are always made for a variety of reasons, but only some of the reasons ever get into the official press releases.
Many people who have been involved over the years in the Canadian Armed Forces would probably be one group of people who would know that better than most. The official story is always somewhat different than the reality. Certainly those of us in politics know that this also applies, unfortunately.
The dark side, of course, is the involvement of the West in creating a situation in which we are so vulnerable to threats to our oil supply, by deciding to have our way with the world. It is unfortunate that it has to be a Saddam Hussein who wakes us up to this dependence. Far better that we should have recognized ourselves this dependence and did something about it. Instead, we waited for people like Saddam Hussein to come along and wake us up to this reality. Unfortunately, part of the reason for that is due to American, British, and other European actions in that area in the past, anyone who wanted to suggest in a democratic way years ago that perhaps oil should be distributed in the world in a different way was not allowed to survive politically. The only people who are allowed to survive politically are either regimes which are friendly to the interests of the multinational corporations or people who are violent and, therefore, because of their own sinful ways, are not to be intimidated by the sins of others.
Of course, the other dark side is the way in which we arm these people. Then we get upset if they do not do what we tell them. It reminds me of the invasion of Panama by the United States. It had to get rid of this bad guy, Noriega, after spending years using him, arming him and funding him. Then, all of a sudden, one day he did not do what he was told and then he became a demon.
There are some similarities with the situation in Iraq. It is not identical, but there are some similarities, as with others ways in which we in the West have operated in other areas of the world, and failed to understand how these things come to be perceived by people in those areas of the world.
I, for one, do not pretend to be able to enter into the Arab mind in its perception of this particular crisis, but I certainly am not willing to uncritically assume that everything that we have done in that area over the years is right and that everything that others have done is wrong. That is to enter into a form of jingoistic politics which the NDP, to its credit, and many times to its political damage, has never been willing to be a part of. That is one of the important roles the NDP has played in Canadian politics over the years, to be that prophetic voice which does not point only to what others are doing wrong, but which also points to what we are doing wrong.
People do not like to listen to that sometimes. They think we are not being loyal or we are not being patriotic. Yet, in the final analysis it is the people who are willing to speak the truth, even when it is about their own country, about their own civilization, about their own neighbours, about their own friends, who are doing the greatest political service.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate to be engaged in and one at which the House has taken a considerable amount of time. I think it is because those on this side of the House, particularly in the Liberal Party, and also our colleagues in the NDP, appreciate just how delicate a matter it is to show support for an international effort and at the same time maintain our objective of creating peace throughout the world.
As often is the case, the big questions come in small steps. One is caught not knowing quite where to draw the line, when to say no, and when to jump on the band

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
wagon and support the government and our allies throughout the world.
When the government began its activities, it chose not to recall Parliament. It chose to do this unilaterally. It chose not to make reference to the House, to the committees of the House, or to have a full debate. Canadians, when many are put at risk on ships and in planes in support of an international effort, have a right to a full explanation and a full debate. All international conflicts involve more than one perspective and this one is no different.
The very first step of not recalling the House put this debate in an awkward position for Canadians trying to understand why the government moved arbitrarily and why the government did not invite other Canadians to come forward with their opinions. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government knew at the time that we had two or three months to get organized while the situation unfolded. We are right now, perhaps, on the edge of a war. It is a very serious situation and this could have been considered by Canadians many months ago.
When the member for Winnipeg South Centre, on behalf of this party, saw this motion, he suggested the following amendment:
That this House censure the government for not recalling
Parliament at the earliest opportunity to fulfil its legitimate function
of consultation and debate as to what role Canada should play in the
resolution of the present crisis;
-and that this be sent to the external affairs committee.
If we had followed that strategy, then the government would have found itself working within a consensus and not working within a divided House.
As the member for Winnipeg-Transcona noted, it is very important for Canadians to understand that when the government enters into an international conflict it is done with the support of the House. It is rather unfortunate that as the original motion stands the government would not be able to get a consensus in the House because it ignored some of those basic steps that have to be taken.
Second, the resolution suggests that we be working through the United Nations more directly.
This is a very fine point, one in which there is a great division in the international community. I think we should address that issue very directly.
The issue is that the United States has taken leadership on behalf of the allies. This is the same way they moved in to the Korean war, in which they were able to use the UN flight that is essentially a U.S.-based operation. When we saw this particular activity, people thought that this was very much like other international activities in that the UN is just blessing the Americans. We think that Canada has had a long tradition of making sure that the United Nations grows in strength. The United Nations of 1990 is different than the United Nations of the early fifties when the Americans made their move and used it as a front in the Korean battlefield.
We should be doing everything within our power through our ambassador at the United Nations to continue our strategy of moving multilaterally in all areas, whether we are talking about trade agreements or talking about humanitarian organizations or war organizations. Our support and our future rest in the use of power, not in absolute ways but in very moderate and measured tones. That can only come through strong international organizations. We run the risk, particularly now at a critical moment, of allowing the circumstances to overtake our position unless we state quite clearly that it is only through the United Nations that we will continue to participate. That is in no way undermining the tremendous effort being made on our behalf, that is on behalf of the House of Commons, Parliament and Canadians by our military people.
I join my colleagues who have spoken before me to issue a thanks to them for being prepared so quickly, for finding the resources quickly in an organization very short of resources, and heading out in support of the United Nations effort. We wish every one of them good health. We wish that a conflict can be avoided. We wish that they are able to return to Canada unscathed by the settlement of this difficult problem.
In this context, as we show support for these people in the field, we also have to make sure that the basic support for the United Nations is not in any way eroded. We are at a critical point in the development of world politics. This was alluded to earlier in the debate by other speakers. We have come from a point where we
October 18, 1990

had this tremendous confrontation on the European front that riveted the world. That confrontation was between the Soviet-based countries and the American-based alliance in Europe. We in this House all hope that we see the end of this conflict.
As the conflict is shifted from one difficult front, the European front, to the most volatile front of all, the Middle East, we see for the first time these two former enemies joining forces to attack publicly, and I do not mean in a military sense, Iraq. There is, in this short time frame, a new working alliance. We can only hope that it is the beginning of a new front that will expand, not only for war-based activities but will expand into humanitarian efforts, food efforts, foreign aid efforts and human rights efforts, into other fields in which we need to see more co-operation.
Right now, in people's pleasure in seeing this new marriage on the international front, they are willing to put aside some very basic questions. That is that people are motivated to work together out of a basic self-interest. It is in the self interest of the Soviet Union to have a stable front in that part of the world, and to have a stable oil supply in that area, just like it is for the western nations to have a more stable oil supply. While we have this in common, we cannot let it override the reality that we need to strengthen the United Nations.
We, on this side of the House, have been petitioning the government, working in committees and writing letters to the government to remind them not to let this organization become dominated by American interest and/or Soviet interest because it must be the interests of the United Nations that allows us to continue.
The United Nations is by no means a perfect organization. As pointed out before, the United Nations has turned its back on many very important regional conflicts. Whether one is talking about East Timor or other parts of the Middle East, the United Nations does not move with one voice. Nevertheless, it is functioning in a way that this new alliance gives it newly discovered credibility, and we want to make sure that that continues. Interests change. If you allow one party, particularly the American party, to gain ascendancy without question, then you set in motion problems down the line. For example, the American government right now has a changing domestic scene. The popularity of the president, according to The New York Times last weekend, is dropping dramatically, in part because of the recession
Government Orders
which is excellent news for the government in this country, but also dropping because people are unsure of what will happen in the gulf crisis.
There was some television coverage a couple of nights ago about the president speaking to university students who were shouting "no war for oil". If that begins to shift, what does that do to the American president? Does he become more anxious about solving the crisis? Does he become more aggressive in his foreign policy? Does he decide that the battle is no longer worth the principle, or the principle is no longer worth the battle, and therefore it leaves.
For all these reasons, as the American political scene changes, its interests change. You cannot be driven by those interests. You have to be driven by an international organization on top of those interests. You have to keep reminding the government that the reason we were to be there is to support the UN, not to support the United States, although the United States is our longest and dearest ally and one for whom we would show any support necessary to make sure that its interests are protected, but we wish to protect those interests through the United Nations.
The United States is heading into congressional elections and battle fronts become part of political battle fronts. You cannot have the changing interest of a congress facing an election in early November affect the way it approaches the Middle East. Again, we secure the different political fronts by securing the United Nations and the Security Council.
What we on this side of the House ask is that this government does not get ahead of itself. The original motion proposed by the government was a blank cheque. It wanted to say that it had to go in and give support and only give it under certain conditions. Conditions change and we want the government to come back to the House to discuss this with us regularly. I think that is a fair and reasonable position and one with which most Canadians would agree. I am sure Canadians in the gulf who are ready to fight for us would be very anxious to see the next steps discussed in the House of Commons and by committees.
As a result of the concerns raised in and outside the House, we think the government's position should change and be put on paper. It should place all possible actions in front of us and come back here to discuss them before going any further down the line. There is an expression that you can get too far ahead of yourself. I think the government, in asking for that blank cheque,

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
wishes that we just accept its judgment before we have an opportunity to see what the problems may be. This side of the House absolutely refuses this. It is also important to put it in the context of the United Nations itself.
There is an excellent article written by Bernard Wood of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. He raised the question that the most important substantial concern related to the dominant United States role in the gulf effort is linked to the basic question of what the aims and procedures of the whole operation really are and who will set them. Once again, it must be stressed that there is no easy answer. We are in unexplored territory in trying to co-ordinate an effective and legitimate response to aggression by the whole international community. He pointed out that the territory is not totally unchartered because the United Nations does have a procedure. On the one hand, we have an international crisis which was only anticipated in the most remote corners of policy and research institutes. We had a situation where everything that could possibly happen blew up very quickly and the only place that has any experience in dealing with international crises is the United Nations. Again, I join those people who say, if you turn to the United Nations and strengthen that organization, you are likely to be able to build up a stronger history of working together.
There is another point related to the situation that I think should be mentioned. It is that when we were fighting the Soviet Union, and all western nations were fighting the Soviet Union in one way or another, we had a reason, we had an ideology. We knew that these were the communists and we opposed comunism. We knew that we were Conservatives, Liberals or socialists but we knew that we were against the communists. We fought them. But when you have the breakdown of ideology, as they have right now, when you have Europeans forming new alliances, when you have the Third World thinking a different way, when you have the debate in North America changing, people do not have those small, one-line expressions to hang on to tell them what is going on. So when the so-called bad commies join us, what do you make out of a battlefront where the commies are fighting with the Americans? Well, it means
that one has to stop and think: what is this world all about?
Therefore, there is the battle for public relations. One of the most interesting developments in this battle is watching the different leaders, who speak different languages, putting forward their positions on an American-based network, CNN, which is watched throughout European and Middle East hotels as well as in Asia and throughout North America. There is the leader of Iraq giving his position, the King of Jordan putting forth his case as to what should be done, and the American congressional leaders coming forward. There is a fight for public relations. The Americans know how to play this game and so, in many respects, the momentum again rests with them.
Without ideology and without thinking through the situation, we can get caught up in that rhetoric, particularly in Canada where there is such a spill-over and we think: well, these are our close friends, that must be the best direction to go. But close friends must work closely together and often close friends, to work together, need a body which provides a forum for arbitration and for discussion that makes any discussion a little more flexible and a little easier.
I recognize, like other members, that this situation is not getting any better and whatever we say today might be overtaken by events tomorrow and that we may, in fact, be into a crisis overnight. We just do not know. We hope not, but we do not really know. As the alliance through the United Nations puts into place its forces, the supply ships catch up with the troops who are flown in, the fuel depots are organized and everybody sits and waits in the desert for the next move, one has to stop to think about people who are sitting there day after day.
The date on the calendar changes, the American election passes, the date approaches Christmas and, all of a sudden, you get people saying: "Well, how long are we going to be here? Are we going to be here for months? Are we going to be here for a few hours? Do we pull back?" Who is going to make that decision? Who is going to sit there and say this has been long enough? When are we really going to know that grain supplies are depleted in Iraq? When are we going to know when the will of the leader of Iraq is broken and what is going to do it? Who is going to take responsibility for these?
October 18, 1990

I say, in conclusion, that these questions are difficult. There are moral questions and there are military questions. These should not rest solely with one of our closest friends. They should rest in the United Nations. As our government participates, it should be bringing back to this House of Commons, on a regular basis, a report-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret to interrupt the hon. member. I know he was just concluding. But I believe that if the Speaker seeks the consent of the House, he would find that there would be agreement to sit during the lunch hour-we are coming to one o'clock now-in order that other members might fully participate in this very important debate.


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


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there would be unanimous consent on our side. I just want to add one element and that is if the House agrees, we have some sort of understanding that we not call quorum calls or other dilatory motions during that period between one o'clock and two o'clock.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate. The hon. member may continue. He has one minute left.


David Walker: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I accept the interruption. It gives us on this side a chance to continue this very, very important debate.
In conclusion, one of the most famous current writers on international politics, Paul Kennedy, has observed that the history of international affairs over the past five centuries has all too frequently been a history of warfare or at least the preparation of warfare. Here we are, in an historical context, in the preparation of warfare.
I call upon the government to remember its obligations to the House of Commons in reporting back to us regularly. I call upon the Canadian government to remember its commitment to the United Nations.
Government Orders


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my hon. colleague for such a learned dissertation and for looking at aspects of this problem that we are facing with perhaps different parameters than we have heard in the House so far. I am very pleased to be able to report on this. I am sure his background has given him a different slant on the kind of operation we are involved in.
I would like to pose a question to my hon. friend, partly by way of a comment and partly to seek his views on this particular aspect of it. He did dwell on the United Nations aspect of this particular crisis. As I understand it, if there is any such thing as a model operation in the United Nations and it being followed by one of the superpowers, the superpower on our side in this particular case, I think we are looking at one now.
The sequence of events as I understand it was a model progression. We had resolutions identifying that there was aggression and there was fast agreement on that. We had calls for compliance, for non-military sanctions, and then we moved on to a stronger, more offensive term called blockades. Only if these measures are not successful do we contemplate any kind of military enforcement action.
As I suggested, these steps have never been more faithfully followed and I have been following this matter for a while. The clear objective, as I stated in my presentation an hour or so ago, is to get Iraq out of Kuwait and keep it out.
I maintain that we are looking at a slightly different operation from anything we have ever seen before, because of the cold war and because although Hussein is fairly clever about the way he went about his business, I think he forgot there would be relatively fast agreement on the resolutions in the United Nations by close to 30 countries that they would participate in this peacemaking operation. I perceive with small evidence-but I am buttressed and given confidence-that we may be looking at the beginning of a new world order.
Indeed I think I suggested we may be looking at something that could be the basic crossroads in the evolution of an international world order. Although it is ad hoc, impromptu and kind of rag-tag right now, this operation could be the beginning of a world police force, a world order. Although it is not as well put together, command and control-wise, i.e. under the United Na-

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
tions auspices with a good command and control structure, I accept that we are evolving toward this.
I would like the hon. member to give the House the benefit of his experience and perhaps to make specific comment on whether he sees this as something that may pertain in a more orderly and more procedural manner in the future?


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, it brings to mind that none of us are quite sure right now what is going to happen in the world. We have the end of a traditional conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States base groups. We have the conventional armies being pulled back on the European fronts. We have had long discussions and some new agreements on the nuclear arsenal. It really is a shift between those two powers.
I personally am very optimistic. I wish the Soviet leadership all the goodwill in the world to overcome the difficulties in its economy and all policy areas where it is lagging behind. It just needs a lot of support from the world right now.
As we resolve this conflict- and perhaps this is where some of the academics can help us understand-we will find that the regional conflicts can have the same degree of troublesome hostility that we once associated only with the great powers.
We are dealing with Iraq which has not only the capabilities of a large and well trained army that has survived a seven-year fight with Iran, but it also has chemical warfare. It may have long-range missiles. We do not think it has access to a nuclear arsenal and we certainly hope that it does not have access to it. However, the potency of that force compared to what we would have seen in the fifties and sixties has changed dramatically.
As we resolve a large conflict on one front, we turn around and face the Middle East. The Middle East is not only going to involve the Iraq-Kuwait border, but it is also going to involve other border fronts. Of course that is why a peace plan and a Middle East committee was suggested. I think that that should be supported by all members of the House.
The fact that these 30 nations are working together and the fact that each step has been going along very carefully and in a very controlled manner is testimony to just how determined the leadership of all these countries is to make sure that this is a successful venture.
Then we go down the line and we have to come to some very critical decisions. How are we going to come to the conclusion that the blockade is not working? Who makes that decision? Once that decision is made and if the answer is that it has not worked, who makes the next decision? Once that decision is made, who implements it?
Those are very important questions. I think the member is right in asking me to address those matters and to give them some thought.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I listened with care to the hon. member's statement. I know he has given a great deal of thought to this issue, having worked with him on the Standing Committee on Human Rights in the past and in particular on the subcommittee on international human rights.
I would just like to seek clarification from the hon. member with respect to his position on the resolution which is before the House. There is a resolution before the House now. There is an amendment and a subamendment. Is it his intention to support that resolution or not if the amendment fails?


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I too enjoyed the collegiality we shared on the human rights committee in addressing many issues.
This is one of the most important debates that we can have because we are looking at questions that not only deal with the immediacy of the Iraq-Kuwait-United Nations conflict but also deal with some very basic questions about the UN.
When I was listening to his question, I was thinking of the point that it is not only dealing with what the Middle East looks like today but what we are going to do when this conflict is over. For example, if we are successful in the blockade and Kuwait is restored, are we going to leave Kuwait as a battleground for Iraq to come into again? Are we going to leave it as one of the most undemocratic regimes in the area? Or, are we going to try to show some leadership and say: now that we have
October 18, 1990

the UN involved with this war preparation task what are we going to do post-war? What are we going to do if we have a peaceful settlement? What are we going to do if we do not have a peaceful settlement?
Again the UN plays an important role because as we move into resolution of a conflict we have to be prepared for the other side. This particular resolution is just the beginning of a debate. I am interested to see what contributions the government continues to make and how it receives the amendments put forward by this party. Of course the hon. member's party has put forward some interesting amendments, and the total package represents a very interesting way of approaching this particular problem and shows consensus.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time I have spoken in the House-and I have been here for nearly 20 years-in which I see in front of me one other member. Anyway, because it is the lunch hour-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There was agreement that other members would be out for lunch. I hope the hon. member would not bring attention to it.
Other members are either in the lobby or watching the member on television, so it is not a question of them not being here because of the lunch hour. The hon. member is a long-time member and knows that he should not reflect on who is here and who is not here.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comment. It was not meant to be a criticism. It was more of a humourous remark, but I withdraw that statement. I know the quality in the audience is absolutely superb.
The issue under debate has been with us for only a couple of months, but in retrospect one has almost to state at the outset it was inevitable that a major military confrontation would erupt in the Middle East at sometime, whether it was last summer, this fall or this winter, because there are so many serious problems that have gone unsolved in that part of the world for so long.
Government Orders
What we see in Iraq with Saddam Hussein is not the only issue in the Middle East. I want to refer to at least one other issue that has been crying out for a solution for a long time.
On August 2, certainly the world was shocked, angered and saddened at this very sudden military seizure by direct action and direct force of the independent state of Kuwait. All those-and certainly this House-who believe in and support democratic institutions and the peaceful evolution of our societies condemn this military move out of hand.
By way of introduction I cannot help but reflect on the bitter ironies that are so apparent in what is going on in the Middle East and in the gulf. Indeed reference has already been made to the seven or eight long years during which Iraq was engaged in a war with its neighbour Iran, yet during all those years and for years prior to that war virtually every permanent member of the Security Council lined up to sell weapons to both sides in that war: Iran and more particularly Iraq. Today we are reaping the whirlwind of that tragic misjudgement on the part of both the arms industries and the international community.
It is more than just mildly ironic that all of a sudden the United States, the United Kingdom, China,and the Soviet Union, to mention only a few, are wringing their hands and saying "good God, what has happened in the Middle East", when for years and years they sold arms and highly sophisticated weaponry to the state of Iraq. They have built up Saddam Hussein's military to the point where he has become a threat, not only in the gulf but in the entire Middle East. That is just not good enough.
We also have a situation where all of a sudden we have discovered that the Security Council should take direct action because one state has been militarily seized by another. I agree with that action and those resolutions, but I would like to know why even to this day Canada and the United States, the United Kingdom, France and so on, have not come to the rescue of the Palestinians.
After all, the UN passed resolution 242 calling on the state of Israel as an occupying military force to withdraw from the west bank. At the time of the military takeover in 1967, at the end of that war, even with the UN resolution that was not one gun, not one tank, not one plane from the United States, France, the United Kingdom, or Canada. I did not hear any parliamentarians

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
on the government side in those days stand up and say that we were calling for a Security Council resolution that would send an international police force to the west bank to make certain that peace was maintained and that the sovereignty of the west bank would revert to the Palestinians. There is more irony as well in that lack of initiative on the part of the western powers and in the Security Council. Could it be, Mr. Speaker, that the major difference is because there is oil at stake in this gulf crisis and there is no oil to be found on the West Bank or in the State of Israel for that matter. Well, one wonders.
We also have to look at another irony. Even though the State of Kuwait was forcefully and militarily taken over and is being pillaged and raped today, it seems somewhat ironic that we are rushing to its aid. Indeed, some are even suggesting that we use direct militaiy force now to re-establish the emirate in a country that is not democratic, has no intention of democratizing itself, and which has refused consistently over the years to spend appreciable amounts of money from their great oil profits to help the poorer Arab nations in the Middle East. And the same could be said for Saudi Arabia.
Yet all during the Iraq-Iran war, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait egged on Iraq and Iran, hoping that they would both knock each other out as major nations and threats to their very rich oil fields in the gulf. That is another irony that I find very difficult to come to grips with.
Notwithstanding the bitterness of those ironies, we have to face them head on, and be as honest as we possibly can. I am convinced, as are a majority-I think everyone in this House-that the Security Council made the right moves at first. They have attempted by peaceful means to put in place a series of resolutions with a blockade, an embargo, economic sanctions and so on, and have given the right to use minimum force to those multinational forces now present in Saudi Arabia and in the gulf states in order to enforce those resolutions. This is as it should be. This is a peaceful approach being taken, to try to disengage Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi forces from their occupation in Kuwait.
Much more is at stake here than simply getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. What is at stake here, I
offer by way of argument, is really the future peacekeeping capability of the United Nations: we must be prepared to give sanctions the length of time they need in order to work. I know that means great suffering on the part of the military forces that are out there in that heat and with winter coming on, the extreme cold in the desert, the discomfort, and the cost.
Nonetheless if we jump the gun, if we decide, or the United States decides-and this is one of the problems with the command at this time-it can no longer politically hack it, if it finds out that too much pressure is being built up at home with the mid-term elections coming on, with the rising costs of oil and fuel, with the problems that it seems to have when it is engaged in a protracted war, that opposition develops and the country becomes fractured. There is a lot of internal political and social upheaval and strife as we saw in the Vietnam years.
This might all lead the U.S. command to jump the gun and move militarily into Kuwait before sanctions and the embargo and the blockade have had enough time to take effect. Time is of the essence because it will take a long time. No one has ever said that blockades can be accomplished within a matter of weeks or indeed months. We may be talking in terms of years in order to bring Saddam Hussein peacefully, without military intervention, to his knees, keeping in mind that all this time he remains extremely popular because of the sort of siege mentality that always grips a populace whose country has sort of taken on the world.
One of the worst things we could do is to go in with a so-called surgical strike and, for example, bomb Baghdad. Bombing cities has never proven to be a method of defeating the enemy. I can assure you it did not happen in World War II. We bombed Berlin and Frankfurt and Stuttgart night after night, virtually year after year in the last three years of the war. Yet Germany's determination not only to prosecute the war but to produce in order to prosecute the war, their patriotism and determination to go on was stronger in the latter days of the war than it was at the beginning of the war. The same thing can be said about North Vietnam, the more the Americans bombed the north, the more resolute the North Vietnamese were to carry out and prosecute the war.
October 18, 1990

I hope the United States has not determined that by a fast surgical strike it can some how bring the Iraqis to their knees because I do not think historical fact is on their side, quite the opposite. We are not dealing with a Panama here. We are not dealing with a Granada. I suppose if you like war, that is the kind of war you like to fight, you go in in the morning and you are back home at night. Maybe that is a slight exaggeration, but nonetheless that is what happened more or less in those two American military operations.
We have to give sanctions a chance. That means a war of nerves. It means a tremendous financial cost to the United States. I think that its allies should be prepared to pay a much greater share of that cost as the period of sanctions and embargo continues to develop. It is very important.
If we precipitately decide that the time has come, that we cannot control the situation without going to war, and we strike and go to war, then we have defeated the United Nations, we have defeated the Security Council. We have said to the world that peacemaking and peacekeeping and pressures through the Security Council, through the United Nations do not work and therefore it is back to gunboat diplomacy, whether it is with CF-18s or with frigates. That is what is at stake here. We have to make it abundantly clear to all other would-be aggressors that the peaceful world, those who believe in the rule of law and peaceful evolution, are prepared to pay the cost of waiting out this long period of blockade.
We know that in the United States President Bush is under tremendous pressure to go in militarily and sort of clean the whole thing up. I understand that he was confronted by experts in the Pentagon, not long ago, who in response to a question by him informed him that in their best judgment direct military action would cost the United States a minimum of 20,000 lives, that is military personnel, with an upper figure as high as 35,000. When one considers that in all of the Vietnam war, horrible as that war was, I believe the Americans lost 54,000 dead, the United States at this point could lose between 20,000 and 35,000 of its young pilots, soldiers and sailors within a matter of weeks.
Let there be no mistake, aircraft are important, aircraft can do a lot of damage. The navy is there to maintain the blockade but when you go to war, Mr. Speaker, you go to war primarily with one component
Government Orders
and that is a ground force. You have got to acquire and hold land. That is what war is about. It has never changed. In hundreds of years it has never changed. You have to put foot soldiers, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery in place and you have to move them. Anybody who has been in that part of the world, and I was there a few years ago, has seen the terrain on which these soldiers would be asked to fight. It becomes a horrendous challenge, particularly if the troops are unfamiliar with the kind of ground warfare and topography in that part of the world, whether it be the in the heat of summer or the cold of winter.
Having heard those grim statistics, the question apparently was then asked, "What about non-military casualties?" The figure there goes to a quarter of a million within a few days. We are not talking about a Granada here, we are not talking about a Panama. We are talking about a full scale war. That is all the more reason I suggest this government has moved rather precipitately so far in dispatching the two frigates, the supply ship and now the 18 CF-18s to the Middle East before a UN command was put in place.
That is what we would like, that is what we are holding out for, and that is why we are not going to support the main motion. We do not want Canadian forces actively engaged in military operations unless the entire operation is under UN command. That is where it should be.
No one country and no one political problem within a country or set of political pressures should dominate the major decisions being made, or that will be made, in the gulf. That is why I said a moment ago that I would hope that we would hold back.
The blockade is in place and Saddam Hussein knows that he cannot make a move and go beyond where he is. Incidentally he is beginning to feel the effects of that blockade. Just this morning on the radio news it was announced that yesterday in Baghdad the government called upon not only the civilians but the military to get involved not in military activity this time but in crop production and crop harvesting.
It said that Saddam Hussein has called upon the people to put up with less, to get by with less during this period of sanctions and embargoes. The Iraqi people are beginning to feel the ill-effects not in their extremity, certainly not yet. That will take weeks and months, but we can see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Government Orders
Even though Saddam Hussein may be a fanatic and his populous may be 100 per cent behind him or 100 per cent fearful of opposing him, let us not underestimate human nature. If the situation domestically reaches a point where the suffering outweighs the possible benefits of patriotism to the leadership of Iraq, there will be internal problems in that country that he will have to deal with.
I urge our government to put pressure on the Security Council, on Washington and on the other capitals of Europe, particularly the United Kingdom and encourage the Soviet Union to first of all put in place a UN command so that it is an international force in all its aspects. It will be a UN decision if and when direct action is necessary. I think that is extremely important.
There is one other point that I do not think we should totally overlook. I know that, since Neville Chamberlain and the age of appeasement, those who tend to be hawkish as well as others are harking back to those years and saying that Neville Chamberlain should have put Hitler in his place in the 1930s. Even before Chamberlain, when Stanley Baldwin was Prime Minister, the Germans retook the Rhineland and later the Anschluss with Austria, the takeover of Czechoslovakia and finally with the invasion of Poland, there would not have been a World War II. Those are one of the great ifs in history.
There is one school of thought that says that Neville Chamberlain actually understood Hitler better than Churchill did and that Neville Chamberlain knew that absolutely nothing would stop Hitler, and therefore had to beg for time in the final analysis.
We may be confronted with the same kind of situation here. We do not know. At least up until this point it might be worthwhile, not as a major thrust politically or diplomatically, but to start looking for some kind of reasonable compromise.
The reason I introduce this at the end of my remarks is this. Let us look very briefly at the history of the situation. Iraq at one time did have access to the gulf. Kuwait at one time was part of Iraq. Iraq is a major oil producing nation that should have a port on the gulf but does not have one and lost Kuwait back in 1923.
The point I am getting at is this. If all Saddam Hussein wants in the final analysis is that port, I leave it then to the political experts, the heads of state and the military to draw a reasonable conclusion from that possible compromise, keeping in mind that up to 35,000 American young men and women could lose their lives in a matter of days, certainly weeks, and that 250,000 civilians at a minimum could die as well.
Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the motion. Hopefully, the United Nations will eventually set up a command. Hopefully, it will be an entirely UN peacemaking-peacekeeping force. Hopefully, we will give sanctions the length of time that is needed in order to be effectively applied, so that we can avoid the war that is possibly quite imminent.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attentiveness to my hon. colleague and, while I certainly respect and appreciate the comments he has made, it worries me to talk about bombing airports and a quarter of a million civilians. The very thought of war at this particular point in time is there. It is part of the baggage, if you like, of the kind of business we are involved in. I think everybody involved is aware of that.
But I would like to spend a little bit more time in measuring the effect of the embargo's bite. I have done some work on this and I would like to share it with the House.
I would start by saying that it was about a month ago that Saddam Hussein was saying that the children of Iraq are dying because they are being deprived of their food, milk, and medicine. With the embargo then only five weeks old, his charge certainly seemed extremely dubious. The reports from the intelligence community and the diplomats in the area reported, despite the line-ups at the bakeries and the preparations for rationing, no staples had disappeared from the shelves.
To address the hon. member's point, precisely when the economic pressure will begin to hurt, and whether or not it will force Saddam to pull out of Kuwait as the United Nations demand becomes bigger and the Gulf
October 18, 1990

confrontation becomes more spectacular in his eyes, are very good questions.
We are aware that Iraq has one main business, one main export, and it earns all its foreign exchange by selling oil abroad. It imports three-quarters of its food and much of its manufactured goods. Therefore, the economic sanctions are likely to hit them fairly hard, but over what period of time and how self-sufficient can they be? I think this is worthwhile spending a few moments on.
Analysts, like economists, have different assumptions and look at different things, but they have different estimates of how long the food supplies might last. Most of them agree that no Iraqi should be malnourished- that is, to feel the effects of starvation-for at least one year.
There are certain aspects that I think are worthwhile mentioning here. First, this year Iraq had a bumper crop of wheat. Generally it is sufficient in fruits, vegetables, and the staples of the diet that keep people healthy. It is expected that they can go on for a year.
There was a bit of a loophole in the Security Council resolution imposing the embargo and there was some reference made to the humanitarian aspects. I believe that human rights aspect is still being discussed. What is humanitarian is sometimes different for one than it is to the other. I am going to skip over that and look at another aspect here.
Iraq's economy, I think it is safe to say, is only semi-developed and it is likely to grind on in other aspects rather than food for about nine months, according to the general analysis. The need for imported clothing and household appliances is not pressing at this point in time. As the shortage of spare parts becomes acute, water and power supplies will only gradually begin to decline. When a generator breaks down, if there is not a spare part then there will be problems with water and electricity.
There is scope for some flexibility in their self-contained economy, but not very much. There is not a manpower problem. One of the greatest assets that Saddam has, of course, is his one million man military machine and it is not likely to fade away in the immediate future. In addition, from a military aspect, they have stockpiled conventional weapons and spare parts and they continue to assemble the exotic ones. I am referring
Government Orders
to here the missiles and the chemical weapons which are a formidable threat. I pray to God that they do not even consider some of the implications of that. They are reasonably well stocked with parts and ammunition, but if a shooting war breaks out the consumption will be at a fantastic rate.
The key question, at least the analyses agree, is how long the foreign exchange will last. The higher estimates put Saddam's reserves at between $10 billion and $12 billion and last year the country spent more than $17 billion on imports. Although they will have to buy what they can this year, the cost of the embargo breaking will increase and the money will eventually run out.
One way or another the sanctions calculations seem to come back to the same timeframe, from six months to about a year. If the international coalition holds together that long, and there is every indication that at least at this point in time after about 10 weeks that it is holding up, Saddam should be hurting pretty badly.
The key question then is, will he withdraw from Kuwait or would he push on to a violent attack. He has got a lot of credibility to guard. He has got a lot of credibility to protect. When he gets in the corner, is he going to give up or is he going to pull the plug? That is a good question. Really whether or not the embargo is successful, or whether or not it is an alternative to war it is still possible, but let us hope that we can continue in the six-month to one-year timeframe and, at every possible opportunity, every second if necessary and through the United Nations or any other body, try to seek a peaceful means to this difficult situation in the world that we have ourselves in.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for his very relevant information and his remarks.
I can only add, and I think he would agree, that it is pretty difficult to gauge ahead of time the actions of a madman. I am not suggesting that Saddam Hussein at this time is clinically insane, but if pushed to the wall, as it were, what would he do as a fanatic on his way down? How many he would take with him? What drastic extreme actions would he take? It is true, he does have some chemical weapons. He may have nerve gas. His missiles apparently are not very accurate and by extending their range they are even less accurate than they

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
were. For example, he could aim the Scud B at Israel and probably miss within 100 kilometres. It is difficult.
There may be a loss of life and that would be tragic. There is no question about it. As I say, I do not think there is any guarantee, now that he has built himself up to this level of armament, now that he is in Kuwait, and now that he is in total control of his situation, even though the economy will begin to suffer, that we can in any way anticipate what he will do. As long as we are there, as long as the blockade is in effect, as long as hopefully by then a United Nations command has a tremendously effective military at its disposal if necessary, and as long as Saddam Hussein knows that he is at the end of the road, that he cannot go any further and that he has got to build down, I think that is all we can hope for.
Hopefully, as my friend has pointed out, when the sanctions really begin to bite, some sense may come into his position and he may indeed then attempt to bargain for some kind of, I will not say compromise, but certainly some end to the stalemate.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, through the years in history we have seen all kinds of dictatorships and we have seen all kinds of efforts to overcome them.
The League of Nations was a great attempt to try to overcome the problems between the two world wars. That organization failed because the stronger nations of the world failed to support it. We saw the consequences of that through six years of horrible war in World War II.
It brings to light another point about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. When he moved to take over Kuwait on August 2, it was an act of international aggression probably more serious than we have seen in 15 years. The question is, are we going to allow this to happen or are we going to take action?
The hon. member for Brant talked about what might have happened in Europe, when Hitler moved into Czechoslovakia and the other countries, if nations at that time should have opposed him. What would the result have been? We all know that at that time the western free countries were not prepared to hold a great war because they did not have the equipment. When World War II broke out, Britain almost collapsed. It had very
few weapons and Canada was the first country to send a major contingent to help.
What I want to point out is this. We will have more Saddam Hussein in world history. It will not stop here. It is the old adage that people who think that we do not need a good solid military force in the free world are just dreaming. We have to be prepared to defend freedom at any time. There is no way in a free and democratic country that force will be used for dictatorial purposes. In Canada, for example, we have had Canadian Forces playing a part in peacekeeping between Iran and Iraq. We are already very educated about the situation there. We have had peacekeeping in Korea and in parts of Africa. Canadians are professional peacekeepers.
In the Persian Gulf we have Saddam Hussein who came forward with a strong army, a fairly strong air force, and chemical weapons which we have not seen used in major warfare since World War 1. All these inhumanities are coming to the fore once again. He is not just a dictator. He is worse than that. We see blatant dictatorship, blatant nationalism and greed on the part of the Iraqi leader and greed is what prompts dictators to move.
On August 2, when Saddam Hussein moved into the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait, the world was suddenly faced with a dilemma. If there is one thing that has been brought to the fore, it is whether or not we should look seriously at reforming the speed at which the United Nations may act under such circumstances. It has always been Canada's position to be peacekeepers under the command of the UN, to unite with other nations to maintain peace, and to maintain international boundaries where there is aggression, but to do it under the flag of the United Nations.
In this case, Canada can back up the resolutions already passed by the United Nations, but we want to see this become a UN force. It is very important, not just for Canada's national policy, what our national policy should be, and that it should be practised, but it is also very important for the years to come. When another fracas break out, nations will say that they will go to war and set up blockades. That is fine, but they will be doing it on their own.
Every time we do that in international affairs in today's world context, we are not doing it under the guise of a United Nations effort and the United Nations mandate. We are weakening the United Nations when we make
October 18, 1990

these acts against other countries without UN mandate. In some cases, you have to move with speed. I think that the nations of the world, having been signatories to the United Nations when it was founded, have to review the speed and the operations with which the UN can operate in times of crisis. In today's world, where you have the speed to handle such things as new technology and communications, things are going to happen overnight and we are going to have the political and the diplomatic machinery to tackle it.
The next thing we are going to have to tackle is that never again in Canadian history should a Prime Minister send our troops and ships to a virtual war zone and assign them to a command outside the United Nations, even though they are under Canadian command. We understand that. They are still in there as a multiforce and they were assigned there not as a United Nations partner but indeed, as a national group.
The Prime Minister refused to call this Parliament together. That is a dictatorial attitude that cannot be accepted in a free country such as Canada. He did not recall Parliament until the date that it was supposed to return anyway. During the summer we had the Iraq crisis on August 2, and the Oka problem was going on in Quebec. These are serious issues and Parliament was not recalled. That is unforgivable. Never again should anything be supported in this House unless the Prime Minister and this government give a firm commitment that they will recall Parliament before making these decisions in the future.
The chemical weapons on the part of Iraq cannot be condemned strongly enough. That is why it is necessary to push forward in the international community in the years ahead to clear the world of chemical weapons so that average individuals throughout the countries of this world are not going to be the victims of dictators.
It is all very well to suggest, and all of us should, that negotiation and armed conflict must be the only option to resolve a crisis in the world. We realize that there comes a time when one cannot deal with a dictator. One cannot negotiate with him and the world must unite. What better than to unite under the United Nations umbrella?
Government Orders
Today, the cold war has subsided and both Russia and the U.S. are against what Iraq is doing. There is no divided world with the cold war going on today. We have a harmony building in the world. I would say that Saddam Hussein may very well be the author of a new evolving world. What he has perpetrated on the Persian Gulf he has brought to world attention. Yes, a new order must evolve in the world. East-west relations must continue to evolve in a peaceful and helpful manner. We must help those nations that need help internationally to readjust to the new and free world. At the same time, neither the United Nations nor any nation with a conscience can stand by and see a dictator, like we have in Iraq today, take over other small countries, because where does it go from there? We have seen the whole formula before.
We are a member of the United Nations Security Council. If there was ever a time when Canada could play a major part in world affairs it is today-to negotiate unity within the Security Council to have a firm UN decision to have a UN force in the Persian Gulf. Canada has been known, over the years, as a good negotiator in the international community. Today the challenge is there, and it should be done.
The Korean war broke out in June 1950. Perhaps a little background history here is necessary. After World War II, Korea was taken from Japan because there was always the old geographical problem there that whoever controlled Korea, that is, if China controlled Korea she could attack Japan easier, if Japan had Korea she could attack China easier. So Korea was taken out of the picture for both of them and the southern half, south of the 38th parallel was taken over as a mandate or a protectorate by the United States and north of the 38th parallel was looked after by Russia.
When the UN sent a commission there to try to promote free elections it was refused entry, north of the 38th parallel, but free elections were held in South Korea. In 1949 the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. moved out of North and South Korea at the same time. By June 1950 there was aggression from North Korea into South Korea and the UN moved in within a matter of days to take over that force. At that time China was not a member of the United Nations Security Council and Russia was staying away from the United Nations Securi-

Government Orders
ty Council because it was protesting the fact that China was not a member. In the absence of both China and Russia, the UN passed the decision in a hurry to send a UN force into South Korea.
I want to make a special note here of that event, because I think it is relative in today's events with Iraq. Desmond Crowley who wrote a book entitled The Background to Current Affairs, published in 1963, had this to say about the UN force in Korea. He said:
Thus the step Truman had taken was approved, and the countermeasures against the Communist forces, though conducted primarily by the United States with the assistance of small contingents from the Commonwealth, Ibrkey and a few other countries, were recognised as a UN action.
That statement, coming from an historian, is an insult to this country because Canada, considering the population of the country at the time, had more soldiers in South Korea on a per capita basis than any other nation of the world, including the United States. That is a fact that we have to remember. There are times when we do these things and people do not realize we are doing them because they are always considering numbers instead of the basic effort that is being made in proportion to the resources and the population of a country. Canada does not have to back up from anybody in that regard.
In an attempt to make Iraq the most powerful country in the Persian Gulf region, Saddam Hussein has over the last decade transformed his country's army into the region's most powerful military machine, waged a long and damaging war with Iran and used banned chemical weapons on his own people.
That tells us why he is in Kuwait today. There are no principles involved in this at all. This man has got to be brought to task and treated under the international law of this world. August 2 saw him finally elicit an outraged response by the whole world when he attacked and took over the tiny oil rich emirate of Kuwait. Nobody agreed with him.
By August 6, the United States reached an agreement with Saudi Arabia to deploy U.S. forces on Saudi territory. That was a relatively easy thing to do because the nations in that part of the Persian Gulf very realistically feared what Iraq was going to do next.
At that time on August 6, the Prime Minister of Canada was summoned to Washington by George Bush where he declared support for a naval blockade to
enforce the mandatory economic and trade sanctions imposed against Iraq, although the UN has given no support for such action.
Here is where we failed the United Nations, because the Prime Minister should have been leading the diplomatic effort in the United Nations to make this a total UN force.
Under international law, of course, the imposition of a naval blockade constitutes an act of war. On August 10, NATO foreign ministers agreed to respond on an individual country basis to a request by the U.S. for military contributions to the gulf.
Later that day, the Prime Minister announced the deployment of two destroyers and one supply ship, along with over 900 military personnel. At that time he made it clear that the deployment was in direct response to the United States' request for aid in deterring Iraqi aggression and not a contribution to any United Nations effort to enforce sanctions.
On August 25, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the use of minimal military forces belonging to individual states to ensure the implementation of sanctions.
On September 10, NATO members were again asked by the United States to provide additional military forces to the gulf. On September 14, the Prime Minister of Canada announced that the ships in the Mediterranean would be put on active service as of September 15. Of course, it took them that other day to make it through the Suez.
He also announced new deployments which included a squadron of CF-18 fighter aircraft and 450 associated personnel, 500 land based support for the warships and several transport aircraft to move troops and evacuate refugees.
Finally, on September 15 the Government of Canada passed an Order in Council placing the three war ships and all other Canadian military elements that will operate in the gulf on active service. In doing so, the government successfully avoided recalling Parliament before it was scheduled to resume.
This is why I say we have a dictatorial attitudinal problem over here with the Prime Minister of Canada. The involvement of a country in what could turn out to be armed conflict is not something that should have been done behind the backs of the people of Canada, and
October 18, 1990

indeed behind the backs of those Canadians sitting right here in this Parliament.
Great Britain's Parliament was recalled. The mother of democracies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House, I feel we have a special responsibility to help maintain Parliament Hill as the dominant feature of this city. The Parliament Buildings and the site as such are not only an important symbol to Canadians, they are also a symbol of Canada throughout the world.

Height controls have been maintained by agreement between the city of Ottawa and the federal government for at least 20 years. All capital cities of consequence maintain such height controls.
Increased building heights in the core of the capital city would adversely affect and compromise the Parliament Buildings as the country's most important symbol.

We earnestly hope that when the City of Ottawa reviews its official plan, it will take the necessary steps to protect the status of these buildings and other national symbols, for the benefit of present and future generations.


DOMINION TEXTILE INC.
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Dominion Textile announced that it will be closing its plant in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and moving its operation to Magog, Quebec.
This closure will cost the town some 330 jobs, in addition to the 70 jobs it lost this fall to its U.S. company. This is about one-third of the total textile jobs in all of Nova Scotia.
Textiles has been the largest employer in Yarmouth for over a century. It survived the great depression, but it will not survive this government's monetary and trade policies.
In its letter to me yesterday Dominion Textile stated in its attached press release:
- the competitive position of both the Magog and Yarmouth plants is negatively affected by low manufacturing volumes. The inevitable decision to consolidate the two operations favoured Magog because a significantly lower capital investment is required to meet the needs of our industrial products business.
I call upon this government to set up an immediate commission to study why the costs are significantly lower for capital investment in Quebec over the Atlantic provinces. Perhaps this would be a job for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to study why in Atlantic Canada investment costs are are higher and make us non-competitive.


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Science and Technology Week, from October 12 to October 21.
More than 600 events, embracing the depths of the ocean as well as outer space, will take place in various communities across Canada. I would like to draw the attention of the House more particularly to the Rosem-ere amateur aerospace centre in Quebec, where children can visit "outer space" while learning about science and engineering.
During this week, Mr. Speaker, the government will organize official signing ceremonies with announcements about the latest contributions to the centres of excellence. Certificates will be awarded as well, under the Scholarship Program for 1990-1991.
I urge everyone to participate in these events with great enthusiasm, because our future lies in developing science and technology.


NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVES WEEK
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows this is Co-Operatives Week. What better opportunity for the government in this special week to correct a serious wrong that has been done to the co-operative movement.
The GST leaves retail co-operatives at a decided disadvantage to their competition. All contributions to the share equity of co-operatives will be taxed. This is not so for their competition.
Services provided to local co-operatives by parent co-operatives will be taxed; not so with other similar retail businesses. To give an example, Co-Op Atlantic estimates the effects of the GST will give it a $1.3 million dollar a year competitive deficit. The total impact on this tilted playing field on co-operatives will be astronomical. This is unfair.
The best solution for the government is to withdraw the goods and services tax. At the very least, the government should remove the negative effects of the GST on co-operatives. It is National Co-Operatives Week. The thousands of people who are employed by or depend on Canadian co-operatives are waiting on this government's response.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the last few years, I on behalf of many residents of Brandon-Souris have expressed in Parliament my concerns respecting the widespread sale of pornography which often features the sadistic exploitation of women and children.
I would like, therefore, to take note of a recent court decision in Ontario in which District Court Judge Hugh Locke sentenced what The Globe and Mail in Toronto described as a "Pom Seller" to an unprecedented six months in jail as well as levying a $25,000 fine. According to the August 21,1990 edition of The Globe and Mail, the publications in question contained "racial slurs and encouraged 'twisted deviates' to have sex with children and commit incest, rape and violence".
At a time when many contend that the judiciary is often too lenient, many of my constituents will enthusiastically applaud Judge Locke's decision.


NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, another Canadian, Richard Taylor, has won a Nobel Prize for physics, and we should be proud. Yet how can that pride not be tempered with regret and humiliation about the fact that he had to win that prize by working in the United States. Why? Because this country's pitiful support for science made it impossible for him to work here.
While Conservative government platitudes proliferate about the importance of research and development, its words speak far louder than its actions. Science in this country is suffering and thousands of Canadian workers are suffering because industrial jobs that can be saved only by new technologies are taking permanent flight to Mexico and the United States.
Dr. Taylor's prize, then, deserved and laudable though it may be, is just one more reminder of what The Ottawa Citizen headline said this morning: "We're behind and falling further behind in the area of science and technology-and nobody seems to care".
Canada, happy National Science and Technology Week.


PERSONS DAY
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the achievements of women from Alberta, and particularly two women who lived in communities within my riding of Macleod.
Today is the 61st anniversary of the Privy Council decision which recognized women as "persons" in the eyes of the law or the Persons case.
Louise McKinney of Claresholm in 1917 became the first woman elected to a legislature in the Commonwealth.
October 18, 1990

Henrietta Edwards was a resident of Fort Macleod and was also a central figure in organizing the Victorian Order of Nurses.
Together with three other women from Alberta, these leaders established the right of women to serve in the Senate of Canada.
The first woman appointed from Alberta to the other place was Senator Martha Bielish, recently retired, who was appointed by the forward looking Progressive Conservative government in 1979.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the need to train physicians from the aboriginal community resulted in the establishment in 1979 of the special premedical studies program at the University of Manitoba.
Fiscal contribution to this program was 60 per cent from the federal government until it cancelled the agreement last March 31. Federal support has since been nil, contradicting the assurance conveyed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare last August 9 to the people in charge of the program.
The Manitoba government has now given notice it would not renew the contract beyond the end of this academic year and therefore recruitment of new students would be put on hold. This is a pity since the success rate of this program has been high. It is ironic since presently other medical schools are trying to set up similar models.
I therefore urge this government to take action now, keep its word and not proceed to dismantle this program but instead re-establish a long-term federal-provincial agreement in the interest not only of our aboriginal peoples but of all Canadians.

[Translation}


THE SENATE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in today's press, we read that yesterday the Liberal senators lost the first round in their fight against the GST, when their
court challenge to the appointment of the latest senator from New Brunswick by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was rejected.
According to Mr. Justice Nicholson McRae of the Ontario Court, the Constitution gave the Prime Minister the authority to designate more senators from New Brunswick than the number of members that province has in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal senators and the Liberal Party of Canada should tell Canadians today, quite frankly, who is going to pay the court costs. Canadian tax payers, Mr. Speaker?


TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, this month marks the sixth anniversary of a tragic plane crash in the community of Fort Franklin in the western arctic which claimed seven lives. My constituents held a memorial feast on October 9.
The end of this month also marks the last day that the federal government will provide weather and communications services for air travel through Fort Franklin. For six years the residents of the community have been pleading with three ministers of transportation, including the Deputy Prime Minister, to upgrade aviation services for the sake of safety. And what does this government do? It deletes the service altogether.
In many remote communities in my riding air carriers have refused flights including emergencies and medivacs because of the dangerous conditions resulting from insufficient radio, weather, and runway condition reports provided by Transport Canada.
I am not exaggerating. People's lives are at stake. The review of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board of the 1984 fatal accident determined the plane crash was avoidable, had there been qualified weather reporting and communication services.
Will the minister accept my invitation of October 1-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.

October 18, 1990


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier- Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told us that the price of gas would go up by 10 cents a litre. It was also said during this press conference that the Maritime provinces and Quebec did not have a guaranteed supply of oil.
However, under the Canada-Newfoundland Agreement, the Maritimes will have a guaranteed supply as a result of Hibernia, and only Quebec will be left without any guarantees at all.
English Canada refuses to recognize the distinct society, but it always treats Quebec in a way that is very distinct indeed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: There are Francophones outside Quebec as well!


THE SENATE
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, reformed arrogance is the worst arrogance of all.
Yesterday we heard the unelected leader of the Liberal Party ordering the unelected Liberals in the unelected Senate to subvert the will of the legitimate elected government.
In the crowd of unelected Liberal senators is one virtually indistinguishable elected senator. This Reform senator also dances to the tune of his unelected leader, Preston Manning. This Reform senator collects four government pensions, collects his senator's salary, plus $153 per day for showing up in the upper house.
This Reform senator has not cut his salary by 15 per cent as he was told to do by Mr. Manning. Instead, he collects it all and donates 10 per cent of his salary only to charity, thus avoiding taxes to the Government of Canada.
"Reformed charlatan", I call it. The worst arrogance of all is reformed arrogance. Elected senators have proven to be the most arrogant senators of all.


CANADIAN NATIONAL
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, many will recall that during the election of 1988 I released a confidential internal CN document which predicted that CN was planning to get rid of 17,000 of its employees. Just last week we had an announcement of a lay-off of 1,500, an announcement which follows upon many other similar announcements, and CN is well on its way to doing what unfortunately I had the opportunity to reveal it was planning to do as far back as 1988.
I think what we need to recognize here is that these are lay-offs driven by policies of this government. Deregulation in transportation, which is the equivalent of free trade in transportation, has led to a wrong emphasis on trucking, on highways, and on further consumption of fossil fuels instead of having a structure, a tax system and other things which favour the use of railways, the most environmentally sound way of moving goods and people, but precisely the opposite of this is what the government is doing while it claims to be a friend of the environment.


PERSONS DAY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Persons Day and remember the courageous women who made it possible.
Sixty-nine years ago Agnes MacPhail became the first woman to sit in the Canadiah Parliament. Eight years later, on October 18, 1929, women were finally recognized legally as persons.
Even Canada Post has recognized the contribution made by Agnes MacPhail and recently released a stamp in her honour.
Unfortunately on this Persons Day we are reminded that the federal government does not recognize the full equality of women, having cut back on women's programs and brought in the proposed abortion bill, a challenge to the very personhood and right to choices which we won 61 years ago.
I ask the government on Persons Day to make the commitment to real equality for women in this country.
October 18, 1990


REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Mr. Speaker, the head of the Reform Party in B.C. says that he would like to run candidates in the next provincial election. The leader of the Reform Party of Canada says he cannot do that. The head of the Reform Party in B.C. asks why should a man across the mountains in Alberta tell the B.C. people how they should run things?
As a matter of fact, why should an executive tell the people in B.C., or 500 delegates in a convention tell the people of B.C. what to do?
There is a solution. All they have to do is hold a referendum within the rank and file of the party. After all, this is the solution that they want to have for all the people of Canada. If it is good enough for the people of Canada, why not good enough for the party? There is a problem. It might cause Preston Manning to lose his iron grip on the party or it might force the party to practise what it preaches, and that would be a little tough on it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in a speech in Ottawa, the minister finally came very close to using the dreaded R-word. He said: "We may well have had a second negative quarter". Everybody else calls that a recession.
Just a few minutes ago, the Bank of Canada announced that it was raising its bank rate. Today in committee, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that he-and this means the government-would persist with its interest rate policies, but gave no recognition to the damage these policies are doing by way of loss of jobs and plant closings.
Why will the Minister of Finance not admit that it is these policies, his policies, that caused our present recession, the first made-in-Canada recession? Why will
Oral Questions
he not admit what everybody else is saying, that we are in a recession and reverse these policies before they cause even more damage to Canadian workers and Canadian communities?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians might take the Leader of the Opposition more seriously if he would acknowledge that the delay by the Senate of major pieces of financial legislation is damaging for this country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That's false.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says it is false. He should read what the Economic Council has said, what other organizations have said, that if we cannot get our fiscal deficit down or, let me be more precise, it says that it is important to get our fiscal deficit down so that we can have lower interest rates.
The hon. member wants to see lower interest rates. Why is it that he and his caucus colleagues, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard and others are saying to the senators "keep up the good work. Stop this finance legislation. Don't allow the government to have the bills passed that will help it get its deficit down". These are the precise bills the organizations said last week must be passed so the government can get on with lowering its deficit and that will take the pressure off interest rates. If the Leader of the Opposition would be true to his conscience, he would agree with me.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is desperately but not successfully trying to blame everyone but himself and his government for the mess we are in right now.
In his speech yesterday he was trying to blame the current economic mess first on the Persian Gulf crisis, and even on Canadian workers who are the victims of his policies.
I say to the minister that months before the Persian Gulf crisis in August, starting in January of this year, we began losing industrial manufacturing jobs. We lost over 160,000 according to Statistics Canada since the beginning of this year. Instead of blaming everyone but himself, the minister should look at himself in the mirror and recognize the culprit. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not blaming anyone. I am looking for solutions. One of those solutions to help get the deficit down, and which many organizations say will help us get interest rates down, is for the Leader of the Opposition and Jean Chretien, his boss, to pick up the phone and call Allan MacEachen because Allan MacEachen clearly is not calling him.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Rubbish.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Rubbish, the hon. member says.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place is saying that he is going to go ahead and do these things and he is not going to care about what the member for LaSalle-Emard says, or for what the member for Ottawa-Vanier says or what the member for York-South Weston says.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking for solutions. One of the solutions to dealing with the problem is to get this legislation through because if we cannot get it through, it is going to make it far more difficult to get interest rates down than under the current situation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in blaming the minister and his government for our economic situation, the Economic Council of Canada did not mention the Senate. In saying that we have the first made-in-Canada recession, in other words, made by the policies of this government, the Conference Board of Canada did not blame the Senate. Scotia-Mac-Leod, the investment bankers, did not blame the Senate when they said, "if we continue on our present high interest rate, high-dollar trend, Canada will lose a great deal of output in labour intensive areas to countries like Mexico or even the United States."

I therefore want to ask the minister why he will not admit that he and his government created our present economic wasteland and that he and his government are responsible.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear on many occasions why we are in the position that we are with the high interest rates that we have today.
The precise reason is that through 1988 and 1989, as a result of the very strong growth we had in this country, we reached the edge of our capacity to produce. That led to inflationary pressures. We could have ignored those inflationary pressures, as was done earlier in the 1970s and 1980s, but we chose not to do so because we knew if we had ignored those problems, we would have far more serious problems on our hands six months or a year or two down the road.
We faced up to those problems. We brought in a higher interest rate policy precisely to fight the inflationary pressures. We are getting those inflationary pressures under control and as they get further under control, we will be able to see a further reduction in interest rates over and above the 150 basis points that we have seen so far in the last three months.
This is the policy we have been following. It is a policy that is supported by the Economic council. It is a policy that is supported by other people in the business community. What they would like to see is further action taken on the deficit to take the pressure off interest rates. As I have said time and time again, the members opposite have never provided any support whatsoever to allow-


An hon. member:: Nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Nonsense he says. There has never been any support whatsoever to help us get the deficit down and help us deal with the problems of the high interest rate policy.



Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment on the Rafferty-Alameda project.
The one deal the minister will admit to making with Premier Devine says specifically that Saskatchewan will not acquire land for the Alameda dam. On Friday, the minister told the House and I quote: "The Saskatchewan cannot proceed with Alameda because they do not have the land, they have not even started the expropriation process". In fact, negotiations to acquire the land have been under way and were in progress as late as 7 p.m. yesterday.
Why did the minister tell the House they have not even started the expropriation process?
October 18, 1990


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat something I mentioned on a number of occasions before this House.
I am under a court order to have a panel at work. I will comply with that order. I will meet my obligation to appoint a panel as soon as possible to resume the environmental assessment work that was stopped last week.
At the same time, I said that the government would take the necessary steps to ensure that the Alameda project not proceed until a full and proper environmental assessment can be completed.
I would like to tell the House this afternoon that I am instructing officials to seek an injunction on continued construction and land acquisition related to the Rafferty-Alameda project.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, in response to questions yesterday, the minister consistently referred to a full environmental review process only for the Alameda dam part of the Rafferty-Alameda project.
The predecessor to the minister knew in April from the panel reviewing the project that construction was proceeding on the project. He was told that it was the understanding of the panel members when appointed that none of this work would occur. He was there in July when he knew the work was proceeding.
Yesterday why was the minister only referring to the Alameda project. Has the minister given up on the Rafferty dam? Has he given up on the channelization? Will he tell us specifically what he is doing about the entire project and the construction of that project?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think my answer to the first question was very clear, indeed.
I will read it again. I am instructing officials to seek an injunction on continued construction and land acquisition related to the Rafferty-Alameda project.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
There has been considerable confusion over the Rafferty-Alameda project. The minister says today that he is seeking an injunction.
Oral Questions
I would be interested to know what the deal was, because we have heard several different versions. Premier Devine said that a deal was cut. I hope that this Minister of the Environment is not going to be the kind of Minister of the Environment who cuts deals behind closed doors.
I want to ask the Minister of the Environment this. On what grounds is the injunction pursued? Did he cut a deal with Premier Devine? What are the grounds for the injunction?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly yesterday that we were looking at a number of options to deal with this issue.
We were looking at going to the courts to have a clarification for an injunction. We were looking at the possibility of applying some sections of the Fisheries Act, a statutory form of action in this case. We were looking towards an agreement that, unfortunately, does not seem to be possible at this time to stop construction on Rafferty-Alameda.
What I am saying today is that following those discussions, we have opted to seek an injunction from the courts to stop construction on Rafferty-Alameda.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has known for some time that there were many problems with the Rafferty-Alameda dam. I have a letter here from the hon. Minister of Transport saying that a licence had not been granted under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for this project.
This means that back in August the licences had not been received. At that time, the Minister of Transport said: "Given the fact that this project has been recommended for a public panel review under EARP, no action will be taken on the Navigable Waters Protection Act application until the panel has rendered its decision."
There is no panel. There is no decision. I say to the Minister of the Environment that he knew in August that all of the proper licences had not been received. Why did he not take action then?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I met with the various groups that are concerned on this issue.



Oral Questions
I met with the governments. I met with the proponents of the project. I met with the opponents of the project, and we went through all that back in late July and early August.
We have four documents before us. We have a licence. We have a court order. We have an agreement, and we have the terms of reference for the panel.
I can tell my hon. colleague that the conditions under the licence were fulfilled. I believe that up until last Friday the conditions under the court order were fulfilled, and we are now going to seek legal redress under the terms of the agreement pursuant to what has been said or done over the last five days.
concerned, intend to impose a full set of environmental impact studies for both the dam and the infrastructures?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have had two conversations with my Quebec counterpart within the last few days. In fact, it was this week. We are now in the last stages of setting up a commission to review the environmental impact of the James Bay project. We are having a detailed discussion of the terms of reference, which will cover the infrastructures as well as the project itself. There will be public hearings there as there are elsewhere. In fact, the process has been discussed for several months by both levels of government. That was the gist of the understanding I reached with Mr. Paradis this week.
* [DOT]


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.

Yesterday, the Quebec Minister of the Environment stated that the lack of public hearings on the Rafferty-Alameda dam might create a dangerous precedent. He urged the federal government to take a firm stand. Today, we get the same message from the report Green-print for Canada. The government is accused of dangerous negligence with respect to the environment. My question for the minister is this: How will he respond to the Quebec minister and to all those who tell him the environment comes first?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, my answer is quite simple. There will be public hearings, as planned, on the Rafferty-Alameda project, and there will be public hearings, as planned, on other projects we shall be dealing with in the months and years to come. Let there be no mistake! And that is exactly what I said in my answer to the first question I was asked today.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: That is not the
point, Mr. Speaker. The Quebec Minister of the Environment said, and I quote: "That the federal government's record with respect to the Rafferty-Alameda project creates a dangerous precedent that threatens public hearings on the James Bay project." My question is this: Does the minister, as far as James Bay is


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about discussions. Will there be public hearings before the work starts? The minister should stop beating around the bush. What is at stake here, Mr. Speaker, is not just Rafferty or James Bay, it is the whole integrity of Bill C-78.
The Quebec Environment Minister has already shown a lot of backbone. The point is this: does the federal minister intend to act likewise? Will he amend Bill C-78 to guarantee compulsory studies before any work whatsoever is started?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about public hearings for James Bay, the answer is, obviously, yes. When we are talking about legislation and regulations, I would appreciate it if the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard would help smooth the way for discussions on Bill C-78 so that we can finally get the bill to committee where we can have a thorough discussion. Of course we want reviews and public hearings before the project starts, and so I would appreciate the hon. member's co-operation in getting Bill C-78 to committee.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. As he knows, the Rafferty-Alameda Dam projects are governed in part by an international agreement. In that international agreement, the Americans agreed to pay for part of those dams.

October 18, 1990

Has the minister asked the Americans to stop payments, given his own inability to stop the project?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I replied to an earlier question today by saying that I am instructing my officials to seek an injunction on continued construction and land acquisition related to the Rafferty-Alameda project.
I think that is quite a direct and definite statement. We are not in a position right now to go any further than this, quite obviously. We are appointing a panel to look at all the environmental consequences and we are stopping construction and land acquisition.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, we watched this minister stumble for the last week looking for some ways of stopping this project. He gives us this weak injunction. We give him a second option in the international agreement. Obviously he does not even know about the international agreement.
Again, he can ask the Americans to stop payments. Under the same agreement, we agreed to give progress reports on water quality. How can the minister guarantee water quality when he does not have an environmental review process?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have committed to two things, and very clearly, in the House today. I have committed to have a full review process, a full environmental assessment process, and I have committed to have an injunction sought on further land acquisition or construction on the Rafferty-Alameda project.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the government has made a mockery of the environmental assessment review process from Rafferty-Alameda to James Bay, and now to Alcan.
In British Columbia the government abandoned the process all together by exempting the Alcan project from a review. In 1984 the Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition campaigning for votes, promised a full environmental review of the project.
Oral Questions
Will the Minister of the Environment follow through on the Prime Minister's promise and order a full and complete environmental assessment of that project?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the hon. member would raise a question about the Kemano project. We had an independent panel of 10 very distinguished Canadians, chaired by the President of UBC. That panel went through an exhaustive review of the project and, in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, held public consultations. The panel recommended a long list of measures that were incorporated into a signed agreement between the Government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, and the company. We went through a process that I doubt could be attacked on any grounds for lack of efficiency and objectivity.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans-three or four biologists now-reject the minister's point of view. They are suggesting in fact that the government put political pressure on scientists to justify the decision of the government-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: That's quite an accusation.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member could put his question.


Brian L. Gardiner: That accusation is being made by biologists in the department.
Will the Minister of the Environment conduct an immediate investigation into these allegations by these Fisheries and Oceans officials that the government has completely sabotaged the environment assessment review process? Why doesn't he put an injunction on this project, too?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can only invite my hon. colleague, if he has got any evidence of any political influence in the environmental process, to send it to my office.

October 18, 1990
Oral Questions
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there has never been, to my knowledge, any political pressure put on the environmental assessment process.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the reply given by the Minister of Finance who mentioned the importance of the GST in reducing the federal deficit. I would like to direct the following question to the Minister of Finance, namely, whether today, the Minister is prepared to acknowledge that the GST is going to be an endless source of revenue for the government, which is why he wants the passage of this bill.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will say that the GST will make us more competitive as a nation. It improve the capacity of our economy to create jobs. That will generate revenues. That will help us deal with the deficit more effectively.
But the import of my response earlier to his colleague was that it is not just the GST that is being held up in the House. It is the unemployment insurance reform, it is the large corporations tax, and it is the expenditure reduction bill, Bill C-69-all of which are designed to get the deficit down.
I say to my hon. friend, he would have more credibility if he would pick up the phone, call the people in the Senate and say: "Look, we in the Liberal Party are concerned about the deficit because, if we can get the deficit under control better, then we can have lower interest rates and we want to get interest rates under control."
I can see by the way my colleague opposite in the Liberal Party is nodding his head is that he agrees with that approach. I would encourage him to get up, go down the hall, speak to Mr. MacEachen, and provide some leadership from the other side to get this legislation moving, allow us to get on with the job of getting the deficit down, and allow us to get on with the job of getting interest rates down.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, if the minister keeps this up, there is certainly no guarantee he is going to get to heaven.
If the Minister of Finance is interested in what is happening and who is picking up phones, he might be interested in speaking with the Prime Minister when he returns from New Brunswick. The Prime Minister will tell him what he is hearing on the phones in New Brunswick today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, today the Governor of the Bank of Canada said he was going to continue with his monetary policy and today interest rates are up, even though it is marginally. Did the Minister of Finance, in his meeting with the Governor of the Bank of Canada today, approve the increase in interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a silly question. The hon. members knows that I cannot disclose what has been discussed by myself with the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Those are confidential meetings and he understands that.
We have to realize today that there has been a significant drop in the value of the Canadian dollar over the past three or four days and one of the automatic, normal market reactions is to see some increase in interest rates. That is what we saw in the Treasury Bill tendered today.
I say to my friend, he is expressing a good deal of concern for the economic policy and the economic direction of the country. If he is sincerely concerned about this, where are the alternative policies? Where are the alternatives to how best we should handle these economic issues? We are dealing with these issues as a responsible government. I am not hearing anything from the opposition parties as to what their alternatives are and how they are going to deal with this. If you do not have alternatives, stay in the bleachers. You don't have any role down here on the playing-field.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
October 18, 1990

Oral Questions


MANUFACTURING SECTOR
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the workers at Dominion Textile joined the long line of Canadian workers who are being bled to death by the policies of the Minister of Finance and the government.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that in the first nine months of this year, the number of unemployed workers in the manufacturing sector has increased by 17.65 per cent? Is he prepared to justify to those workers that they have to die to go to heaven?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not enjoy seeing people lose their jobs. I do not enjoy seeing the Dominion Textile plant in Yarmouth being closed. But we have to understand that the reason why that plant is being closed is that it is over 100 years old and it is moving to more modern facilities. That is, unfortunately, the process that an economy goes through as we see technology take hold in different places. But we do not take any pleasure in that at all.
What my hon. friend ignores, when she talks about what has happened in the last few months, is the fact that we have had 1,600,000 jobs created in the last six years. These jobs are created because of the policies that we have been following as a government. But, as I have said on many occasions, we have been pushing at the extent of the capacity of our country to produce those jobs and that has resulted in the high interest rates that we have today. As we get through this period, we will be able to get back onto a path of non-inflationary growth again and that will allow us to create good solid jobs in the future.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Acting Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Considering the 44 per cent increase in unemployment in the manufacturing industry since the beginning of this year, I would like to ask him why his department has no programs in place to help workers who are now being zapped by this government's economic policies?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology has, indeed, been looking very carefully at this situation and we are aware that a rationalization process is going on in almost every sector of the Canadian economy. What we would ask the hon. member, in turn, to do would be to tell her colleagues in the other place to move Bill C-21 through so we can have more training money and make it easier on the people.


THE ECONOMY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the litany continues. Today it is Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, that has lost 300 textile jobs. In southwestern Ontario, plant closures are a daily occurrence. Throughout Canada thousands of transportation jobs are being lost, all because of the deliberate policies of this government; the free trade agreement, high interest, the high dollar, a recession, and, in the wings, the GST.
The Minister of Transport says that he is not, and this government is not, in the business of creating jobs but opportunities. Where? Where? In the United States and Mexico?
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: When is this government going to stop creating misery in this country, stop this economic haemorrhage that is so cruelly punishing to so many Canadians?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very familiar with the automotive situation. While there have indeed been some plant closures because of rationalization, what the hon. member does not tell you is that Ford of Canada, for example, is putting in a $64 million aluminum casting plant in Windsor.
Chrysler is investing $250 million to upgrade its minivan plant, NKK-Dofasco is investing $250 million in a new plant galvanizing operation which will be in Windsor. I can go on. Joh Rubber has recently opened a new plant in Leamington.
Mr. Speaker, all they want to talk about are those that close. They do not want to talk about the things that open.

October 18, 1990
Oral Questions


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister yesterday for the first time talked about the probability of a recession in this country. Today we have seen the Bank of Canada raise its interest rate instead of continuing to decrease it. I want to ask this minister why he has been prepared to permit this final guarantee of recession to be taken on the part of the Bank of Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have been talking about a potential weakness in the economy going back to my budget of February of this year. I do not know where my hon. friend has been. He refers to the question of interest rates today. There is a seven basis point, seven one-hundredths of one per cent, increase in the bank rate today, but there has been a 150 basis point drop since the end of May of this year.
I would also remind my friend that this is against the backdrop of over a one-cent drop in the Canadian dollar and it is a natural response of the marketplace to see some upward movement in interest rates as we have seen that significant drop in the level of the Canadian dollar.
As I have said on many occasions, as we see further continuation of the easing of inflationary pressures, if there is further weakness in the economy, we will be able to get interest rates down further.


MINING EXPLORATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. For several months now mining exploration has been practically moribond in Quebec, particularly in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region. Can the minister tell us today whether he has new measures to help the mining sector in Quebec and in the rest of Canada?


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Abitibi realizes, the mines ministers' conference in August discussed exploration across this country.
This year in Canada, between $750 million and $850 million worth of exploration is going on across this country.
There are regions in the country where there is not the amount of exploration going on that has gone on in other years. Our department will continue to work with the industry to see what can be looked at.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, more than incentive programs are required with the price of metal today. The stock market and investment for Canadians in Canada Savings Bonds seems to be areas in which investment is being looked at.


THE CONSTITUTION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to ask him what is the constitutional policy of his government with respect to the Quebec-Canada axis, considering that last June the Prime Minister told Canadians that the government would never take unilateral action in the constitutional field. A few days later the Premier of Quebec said that never again would there be multilateral constitutional negotiations, and finally in August the Prime Minister also rejected any bilateral action. For all practical purposes, the Quebec-Canada axis is in a state of limbo and all bridges have been cut. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Is the status quo the constitutional policy of his government or, better still, is the Prime Minister increasingly prepared to acknowledge Quebec's de facto sovereignty?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing federal-provincial meetings in various sectors, be it agriculture or energy. It is entirely up to the government of the Province of Quebec as to whether it wishes to participate.
Speaking from an agricultural point of view, we continue to have ongoing discussions. At our recent meeting of federal-provincial ministers held in Moncton, the minister of agriculture for the Province of Quebec did attend and did participate.
October 18, 1990


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Regarding the government's future proposals on constitutional matters, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, considering that this week the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology decided to put aside his usual restraint and suggest ways in which there could be a rapprochement with English Canada, that the Minister of State (Federal-provincial Relations) says that nothing will happen it's business as usual-and that the Prime Minister has promised constitutional change, my question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: will it be real constitutional change or just a rabbit out of hat, in other words, a Charest Report Phase II, concocted with Jean Chretien?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I can advise the hon. member that this is something that is under active consideration and there will indeed be a constitutional national unity initiative outlined by the federal government in due course.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture). Yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated that the price of gas in Canada might go up another 10 cents a litre. Will the minister immediately take steps to establish a task force that will investigate whether Canadian consumers are being gouged by excessively high prices?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be aware of what happened yesterday and of what my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, at a meeting with the provincial ministers, and it is quite
Oral Questions
clear- if the hon. member would care to listen, it is quite clear that..


M. Douglas Young: We're listening.


Pierre Blais: I apologize.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Go for it!


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my colleague met the provincial ministers and explained the situation. All the governments know their respective responsibilities. The provinces have the power to intervene. It is up to the federal government to keep a close watch on the situation and ensure there are no shortages in this country and that Canadian consumers will be able to buy gas when they need it.
Second, I have a duty to ensure there is no collusion between the parties involved to cause excessively high price increases beyond the free market price. That is what we are watching, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I also have a duty to keep track of this, and I am not very happy about these high prices. However, I am aware of the situation. The minister met his counterparts, and we will continue to watch the situation very closely.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources also stated that a gas rationing plan is being looked at. The Consumers Association of Canada view this as a red herring. What we are really witnessing is a classic case of price gouging. Canadians want protection now. They do not want to be told two years down the road that they were taken at the pumps. What is the minister going to do to protect consumers from price gouging today?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear this. If the hon. member has any indication that the legislation has been broken, he has a responsibility to go to the Competition Bureau and advise the director. I am a little surprised at the member. If we had followed his party's position some years ago when it was in office, the cost would be over $100 a barrel in Canada. He should be ashamed about what his party did in those days.

Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. At the Changing Atmosphere conference in Toronto a couple of years ago, 300 leading scientists urged that global carbon dioxide pollution be reduced by at least 20 per cent by the year 2005.
Yesterday, the environment committee recommended the same. The Second World Climate Conference in Geneva is only weeks away, but according to the minister, the government does not have a position on carbon dioxide reductions; no targets, no schedules and no percentages.
Will the minister today tell Canadians and the nations participating in Geneva what the government's position is on carbon dioxide pollution?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the report of the committee on the environment was tabled after Question Period yesterday. I received a copy of it. I can tell the hon. member that I am looking at that report very closely, as is my colleague, the minister of energy. Our position is the same as we have maintained since Bergen. We will look at that report, hopefully we will have ideas and hopefully there will be some solutions indicated.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the public is very anxious to know the position of the Government of Canada and to be assured that the government is not only giving good speeches, but also acting on the environment.
In view of the fact that three governments, two of which are industrial nations, Germany and Denmark, have already announced a commitment to reduce pollution of CO2 by 20 per cent by the year 2005, will the Government of Canada follow that leadership?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have made the commitments in international fora before on CO2. This government is very concerned about CO2 emissions. But before making commitments that just may be a wish or a motherhood statement, we want to tell Canadians exactly what the implications are all about.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. There has been a lot of loose talk lately about gasoline rationing. However, much more likely is a program to encourage significant but voluntary conservation measures. For the sake of the environment, we in the NDP applaud and support such conservation measures and encourage further efforts in this regard.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the government will invoke Article 904 of the free trade agreement to cause exports of Canadian oil and gas going to the U.S. to be reduced by the same percentage as the drop in Canadian consumption achieved by these voluntary conservation measures?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I find that quite interesting from a colleague from western Canada who should be a supporter of the industry and the manner in which it performs.
It is nothing new for the NDP to be fighting the free trade battle. You've lost. What we are going to move forward with is monitoring and working with our provincial counterparts to ensure that a stable energy source for Canada will continue. This is the commitment given by the minister and by his provincial counterparts.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I hope the government understands what it is dealing with here.
If we do not reduce the percentage of Canadian production going to the United States to a degree equivalent to that by which we reduce our own consumption, the free trade ratchet works to ensure that it must be allowed that greater supply in future.
Is the government really intending to induce a cutback in Canadian consumption of Canadian oil and gas while allowing American consumption of Canadian oil and gas to continue unabated?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
October 18, 1990


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday I would like to ask the government House leader what is the legislative program for the coming week and possibly for the next week also.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with a motion respecting the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
Tomorrow, which is Friday, we will be proceeding hopefully to completion of second reading on Bill C-74, the act respecting the Fisheries Act, and hopefully to completion of third reading on Bill C-37, the Canadian Heritage Language Institute bill.
If we get lucky and co-operative, we may even deal with Bill C-73, the bill respecting the dissolution of certain Crown corporations.
On Monday it is my intention to call for continuation of second reading of Bill C-78, the environmental assessment legislation.
On Tuesday I would hope to call-there are the usual caveats in terms of changes of plans-Bill C-84, the Petro-Canada bill.


Mr. Speaker:: There are several members who wish to rise on points of order. Of course I will eventually deal with them. However, I have a question of privilege which must take priority.


PRIVILEGE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, today I rise on a question of privilege specifically to argue that certain members of the New Democratic Party participated in an action which demonstrated a clear contempt against yourself personally and this House generally.
In my argument I will make a serious charge against a member of this House and will support this charge with a
Privilege
motion as required by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I wish to remind members of the process that will follow my charges.
First, Mr. Speaker, you must determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant a committee of the House hearing the case and deciding whether there is guilt or not. Members should know, Mr. Speaker, you do not decide if there is a contempt but rather if it is possible that there could be a contempt. If you decide there is sufficient evidence, you rule that a prima facie case exists.
Following that ruling the House must decide on the question. It does this by dividing on the motion I will put before the House. If the House votes in favour of my motion, the matter is then referred to the appropriate committee which hears the evidence and decides whether or not a contempt was committed and what action should be taken by this House.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I will make the charge. I will ask you to rule that my evidence is prima facie and then to put my motion before this House.
My charge is this: that yesterday's demonstration in this House by a number of students was accomplished with the prior knowledge of the member for Windsor- St. Clair. I further charge that he did nothing to stop that demonstration and that he was in fact an accessory to this contempt against our Parliament.
My evidence is as follows. Prior to Question Period yesterday, the Sergeant-at-Arms of this House advised the government Whip of evidence a demonstration would take place. I assume the other Whips of the other parties in this House had similar prior knowledge. The question is: Why, then, did not the New Democratic Party attempt to stop the demonstration?
Second, Mr. Mark Molgat, Vice-President, External Affairs of the University of Ottawa Students Federation and one of the demonstrators ejected from this House yesterday, in the presence of witnesses said that the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair did know of the planned demonstration while it was still in its planning stages.
This I believe is prima facie evidence that the hon. member did know of the demonstration, did nothing to stop it and, by not stopping it, encouraged it; a contempt against this House.

October 18, 1990
Privilege
Third, several of the passes used by the students to enter the gallery were signed by the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.
Yesterday after Question Period two NDP members, while outside the House of Commons, laughed about the demonstration and said within earshot of a member of our staff that the Canadian Federation of Students had asked the NDP to raise the question in this House. I believe that is further prima facie evidence of their participation in this contempt.
My final piece of evidence is a poster that was hung at the University of Ottawa for several days prior to the demonstration taking place in this House. The poster reads as follows:
October 17
1.	Petition on 3 per cent tax on loans at SFUO.
That stands for the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa. It continues:
2.	NDP critic asked questions on 3 per cent tax issue. Leave for Question Period from SFUO at 2.15.
Of course at the bottom of the poster, which I will give to the Table, is a big print saying: "Revolution".
The evidence, I believe, is more than sufficient for you to rule that a prima facie case does exist and that you, Mr. Speaker, should allow the House to divide on the following motion:
That the entire matter of the demonstration held in the public gallery on Wednesday, October 17, 1990, during Question Period, and the prima facie evidence that the hon. member for Windsor- St. Clair had prior knowledge of this demonstration be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to yesterday's Hansard at page 14280 where the Leader of the New Democratic Party said the following:
-I should not have to say that as members of Parliament we do not condone that kind of demonstration. We have never condoned that kind of demonstration, and we should not have to say we dissociate ourselves. It should be assumed that members of Parliament do not appreciate that kind of behaviour from the gallery.
I agree with the words of the hon. member. It is most unfortunate that her words were not acted upon by members of her own party.
The evidence before you today is I suggest, Mr. Speaker, too compelling to suggest that yesterday's demonstration and the involvement of the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair in it to be anything like a pure
coincidence. I believe we do have a prima facie case of contempt against this House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the events that occurred here yesterday, both in the gallery and across the aisle, constituted a sufficient embarrassment to this House without having to hear what I just heard.
I do not think there is anybody in this House who would accuse Howard McCurdy of having been extremely, meanly partisan-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -and behaving in a way that is inconsistent with the obligation of members of this House to represent it both in action and in demeanour in an appropriate way.
Let me say that the ridiculousness of this charge is to be demonstrated, at least in part, in terms of my particular status. Anybody looking at me knows that if I had half a brain I am not expected to adhere just to those standards that are observed by the rest of the members, but my behaviour better be bloody well superior.
I tried to pay attention to what was said. First, the member indicated that the Sergeant-at-Arms informed the government House leader that there was going to be some kind of demonstration yesterday. I am aware of one single fact. Our House leader was not informed. Nor was any other member of this caucus informed. No member, including this member, was informed or was aware of it. It is alleged that there was an announcement at the University of Ottawa that this member was going to pose a question on student matters yesterday.
As it happens, I was not in Ottawa until roughly 10.30 yesterday. At this stage there was no question asked for in our caucus and no question approved, to be posed in respect to student issues. It was not until approximately 12.45 that the issue of a question posed in respect to students was even entertained. That would be long after, I presume, the announcements were posted at the University of Ottawa.
It is true that when I was previously a critic for youth and post-secondary education the students could depend upon me to pose questions at times when it was pertinent to do so. It was certainly pertinent to do so on National Student Day. That the caucus agreed that I
October 18, 1990

should pose a question was in recognition of that fact. It was not because I had deliberately solicited that question beforehand.
It is indeed my understanding that the students were given to understand that Howard McCurdy, who could be depended upon to ask a question, would do so and they could have broadcast this totally without my knowledge. That I assert clearly.
There are any number of rumours that have been circulating around this place. I think in regard to these charges it should be noted, in keeping with what I said about the Sergeant-at-Arms informing or not informing the various caucuses, that it was only on that side of the House that there was a ready inclination to jump up and take note of the events up there and to accuse me of having been involved, when I did not even know what was going on. Clearly, in my being accused, Mr. Speaker, if ever there was an example of guilt by association this is a clear example of it. If we are going to talk about guilt by association and guilt by rumour, we have the fact, evidently admitted by the hon. member, that the Sergeant-at-Arms knew that there was going to be a demonstration and did not inform us.
I am told that there are a good many others around this place who knew about it besides the students and the government benches. I am given to understand, by rumour, that the Table understood it. There is another rumour that the Speaker's office knew about it. It appears by rumour that the only person who did not know about it was Howard McCurdy and the New Democratic caucus.


Some hon. members:: And the Bloc Quebecois. [Translation]


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The Bloc Quebecois didn't know either. [English]
The hon. member says that several of those who are involved in the demonstration had passes to the gallery. I do not know whether any of those involved in the demonstration had passes or not. I tell you quite frankly, as has been my habit, there were passes distributed among students who asked for them. After all, there were a great many of them here for a CFS press conference that I was supposed to have attended and did not. But because they have faith in me I guess in terms of
Privilege
my interest in them, they came to my office and asked for passes.
Mr. Speaker, to have the hon. member seriously suggest that because certain individuals had passes signed by me in their possession that I was therefore implicated in the demonstration is an outrageous accusation that demeans the intelligence of the member who made that accusation.
Further we have it that the students had a poster that said they were going to protest the 3 per cent tax. By God, if you are going to have contempt hearings against members of Parliament for what their constituents say on posters, you are going to have to indict every member in this House for contempt. That is an absolutely outrageous extrapolation.
I have no apology to make and I am prepared any old time to defend myself against any charges of contempt and to demonstrate that the member who should be held in contempt is the member with the contemptible accusations-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in this debate very briefly since I would guess most of the students that were here yesterday were from my riding. The University of Ottawa is in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier and I would like to make some comments.
Certainly I have to agree that there is a dispute as to whether all the facts are before the House. Whether or not there is a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker, is up to you to decide. When that motion is put, we will decide following your advice. I do believe that we have a serious dispute here as to fact. The member for Peace River made a serious accusation which I do not think we can slough off easily. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will await your decision on that.
I would just like to tell the House that I have a letter, signed by Jane Arnold, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students. I will not read the whole letter, but I will read one paragraph which I think is pertinent to our debate: "As chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, I can neither condone or support the actions which took place in the House of Commons on the afternoon of Wednesday, October 17, 1990.1 would like to inform members of Parliament the federation played no role whatsoever in this escapade." This letter is dated October 18.

Privilege
Suffice to say that some of us were greatly embarrassed yesterday by that demonstration. I understand that students can be frustrated and I understand also, having dealt with them all my life that sometimes things get out of hand. I do think that we have a serious dispute at this time, that it deserves consideration of this House. Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to you to decide whether or not there is a case here.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to make a brief intervention on this very serious charge that has been laid in the House today.
As Whip of the New Democratic Party I want to say a couple of things. I want to indicate that I was not contacted as Whip. I want to indicate that the deputy Whip of my caucus was not contacted, that the deputy House leader in his capacity as acting House leader was not contacted by the Sergeant-at-Arms, by the Clerk at the table, by the Speaker's office, by any member of this House or any employee of this House in advance of the activity that occurred in the gallery behind you, Mr. Speaker.
We had no formal notice by any official.
It is important that I separate the official notice and the unofficial notice, in terms of the information that came to us. I also want to clearly state, from the basis of my own discussions with my caucus colleagues and staff of the New Democratic Party caucus, that we had no informal knowledge, we had no advance notice, there was no conspiracy, and no working relationship to ensure that a demonstration occurred in this House.
It is not acceptable to us that demonstrations occur in the gallery. I think all members should realize and remember that demonstrations have occurred in every gallery in this House, in the public galleries at either end, the NDP gallery, the Liberal gallery, and the government gallery. And for every one of those events, at least in the two side galleries, members of Parliament would have to provide the appropriate passes, for people to sit in those chairs.
We, as members, have a responsibility, whether it be constituents from our ridings, a citizen of this country, or a visitor to this country, to provide them with access to the House of Commons. On many days, there are lineups outside the opposition gallery door because the demand for seats is so high. But we do not, as a matter of course, demand that these people sign a form saying that they are going to be good little boys and girls. That is not our job. For us to even suggest that to them would make them wonder about our role here.
The second point I want to make is that I want to confirm the comments made by my colleague, as they relate to the Question Period process. He is absolutely correct that at the end of our morning executive meeting, where every day we meet and receive the applications for statements and questions, the matter of the students was not raised. The matter of a question concerning students was not raised. It was only later in the day, as the member described, that the matter was raised directly with us and a decision was made to put that member on the list. In fact, I can remember, full well, at 1.35 or 1.40 p.m., when it was discovered that our list, that piece of paper that we give to you indicating our lineup had not been changed to reflect the decision and the member who rose to respond to the government's charge was not even on the "list".
Mr. Speaker, I believe, while obviously it is your responsibility to make the decision, that there is noprima facie evidence and that there is no need to refer this matter to committee for further review.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, every year, during the many years I have had the privilege of sitting in this House, we have had students' day, for members of the Canadian Federation of Students. Every year, members of the various parties are advised of their forthcoming visit. Every year we are asked to put questions that draw the government's attention to their requests, and so the question of the hon. member who is being accused today was very appropriate.
Every year, Mr. Speaker, since I have been here, in any case, we have had more or less the same scenario. The debate the parliamentary secretary asks us to take part in today is worthy of the best debates by student politicians.
October 18, 1990

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not go so far as to make a ruling on such a futile and childish issue. If every time students organize some kind of happening or demonstration, this House stops everything and spends hours trying to censure one of its members, I think what we need is a motion, and I will be glad to move one, in keeping with this new approach. I am prepared to move a motion of censure against all the accomplices of the senators, who did things far worse than any student could have done.
Mr. Speaker, I would never blame the student. The example was set by the other place. However, we heard no bells, no bicycle horns and no kazoos. I congratulate the students. They were far quieter than their elders who look like a bunch of damned idiots.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that there is much ado about macaroni. We are supposed to be in the House debating an issue which could lead us into a third world war and instead we are wasting our time talking about macaroni. Let us get on with the business of the House.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, if I could just make clear the process that did happen yesterday. I was involved in all of the meetings during the day in terms of setting the questions for Question Period. It is certainly the case that there was no question proposed dealing with student fees. There was no suggestion that we raise a question with regard to national students day until much later in the day, I think somewhere around noon. In terms of any link between a request by the Canadian Federation of Students to raise a question and the demonstration, it was certainly nothing that came through us or to us.
To pick up on a couple of points that the parliamentary assistant to the House leader raised, I do not think that we can rely too heavily on what one person might have said about the source of the demonstration or how the demonstration was organized. I have been here when there have been other demonstrations. We have heard all sorts of allegations about who presented passes, who had passes for what, and which MP provided passes to those demonstrators. Never once have I heard it raised
Privilege
that because a pass from a particular MP was in the hands of a person who demonstrated that there was some implication this MP was involved in the demonstration.
I wonder why the New Democratic Party was not advised by that fairly large number of people who, in fact, suspected that a demonstration was to take place. No one was advised in the New Democratic Party, neither myself, the Whip, nor the deputy Whip. I think it is worth considering why that was not the case.
In that context, I would like to ask that we not forget the reaction from the government side yesterday when this took place. It was not just the case of the hon. member for Athabasca making disparaging comments about the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair-and at least the member from Athabasca had the courtesy to withdraw his comments-there were statements all across the front bench on the other side and all across the remaining benches on the government side.
None of this appeared in Hansard, and perhaps for the better. I think we all know the sorts of comments made yesterday. They came very quickly as soon as the activity arose and they came thick and fast. I think we need to look a little more carefully at that, Mr. Speaker. I ask that you investigate, and I know you will, why the New Democratic Party was not notified, and I hope we will hear some indication of further retraction of statements from the other side as asked by my party leader yesterday. That is all I have to say on that matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, this is not because I was student president at Ottawa U, where I had the privilege of being a member of the executive council for five years, apparently a record at the time. Neverthless, I have a confession to make. I remember that as a student, I launched an Avro Arrow from the gallery unto the floor of the House. No one ever knew. Today, the truth is out.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: This object glided to the floor of the House landing at the feet of Mr. Hees, a former and well remembered member of this House.

October 18, 1990
Privilege
I am very sympathetic to this kind of thing. I was a very active student. I was finally kicked out of university, but I would like to say Mr. Speaker, that-


Mr. Speaker:: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member.

Perhaps we need a motion right now.


Marcel Prud'homme: Well, Mr. Speaker, you may be surprised some day. We may be happy.
As a matter of fact, to make some of my colleagues very happy, the other gentlemen have talked about rumours on the Hill and I heard one at noon that something is going to change my life here by six o'clock. I am the only one who heard that, but rumours are rumours. I am still here, Mr. Speaker.
One thing that I do not want to be taken lightly is that over the years, it is known that my respect for the parliamentary institution has only grown and grown.
I would not like this to be considered as a light event. It is severe. Yesterday, it was a piece of paper, but tomorrow, it may be something else.
In good spirit, I wonder if Your Honour would not rather remind members of the seriousness of such an event taking place and to remind all members that at no time should we give any kind of encouragement for that kind of action. I assure you that I cannot accept that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Prud'homme: I know I may not be very popular by saying the following comment, but I am not at all happy with two of the events that took place in the other Chamber. I said so. I say it publicly. Reading a petition, and all that is fine, but two of the events that took place in the Senate will never meet with my approval.
The Speaker must remind us of what this House is all about. Because you have the golden occasion to talk to the country, from your chair, Your Honour, maybe the time has come for you to remind us what this Chamber is all about. If you judge that there is a prima facie case, I will abide by your rule. But I would prefer to listen to you, Mr. Speaker, take a few minutes to remind us what this institution is all about and the respect we should have for it.

-and then perhaps take a charitable view and forget what the students did yesterday.

As far as I am concerned though, instead of bragging about what took place yesterday, the hon. member should consult his own conscience. If he feels he is not at all responsible, fine. He will have a good conscience sleeping tonight. If he feels that maybe inadvertently he did encourage, then perhaps he should take the appropriate action.
As far as I am concerned, I do not think there is a good case. Your Honour, I think, should remind us of the seriousness of what happened yesterday, because I cannot accept that.
As to making a question referred to the appropriate committee, I think that Your Honour would like to reflect on it and not take that appropriate action. I just would not like it to be passed over without you reminding us of the seriousness of what took place yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps we should beef up the security on the Hill. We have an extraordinarily good person to see to it. He, himself, will see to it.
We can feel sometimes when something is going to happen. We live in modem times. Some people may think that is the way to put their message across. It is not the way to put our message across.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the member who rose is not just an ordinary member of the House, although all members are equal in this House. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. I think that must be weighed in the nature of the charge and the responsibility that the government must take to the charges that were made.
A very serious accusation has been made against an opposition member in the House. The accusations were based on hearsay, on rumour, and on the basis of posters that are out there and, before those charges were made in the House, the parliamentary secretary failed to do the adequate research to make sure that he was not making a false charge.
I have checked with the Sergeant-at-Arms. He indicates that our party was not told that there was about to be a demonstration. Further to that, he has indicated to our whip that the government did not ask the Sergeant-
October 18, 1990

at-Arms whether or not we were informed. They did not check before they made that very serious accusation in the House.
The parliamentary secretary made a very serious charge, as I have indicated. He made a very serious mistake, as my colleague, the member for Winnipeg- Transcona said. I would expect that we have a full withdrawal of that charge, or that member, if he finds that those charges are false and those charges are not correct because he did not check before he got up in the House of Commons and made those charges, that will resign as a member of the House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, he made a very serious charge against a member of the House and he must be willing to accept the consequences.
In further evidence against the charges made on the basis of hearsay and rumour, I had the whip's office check. Yesterday, as we always do, we submitted our list of questions which we had planned on asking to the Canadian Press and the CBC. It is a courtesy that parties extend, as all senior members of the House should be aware.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that on that list submitted to those two senior news bureaus we did not have a question by the member for Windsor-St. Clair, thus vindicating everything he has said.
We have no control of what might be on a poster. We have no control what somebody might say outside in the lobby. But we do know the questions that we intended to ask in the House.
We have got up and we have defended our actions. I would say that the government took a very despicable route today. It charged a member. It did not do its research. It did not do its homework, and it will have to pay in the House for those charges.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I realize, as do all members, that this is a very important subject for the House to consider. Like all members, we are trying to understand the frustration and how strong people feel about certain issues, but none of us appreciate those feelings being demonstrated or communicated by way of throwing things down into
Privilege
the Chamber. It is harmless one day; another day it may be quite serious. None of us can subscribe to that kind of activity.
I listened, not in the Chamber but to my television, to the case put forward by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader. I listened to the facts, as the parliamentary secretary described them, to substantiate his case. I have to say that I did not hear, personally, as a member, facts. I heard a pretty good circumstantial case, if one were trying to make a case circumstantially.
Members being objective could hardly describe what we heard. If one wanted to assign guilt, if one wanted to presume guilt, and if one were trying to make the case, then the presentation of the member, circumstantially, would support the theory. I submit we did not hear facts.
I know on many occasions in the House-and it is primary and essential to the functioning of this place to accept the word of an hon. member- members frequently are called upon to do that. Sometimes there is great emotion running through the House when we are called upon to do that, but we have to do it. When a member is directly asked a question, that member directly answers the question. Unless there are hard facts-not a circumstantial case, not a suggestion of facts, but unless there are hard facts-we in this place always accept the word of an hon. member. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, if we depart from that we will be in very great difficulty in this place.
I suggest, as well, to you, Mr. Speaker, because you have a decision to make, that in the absence of hard facts to even refer the matter to the House for a vote, assuming one can anticipate how that vote may go, there is a presumption of guilt, whatever the outcome of the exercise. I think Parliament would be better served, and our time would be better served if we got back to the matter at hand as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I am reluctant to extend the debate very much further. There has been some suggestion that, serious as this matter is, I will have of course to consider it. There is another very serious matter which the House has been asked to debate today.
I am prepared to hear the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair. After I have heard him, his colleagues may or

October 18, 1990
Privilege
may not feel that they have to make any further observations. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I just have a fact to bring to the discussion and an observation.
I have never been in a situation of this sort in all my life. It is a wonderful demonstration of how evil can be the perpetuation of rumour, guilt by association, and the invention of facts and the exaggeration of facts in a way that brings this kind of an accusation to the fore. However subtly people, who are otherwise rationale sensible people, begin to behave as if those facts that are not facts were true. That is what has happened here to a very large degree.
Beyond that, I just wanted to point this out because it might be inferred that the Canadian Federation of Students was involved in the demonstration. I would just like to say that I called them this morning to ascertain whether they even knew about the demonstration and, as far as I was able to ascertain, no one at the offices of the Canadian Federation of Students, neither their elected officers nor their full-time staff, knew anything about it.
We have made every effort possible, I should tell you, Sir, to find out who was responsible and we have not really ascertained whom that might be. I just want to make it clear that the Canadian Federation of Students, insofar as we know, had nothing to do with it whatever.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we all make mistakes around here. I think the member for Peace River has made a mistake. I think that everything that has happened here since he made the charge demonstrates adequately that he made that mistake.
I do not think that he or the member for Windsor-St. Clair, or the House, should be dragged any further through this process. What is needed is for the member for Peace River to get up, in light of the counterfacts which have been presented and in light of the denial which has been made by the hon. member for Windsor- St. Clair, and withdraw the charge.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not here for the entire discussion, having another important engagement, but I did want to say that I regret the parts of the discussion I have heard to imply that the hon. member for Peace River is
showing some sort of prejudices or biases, or in some way is being unfair.
We have all seen, read, and heard, particularly in recent months, the contempt with which politicians in our institutions are being held around the country. A lot of it comes to us because of what happens in this institution. I guess what hurts more than anything else about yesterday's incident is that somehow that kind of behaviour, to those students at least, was legitimized as a legitimate expression of a political dissent in this country. It shows that they at least held this institution in such disrespect that that kind of behaviour was felt to be legitimate.
Against that background, the information that the member for Peace River adduced to the House today about the poster hanging up for a long time and indicating the NDP critic would be raising the question. The other evidence, circumstantial-


An hon. member:: Yes. Unchecked.


Harvie Andre: Just a minute-suggesting that in fact they had, at the very least, used their intimate knowledge of what the New Democratic Party was planning and the offices and facilities-


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: -to plan and bring about the event that occurred. The poster indicated they knew the NDP critic would be raising the issue, the fact that the students had obtained the passes. All I am saying is that at the very least, those students used their knowledge of the NDP's intent and their tickets to organize this event. Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how that can be denied.
I hear hon. members talking about the concern that their reputation has been besmirched as a result of these facts being adduced to the House. If that is the concern, if they wanted this matter looked into so any besmirch-ment could be cleared up by examination in committee, I would certainly facilitate and participate in any such motion. But, as it is, I would ask fair-minded members opposite to consider the facts that were in the hands of the member for Peace River and what happened yesterday and, rather than getting into a rage, look at the facts and realize that the hon. member for Peace River did nothing more than to legitimately raise what happened in the hope that we could all agree that whatever the
October 18, 1990

circumstance, it should never happen again and we can work together to try to restore the reputation of-


Mr. Speaker:: The time has come to close off the debate. I have heard, and I have taken very great care in listening to the points that have been made. I am going to consider the matter very carefully and I will report back to the Chamber as soon as possible.
I have listened with, I think, some comfort to representations from some members regarding the respect which we need to have for this place and which other people ought to have for it. Those comments, quite frankly, this afternoon and also on other occasions have been helpful. The hon. member for Saint-Denis has invited the Chair, at an appropriate time, to make some comments along those lines, and I shall certainly reflect upon that.
Elowever, I have a situation before me. I am now going to have to consider it very carefully. I think hon. members can take from this, though this is no indication of how I will ultimately decide, how sometimes extremely careful we have to be or we ought to be in this Chamber in what we say, what may be implied to us or implied by us. I will take this into account and I hope that I will be able to help hon. members.
There is, as far as I am concerned, no need to pursue the debate any further. It is probably appropriate to all go away and reflect a little bit on what has been said in the Elouse and especially reflect upon some of the very helpful things that have been said by several of our colleagues.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, just a very brief point. I have listened carefully to what you have said and I would implore you, Sir, to put this consideration at the top of your priority list because I think it is totally unfair for my colleague to have this charge hanging over his head between now and the time that you are able to be seized of this matter and, of course, the whole caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and I assure the House that I will not delay unduly.
If there are other matters to be raised I, of course, will hear them. But, there has to be a point where these matters are concluded so far as argument and represen-
Privilege
tation is concerned and I think that it is that time. The hon. member for Calgary West may have another point.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order last Friday and you indicated at that time that you would be seeking information from the Leader of the New Democratic Party as to when he might return to the Chamber. The subject matter of my complaint is charges levelled against me and my colleagues by their House leader. I have been living under that cloud now for a week with no apology, with no opportunity to air it fully and to have a response. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you have knowledge as to when he is returning because there is some difficulty for me in terms of arranging my schedule. It would be nice to be away tomorrow. I have some plans for tomorrow. If he does return tomorrow, can my question be held over until Monday? Is that acceptable to the Chair?


Mr. Speaker:: On the question of privilege-


Svend Johannes Robinson: A point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: May I deal with this first? On the question that the hon. member for Calgary West raises, which was raised as a question of privilege, there were certain representations made by the hon. member for Calgary West in which I think his complaint was certainly aired in preliminaries at least. At that time the hon. member who is being complained of, the hon. member for Kamloops, was not in the House. The information I have is that he will not be returning until the end of this week. He is not here yet. The question of privilege was adjourned on the principle of fairness that we try to apply, that it not be proceeded with further without the hon. member being in the Chamber. The question of privilege is completely secure and I assure the hon. member for Calgary West that as soon as it can be arranged, we shall proceed with the matter.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There comes a point when the Speaker really has to ask hon. members to co-operate. We can go on with points of order all day long unless someone finally says: "Look, enough is enough". I see other hon. members wanting to rise. We have a very important debate in front of this House. A lot of hon. members, as they have indicated, would like to get on with it.

October 18, 1990
Privilege


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to cause trouble for the Chair. I take that to mean that I can be absent tomorrow even if that member is back. The question will be argued on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: I assure the hon. member for Calgary West that as I was not prepared to proceed too long without the hon. member for Kamloops being here, I will not proceed without the hon. member for Calgary West being here. I am sure that the genius of this place can work out an appropriate time to continue the discussion.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Your Honour is aware of the fact that I was seeking the floor prior to the intervention by the government House leader and on the point to which Your Honour indicated he wishes to reserve.
I want to raise two very brief points, Mr. Speaker. This is an important point. The first is to draw to Your Honour's attention a point which was not made during the course of the debate. That is that there was a very clear and unequivocal denial yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: I really am going to ask hon. members to support the Chair. I have heard the debate. I know the issues inside out. I understand exactly what I have to consider and I will look very carefully at what was said today. It may very well be that I will consider what was said yesterday, if that is what the hon. member is leading to.


Svend Johannes Robinson: A point of order on a different matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to hear a point of order on something completely different. Unless the House is not going to support the Chair, the debate is over.


POINT OF ORDER
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief point of order, not related to the earlier discussions.
In the exchange in the House today with the Minister of the Environment, he asked at that point about providing him with names of people who made charges
of cover-up and other such words regarding the environmental process.
I would like you to know, Sir, that the day before yesterday I advised the Minister of Justice of two names of individuals who had these concerns and that two additional names have come forward today of which I will be advising the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. He knew things I did not know when he phrased his preamble and I appreciate very much that point of order. I am sure it will be of help to everybody.


PRIVILEGE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will not, following your injunction, return to the substance of the point of order which was raised earlier.
I did want to raise a procedural concern. That is, in view of the seriousness of the charge that has been laid and the consequences which flow from that charge, both with respect to the member that laid it and with respect to the member against whom the charge was made, I would seriously request that Your Honour reconsider the decision to reserve on this question and bring back a decision as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, who has had many years of experience in this place, knows full well that we all try to press our point. I have indicated that I am going to reserve. I think it would be inappropriate for the Speaker to respond in haste to a matter of this importance. I will assure the hon. member for all of the hon. members in the New Democratic Party, and especially the hon. member who is the subject of this, that I will not delay unduly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call Orders of the Day, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque-The environment; the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Sexual Discrimination; the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon- Route Canada.
October 18, 1990



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (p. 13232); and on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) (p. 13240) and on the subamendment of Ms. McLaughlin (p. 13244).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the debate ended, there was 10 minutes left in questions and comments for the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke.
On questions and comments, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, a very short question to my colleague.
I appreciated the presentation he made and I certainly agreed with all his statements, particularly the part of the need for consultation.
Inherent in what the hon. member said was basically, when you have defence forces, you need a critical mass. There is a minimum level below which you cannot go for each country and for the free world as a whole. It is very difficult to describe what the free world is today, but it is very important to realize that there is a critical mass below which you should not and cannot go if you want to contribute to maintaining world order.
These forces up front are in the shop window. They are there. What do you have in reserve after you have deployed them? How much more have you in reserve? What militia forces do you have? How many spare parts do you have? This is a factor in looking at when the embargo will bite Hussein.
As we are involved in this critical point and time now, and I do not want to make a political issue of this, but I did notice and the hon. member did notice, that on the very day before we were talking about this in the House of Commons, there were indications from a speech made by the Minister of National Defence last Tuesday at a
Government Orders
defence association network seminar led to speculation that Canadian forces may be cut tremendously. I do not know where the figures came from, but the article said 5,000 to 15,000 forces would be cut.
I would like the hon. member to comment on how those kinds of comments and speculation are going to help us buttress our position in the Middle East now and in the future with those kinds of activities.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it is a very crucial one.
I mentioned in my speech that right now we are in a position to do some very fine work in the Persian Gulf and that we can do it at the diplomatic table as well. I pointed out that we drifted into World War II because no nation was prepared to defend the free world, not even Britain. It almost collapsed at the start of the Second World War, and we know what happened throughout 1940 in Britain. That is just one example.
We have heard from government members over the years that we must have a strong Canadian military community in this country and we must have equipment and everything. They have gone through six years where they have done very little and now they are talking about reducing the forces.
Government members have been saying that Canada did not have enough forces to do the job, and yet we are still in the middle of being expected to keep the peace in various parts of the world. We are expected to be helpful to UN forces when boundaries must be respected, even to the point of military action through the UN auspices. Why are we cutting our forces at a time when they are admitting in their own words that we do not have enough armed forces to carry out the duties that we are faced with in the world and in the country?
Even this summer, the army was a better diplomatic agent in Canada in the Oka situation than the government or any of its officials could ever hope to be. When we talk about the military force, we are not talking about guns, rifles, tanks, and ships all the time. We are talking about the diplomatic efforts of our Canadian forces. They are professionals in that field too. We are talking about their military efforts when it comes to a situation

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
of freeing a country overrun by a dictator. That too is their expertise. They are also good politicians.
The hon. member might not like me to say that because he is a former admiral in the navy, but they are good politicians. That is why he is in the House today. They are good politicians because they can work with other nations in the world.
Mr. Speaker, do you think that the people on the Golan Heights today do not have to exercise a little political savvy once in awhile in dealing with their situation? Whenever they are in peacekeeping situations in the world, they have to relate to the political realities of the situation they are in. They have to be diplomats enough to talk to those people and build bridges. They have to be military enough to hold their ground and do what is right for international justice and boundaries in this world.
I hope that answers the hon. member's question. I do not know why this government has not only not kept its commitment since taking office but now is talking about reducing the forces still further, just after complaining that we do not have enough forces to do the job as it is.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated a number of the comments made by my colleague, particularly the one where people such as Saddam Hussein must not be permitted to violate human rights and must in fact respect international laws. I just wanted him to explain to me very briefly what he believes the government's position is with regard to his point, that is that Canadian Armed Forces and other forces ought to be under UN command. Second, he did mention that the Prime Minister of course had not convened the House to make those decisions. He referred to the Oka crisis and to the gulf crisis, but is this not an approach that the Prime Minister uses on whatever he undertakes? It is either that or closure or some other form of limiting discussion by Canadians.
I have a final point. He spoke about a new order of peace and co-operation in helping each other out.
I do not know if the member has the time to respond to those three questions: the Canadian Armed Forces under UN command, the government's approach of not consulting, and the new order. If so, I would appreciate those comments.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I thank the hon. member for his question. First, the Prime Minister has an attitudinal problem. He is the Prime Minister of a democratic county, but he does not call Parliament into session to discuss decisions that his government is making in committing our Armed Forces abroad, and that is wrong.
Never again in this House-and I said that in ending my speech-should any government in this country ever commit troops to a military problem area where there might be a war without calling Parliament into session. This is still a democratic country, and the Prime Minister is practising dictatorship within the democratic situation we have in Canada and going along no his own.
On the Oka affair, I think the army did the best possible job it could. I had very good communication with some people in it. When they heard they were going to go in there, they said: "Nobody what happens, we are going to get blamed for what happened". I saw on television one night where a young soldier got punched in the nose, blood was streaming down his face. He never reacted. He stood there.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that at last, with other members of Parliament, I have an opportunity to speak on Canada's action in relation to the events around the Persian Gulf this summer.
The government's resolution on which we are debating begins well enough. It says that the House condemns the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and demands the complete withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait and affirms, quoting from the resolution:
-unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the United Nations Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2.
So far, so good, but unfortunately the government's resolution goes on to tie this to:
- the despatch of members of the Canadian Forces to take part in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula; -
Even though the government had first spoken about the United Nations, it slides over the fact that the United Nations did not authorize that military action and the military action is not led, let alone commanded by the United Nations.
October 18, 1990

The New Democratic Party and I fully agree with the first part of the resolution, condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and supporting the United Nations Security Council's decisions. It is likely that if there are further decisions by the Security Council in this matter we will support them as well.
However, we do not support the decision of the United States and certain other countries to take large military action in and around the Arabian Peninsula. We believe they should have waited for the United Nations to carry out the mandate that it has in this matter to give leadership to the nations of the world.
Therefore, of course, with my party, I support the amendment by the Liberal Party, that instead of the words "to take part in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula", we put in the words "to enforce these United Nations resolutions and that this House censure the government for not recalling Parliament at the earliest opportunity to fulfil its legitimate function of consultation and debate as to what role Canada should play in the resolution of the present crisis". We support that.
I do not intend to discuss that point particularly today since I think it has been well treated so far.
However, I do want to focus on the subamendment moved by the member for Yukon, the Leader of the NDP, to add the following words:
And further, that Canada work at the Security Council to seek
assurances that no country will take undertake offensive military
operations against Iraq unless 1hey are under UN command and
explicitly authorized by the Security Council.
There are provisions in the United Nations Charter in articles 42 and 43 for dealing with this sort of situation. They have been very little used during a great deal of the history of the United Nations for reasons that have often been commented upon, having to do with the cold war.
I believe this is the occasion when those articles should be used. I think the United Nations is the only instrument created by the nations of the world by which we can choose a course of peace at this time, not instant peace but direction toward peace and avoid a course toward war.
We could be at a turning point. This is not just one little incident. This is an incident with many others behind it, beside it, and possibly following it. We could be
Government Orders
making a major choice-not just Canada but some countries of the world-either to have more generations of war, and perhaps the ultimately disastrous war that all of us have learned to fear, or a choice toward building peace, slowly, with difficulty, with disappointment but nevertheless moving more and more by agreement toward peace.
I fear the danger is that we could tumble into a resumption of the conflict between what some people have called the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, give or take a few miles here and there.
Beginning 1,000 years ago, there was a conflict between Europe and Islam as it spread across the Arabian Peninsula, northern Africa, and even into south western and south eastern Europe. Then there were five centuries of European expansion. There was conquest in the other continents, massacres of the population as in many parts of the western hemisphere, enslavement of nonEuropean peoples mainly, and pillaging of their resources as though their people had no right of ownership to them.
Those memories have not disappeared among those people who are the majority of the world as it happens now. I believe there is no authority in the world except the United Nations that can guide us to find the way to peace. It is not some outside authority. The United Nations is us, but we have to work together to do it.
We must now stick with the United Nations in order to avoid a possible network of wars, not just one war alone around Kuwait and Iraq but the possible repercussions of it as happened, as everybody knows, in 1914 when one assassination in what was thought of as an unimportant part of Europe plunged Europe and other parts of the world into four years of war.
There are the possibilities of serious wars related to this not only in the Middle East but in other parts of Africa, in other parts of Asia and in Central or South America. As I said, I agree that Iraq by modern standards is an aggressor. It is a military aggressor. What it did is wrong. We must condemn it and oppose it by the best means we can choose.
However, as it was put once by Jesus: "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." This is not the first act of military aggression in recent history. It is not the first act of military aggression in 1990. It is the first time the United Nations Security Council has taken it up, or the first time it has been able to arrive at an unanimous

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
decision with none of the five permanent members vetoing action.
I want to plead with members to go easy on the luxury of talking about fighting Iraq, deposing Saddam. Calling him a madman suggests that he might be less than human, and therefore we can treat him as less than human. I believe that is not the kind of thinking we should be following. That is no solution.
We have been told that we had to act quickly to protect Saudi Arabia. We really have been presented, so far as I have heard, with no evidence that Saudi Arabia was in danger. United States reported that it had information through its satellites that Iraqi tanks were amassing on the Saudi border.
United States reports have before at times turned out not to be true. There was the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident which was concocted in order to escalate the war in Vietnam. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps it was not deliberately concocted, but it certainly should not have been used as the jumping off point for that miserable war.
The invasion of Kuwait arises from a 60-year old dispute, in part that was generated by Britain's handling of its sphere of influence in the Middle East after World War I. There is no such dispute to my knowledge between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. There is no such dispute over any shared oil fields and this dispute between Iraq and Kuwait is partly a legacy of World War I colonialism when Britain and France as the principal victors in World War I, partitioned the old Ottoman Empire and took some as colonies and took some as, in effect, semi-independent states but under their tutelage.
In that area where Britain and France have been active ever since, though less than before, we had the United Nations' action of creating the State of Israel, a decision which unfortunately blew up in a dispute between the Israelis and those who had lived there before.
This arose from Britain's policy of having promised during the war, to get allies, promised the same land both to the Palestinians who had always lived there and to the Jews who yearned to return there.
When the United Nations tried to stabilize that situation with Resolution 242 demanding that Israel withdraw from territories it had occupied in war later on, that was scorned by Israel, ignored by the United States, not enforced by the Security Council, just as there was no Security Council action to stop or even condemn the United States for its naked, aggressive invasion of Panama and the killing of 3,000 people, mostly civilians. In other words we have a double standard here, Mr. Speaker, and let us not go to war just to make a debating point in a double standard.
The fact is also that the five permanent members of the Security Council have been among those who armed Saddam during the past 10 years. Why? Apparently they wanted Saddam to attack Iran, which Saddam did. Now Saddam has made peace with Iran and has attacked Kuwait, but his conduct as a military aggressor was blessed for years by the United States, by Britain, by France, implicitly, and suddenly they have turned their blessing into a curse.
Mr. Speaker, we have something on our own consciences as allies in NATO of the United States and Britain. In fact it was the NATO alliance to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs appealed as an authority when he said that he had sent the ships to the Middle East after consulting with NATO officials in Brussels. The Middle East is not in the legal sphere of responsibility of NATO by the NATO charter. It is thousands, or hundreds of miles outside it. NATO had no business authorizing ships or encouraging Canada to send ships to the Gulf of Oman. It was not NATO's responsibility, although I understand some NATO generals, now that they do not think they have to use their weapons against the Soviet Union, would like to try them somewhere else, such as in Arabia to defend United States oil.
United States oil has been a very serious problem in the Middle East for a good many decades, for example in the overthrow of the former Prime Minister of Iran. I am reading here from a document called The Recent Iranian History by the parliamentary Library dated September 19. In part he is talking about the dispute over oil price:
- the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) was still in place, and its royalties to Iran totalled less than the British Government's tax revenues from the Company. Many Iranians grew increasingly discontent with this arrangement, regarding it as blatant exploitation -
October 18, 1990

Further down, the article states:
Agitation to nationalize all Iranian oil production has been growing since the end of the War-Mohammad Mossadeq emerged as the Majlas member who rallied the nationalist cause, and the shah felt compelled to support the legislature's nationalization of the oil industry (after the fact, and to appoint Mossadeq as Prime Minister.
Then, enter the United States.
The shah saw his position gradually being eroded, whereupon he conspired with the Eisenhower administration to oust Mossadeq. Operation Ajax was set in motion in August 1953, whereby Mossadeq was deposed, the shah regained conlrol, and a number of ultranationalists were tried and executed.
That is what the United States was willing to do, by way of aggression, to ensure a low price for the oil it wished to buy. So I say that the United States and some other countries come to this dispute without clean hands.
There is wide antipathy in the Arab world, so one reads. I have not had the opportunity to travel there, yet. There is wide antipathy toward Europeans, including the Europeans who govern the United States of America. It is not only with Iraq that we might find ourselves fighting. We know that some of the other countries there are not on our side or not fully on our side. Iran and Jordan have an uncertain position from our point of view, that is, from our military point of view. The danger is that the war that started by the NATO powers, with a few small allies including Egypt, making military moves to the Persian Gulf, might turn out to be unwinnable. I quote here from another article which I happened to find by chance, as I was browsing through The Financial Post on Tuesday, October 16. The article is by John Shiry and I quote:
U.S. and Western policy toward the Middle East is in a shambles. In the past and at present, the West's best friends have been monarchs who control most of the oil, and the state of Israel. History and population numbers are on ihe other side.
He goes on to point out, in another quotation:
The region has problems of poverty, illiteracy, public health, population growth, water supplies, development and food production.
At this time, about 200 million Arabs live in the area that stretches from Algeria to Iran. At current rates of growth that will double in less than 25 years and reach 500 million by the year 2025.
Government Orders
Now the point that he is making is that the oil tends to be in the countries with small populations and the countries with large populations are relatively poor and what he has described there is the poverty of the large populations. He goes on:
Most of these people live in countries that are not rich, and most of their cultures place a high value on having large families. At the same time, most of the economies are unable to provide adequate jobs, health care, education and housing for their existing populations. A central problem is that much of the region's oil wealth is in the countries with small populations.
The point that we of the countries who are members of NATO would do well to remember is the point that he makes in the last paragraph that I quote:
To many leaders and citizens of the region,-
-that is Arabia.
- the only things the West cares about are cheap oil and the security of Israel. That is not the case. But it is easy to see how the image can exist.
That is the warning. It is not just Saddam Hussein who sees us as the enemy, it a great many millions of people besides him. In fact, we have to understand that the era of gunboat diplomacy has come to an end. The NATO powers had better understand that we are not about to continue ruling the world for another five centuries. We have been selling arms. Some people grew quite rich in our country by selling arms to the former colonies. Other people grew rich by lending them money to buy the arms and collected the interest on the debts and overthrew governments if they did not pay the interest.
These people have all kinds of conventional weapons. We have had so many stories about weaponry that Saddam has and nearly all of it he bought from our countries except what he made with machinery he bought from our countries, such as chemical weapons and perhaps nuclear weapons. We ought not to be surprised if Saddam uses the weapons we provided him and uses them in the way we have been using them during this century, including the nuclear weapons.
The question is what alternative is there to both appeasement and to international war? The answer is common security. Former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was one of the pioneers of this concept. He said some years ago:

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
There is one overriding truth in this nuclear age-no nation can achieve true security by itself-Both we and the Soviet Union are, and will remain, vulnerable to nuclear attack-To guarantee our own security in this nuclear age, we must therefore face these realities and work together with other nations to achieve common security. For security in the nuclear age means common security.
The question is, how can we put into practice the principle of common security put forward by the former Secretary of State of the United States? That is the principle, that if our enemy is afraid of us, we are not safe. Or if we are afraid of our enemy, he is not safe, not with nuclear weapons around. The principle is that we must co-operate in order to live and in order bequeath a world in which our children or our grandchildren can live.
We have the basic means to do that in the United Nations. We have the United Nations General Assembly when for the first time in the history of the world almost all countries, including the Arab countries, are present. We have the Security Council empowered to act. We have the World Court, even though the United States ignores it. We have almost four decades of experience of UN peacekeeping.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time is close to finished and I simply want to make two more points. We must make up our minds to use the least violent methods we can find to end international violence. Some of these are sanctions, continued negotiations, a peace conference on the Middle East to include Israel and the Palestine Liberal Organization and we must stop the deadly trade of money for weapons.
Finally, we should learn to get off dependency on oil. We can do that and it would help everybody including ourselves if we would.
These are alternatives to appeasement. They are alternatives to international war. It is in lines like this we must work to try to restore peace in the Middle East.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker,' I found the comments, particularly the final comments of my friend from Trinity-Spadina most interesting given the article that I was just reading Defense & Diplomacy, October 1990 issue, an article by Dr. Christine M. Helms. In this article Dr. Helms discusses some of the background of the present dispute in the Persian Gulf, as set out by my friend, and makes a
comment that the seeds of discontent between Iraq and the United States had been sown at least five years earlier when American officials became increasingly concerned over Iraq's military capabilities, particularly an acquisition of advanced technology. She goes on in the article to talk about one of the matters the member for Trinity-Spadina has talked about, common security. I think it would be relevant to quote a couple of paragraphs from the article where she says:
Rhetoric is platitude, and morality will remain elusive. The ultimate losers are the region's common folk, people whose mundane daily problems will continue to multiply. The region's population, for example, will double in the next two decades in the face of dwindling resources, especially water.
But crises can be turned for the better. If Arab leaders can address more effectively the causes of the region's economic and social discontent and the Western world can learn about the deep-rooted causes of conflict in the region and assist in a wise positive response, some good may yet come of all this.
Given the hon. member's comments on our common security and a move toward common security, does he feel that any of the recipe for that commonalty is present? Can there be some way that some good can come out of this total conflict?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think it can. I do not think it will or will not. I am not trying to predict. We have the possibility. We are in the very business now, along with people in other countries, of making that choice.
We can choose to revert to old patterns, World War I and World War II patterns, and fire all our ammunition or, we can choose to hold off, to pull back, and to use diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, offers of aid, not only to the Iraqi population who are by far definitely not the most affluent in the world, offers of aid to others in that region, that is non-military aid instead of sending more guns, either in the hands of our troops or to put into their hands. That money is needed so that children, women, and even men can live. I believe if we move in that direction, then there is the chance to do something much better than what we have had up until now in the Middle East.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my desk-mate on an excellent speech.
October 18, 1990

I would like to comment briefly that I think there has been a tremendous loss which Canada as a country has faced because of our decision to follow the United States to the Persian Gulf. Since the Korean War, we, as a country, have always seen for ourselves our fundamental and basic role in the world to be that of peacekeeping. With the decision to take an active part in the military role that has been established in the Persian Gulf, we have seriously hurt our credibility in the future as a country that will be acceptable in peacekeeping situations, such as Cyprus and the Middle East, itself.
It is very easy with some kind of gung-ho patriotism to say to the United States, as the Conservatives used to say to Britain: "Ready, aye, ready." It is dangerous, not so much because in this case we will be caught up in battle, although that may happen, but dangerous because the number of countries in the world that are committed to peace and to using peacekeeping as a mechanism to solve problems is reduced if we withdraw from that task which we have seen for ourselves in the past.
I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that across the country there will be a rethinking of the commitment to take military action in the Persian Gulf. I hope that we will see ourselves as the world's peacekeepers and recognize that means that we do not get involved in these kinds of potentially very active conflicts of an armed sort.
Would my colleague agree with that position?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Trinity-Spadina has a couple of minutes to wind up.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank my seat-mate for the question. I hope he will not feel I am ungrateful if I do not entirely agree with him. We may have to sort this out outside.
I do not think we have lost our status and our standing in people's eyes as peacemakers. I think we made a mistake sending the ships. They were sent there. Now it is done. I think it was a mistake, but I do not think the world will refuse to forgive us for one relatively small mistake, and so far, not a harmful one.
I have said that we do not need to act as though we were pure, like the man who was invited by Jesus to cast the first stone, and there was not anybody found to do that. We do not need to be self-righteous. We could
Government Orders
admit we made a mistake and back off. I think our record over the years would stand us very well.
I am particularly proud of what I saw when I was in Nicaragua in February, at the time of the election there, and the work that the United Nations had done to ensure, for the first time in most of those countries, a peaceful transition from a military dictatorship to a civilian rule of a different party. That is what the United Nations did for Nicaragua and the Nicaraguan people of both points of view are grateful for it. I believe that Canadian being participants in that still have a good record, but we should not damage it any further than we have.


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


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear at the beginning of my speech that I fully support that part of the government's resolution which condemns the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
We must be opposed to any unilateral military action which serves the sole interest of one country, in this case, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. But we must be consistent with that principle, and whereas it was wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait, it was also wrong in previous years for the United States to invade Grenada, and for the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. It was also wrong for the United States to fund the Contras so it could then invade Nicaragua, and for the Americans at the same time to set up a unilateral, economic blockade against the very small and struggling country of Nicaragua.
All those actions were wrong. They are all unilateral, military actions by a bigger power against the smaller country and done in the self interests of those countries. So, Mr. Speaker, while it is right to condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, I must say that it does not help the United States' case that it has carried out similar military actions in the past, nor the Soviet Union's, as I said, who made similar invasions in the past.
We should all hope this incident in the Middle East would lead to a new attitude by the superpowers-the United States and the Soviet Union-and other powerful countries, that we must never use unilateral, military

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
action against another country to serve the self-interests of our own country.
While I say I fully support the condemnation of Iraq in this particular case, at the same time, I have been and I was in the beginning extremely concerned by the fact that Canada's response in sending three ships to the area was done at the request of the United States in the first place, and not by the United Nations. The immediate action by the government to send three ships, no matter how grave the attack on Kuwait was, was done at the request of the United States. That concerned me very much. It was troublesome.
I was also concerned for many weeks-this has been pointed out by many members on this side of the House-that when the government made the decision to send those ships to an area where war might very well break out, it did not immediately recall Parliament. Again, I do not think that the government should ever do that again. Whenever our military forces are sent to any area of the world, it should involve the Parliament of Canada in the decision. It may have been able to convince us in August that it was the right thing to do, but we should have done it with the approval of Parliament and not by the government alone. The government was at fault for not doing that.
One reason that it was incorrect for the Government of Canada to send those three ships in the first place at the request of the United States alone is that it undermines our credibility as a peacekeeping nation. Canada has had a long reputation as one of the outstanding peacekeeping nations in the world. We participated in almost every peacekeeping operation. Our former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson, was awarded the Nobel prize for initiating UN peacekeeping forces. When we respond to a situation like this without doing it through the United Nations, I think we undermine that credibility-
Despite those early misgivings, things turned out better than I originally had hoped for, because soon afterwards the United Nations Security Council did pass a resolution authorizing mandatory economic sanctions against Iraq. It also authorized the use of military forces to enforce the economic sanctions.
That was a great step forward for the United Nations, because it was the first time I believe that it was able to
use Article VII of the UN Charter to enforce a decision of the Security Council. Now we have a situation where I think 150 countries support the economic embargo, 150 countries support the resolution of September 24 in the United Nations, and there are 25 nations which have military forces in the gulf area.
All that is to the good, but I must say there are still some very serious questions that have to be answered. Of course, one of them is that, while the forces that are there are operating under the mandate of the United Nations resolutions, it is still very unclear as to what is the command with respect to those forces.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the UN Charter provides for a Security Council military committee which is to supervise the use of forces under Article VII of the Charter, but that is not being done at the present time. The United States has been reluctant to place its forces under such a command. We have a situation right now where, legally the lines of command are unclear, but in fact, we know that the United States is calling the shots, and I do not think that is acceptable. While there has been a stand-off in the Gulf area between the multilateral forces stationed in the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia and the Iraqi forces in Kuwait, with no further military action, it is always possible with that large build-up of forces that military action could take place.
I was present at the evidence before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence just a few days ago. There was testimony by some witnesses that war is inevitable. That, I found, was a very depressing analysis of the situation and I hope it does not take place, but many experts believe that sooner or later this situation will develop into outright fighting.
There are four possible goals for those forces in the Gulf area. The first one, of course, is to enforce the sanctions against Iraq as has been authorized by the United Nations and is acceptable and legitimate. Others, however, are talking about the use of the forces to protect Saudi Arabia if there is an attack on Saudi Arabia by the Iraqi forces.
Again, one could legitimize the use of the forces in that instance because they would be protecting a sovereign country against an invasion. That would be legitimate in the short period under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but if the UN is being consistent, I am sure it
October 18, 1990

would agree to the protection of a sovereign state against any invasion.
I do not think that is a possibility at the present time because I doubt if the Iraqi forces could overwhelm the multinational forces that are in Saudi Arabia and that area, especially with the very powerful American forces supported by other countries which are there. So, there are those two options that could be acceptable under UN auspices; that is to enforce the sanctions and to protect Saudi Arabia against any attack.
However, there are two other options which are being discussed in the councils of the world and by governments of the world that involve more risk. The third such option is that those multinational forces take the first move to drive the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Again that would be an extremely risky move at this time. If a decision was to be made in that respect, I think it should not be made unilaterally by any of the parties there, but be considered at the United Nations after many alternatives had been tried and, perhaps, failed.
The fourth option, and this is being discussed, is that the forces would be used not only to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but to depose Saddam Hussein from office in Iraq and put that government out of power to assure that no further such actions took place. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is a very dangerous contemplated action.
Of those four options which are open to the multinational forces in the Middle East, I think it is obvious that the first one is totally acceptable. The second one is also acceptable. But the third or fourth must be looked upon with serious reservation and should not be contemplated at the present time whatsoever.
As many other hon. members have said, I think every attempt has to be made to resolve this situation peacefully. The resolution before us also asks for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Well, I think we have to try and attain that goal through negotiated actions and through sanctions.
I noticed today that the Iraqi government has offered to sell its oil for $21 per barrel, about half the world price, in an attempt to win friends. I hope that no nations of the world will be led astray in accepting that offer. If I
Government Orders
have the information correct, Iraq earns 85 per cent of its revenue through the sale of oil, and it is by the refusal to buy that oil that we are going to bring Iraq to its knees and make it listen to sense in this particular instance. When I say listen to sense, I really mean common sense.
If you try to justify what Iraq is doing today and has done in recent weeks against Kuwait, one day similar action may be used against Iraq itself by a bigger power. You cannot use this type of military action simply when it pleases you and hope that people will forget about it or that it will go away in the minds of the nations of the world. That is why I said there is some hypocrisy here. While the United States is now supporting multilateral action under the UN, it has taken unilateral action to serve its own purposes in the past. That was equally unacceptable.
Unfortunately, the ability of the United Nations to respond to such an attack as was made by Iraq on Kuwait through the use of peacekeeping forces is not adequate at the present time. Years ago the United Nations made a request to several countries of the world to designate standby forces for the United Nations so that when an incident like this took place, forces would be trained and in place so they could immediately respond to the situation.
Canada as a country, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, has designated that it will have forces ready and has always been ready to respond in that way. There have not been enough nations of the world to do that. As a result, when you do have such invasions, it lends itself to countries like the United States involving itself unilaterally at the request of Saudi Arabia to protect that nation. Nevertheless, it is not the most desirable way to proceed if we want to avoid unilateral action by nations and not common security through the United Nations.
There has been a great improvement in the United Nations in recent years. We can look at the action it took in helping resolve the situation in Afghanistan. We can look at other situations which the United Nations has been able to resolve in recent years. Much has had to do with the new attitude in the Soviet Union. I take this

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
opportunity to congratulate Secretary General Gorbachev of the Soviet Union for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. A new breath of air has come into the United Nations as a result of the co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States. Hopefully, both countries will be willing to act through that international body rather than unilaterally on their own or even together as superpowers.
Once this incident passes, we have to use this opportunity and experience to effectively strengthen the capacity of UN peacekeeping and peacemaking forces so that the United Nations will be able to handle these situations quickly and effectively, without nations being tempted to resort to unilateral action.
I have examined all of the plans that have been put forward to bring peace to that region. It appears to me that the one put forward by President Mitterrand of France is probably the best. President Mitterrand has suggested that if Iraq withdraws unconditionally from Kuwait and releases the hostages, there should be an international peacekeeping conference to consider all the conflicts and problems in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. Whether we like it or not, it is linked to this particular conflict. I say whether we like it not because, while in the first case it may appear that it is not linked, it is linked in the minds of the nations in the Middle East. If we are going to have peace in the area, we have to deal with the Palestinian question and their right to have a state of their own. As has been stated in this House on several occasions, Canada has long supported UN resolutions, which go a long way back to secure the boundaries of Israel originally agreed upon but at the same time provide for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and in the Gaza. Mr. Speaker, there will never be peace in that area unless that is done.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are motioning to me that my time is coming to an end. In conclusion, I simply want to say that our bottom line in this particular case is that we can never accept unilateral military action. The best response has to be common security action through the United Nations. I hope that we in the House will be able to agree upon a resolution as a result of this incident. I understand that such a resolution is in the process, a resolution which will make those principles absolutely clear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we have questions and comments, there is a point of order by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, in relation to the government motion respecting the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, Motion No. 16:
Debate on such motion and on any amendment or subamendment thereto be the only government order to be called today following the adoption of this motion; and, that such debate continue following Private Member's Hour and adjournment proceedings today until no member rises in debate, but in any case no later than 1 a.m., at which time a deferred recorded division on such motion and on any amendment and subamendment thereto shall be deemed to have been requested and ordered to take place at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 1990, following which ordering on Thursday, October 18, 1990 the House shall adjourn; and, that following the adoption of this motion and until the House adjourns today, dilatory motions and quorum calls shall not be receivable.


Mr. Dingwall:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion among representatives of the parties of the House and our party would consent to that motion as read by the parliamentary secretary.


Chris Axworthy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on our behalf, too, there have been discussions and this meets with our approval.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have a little problem with that. I do not think you can have the adjournment debate from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. I think we will have to delete that portion of the motion, if it is agreeable to the House. A point of order, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I understand that normally the adjournment proceedings would take place following the extension, but this was discussed among the parties and I believe that there is agreement that by consent of the House we would in fact proceed with the adjournment proceeding as scheduled at 6 p.m. and then resume the debate. My understanding is that by unanimous consent that can be agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can signify that was discussed and agreed. The motion as read was the one that we agreed to.
October 18, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know we can do anything here by unanimous consent, but I just wanted to bring to the attention of the House that when there are extended hours, during that time we usually drop the adjournment debate. We have Private Member's, but we do drop the adjournment debate. The Chair is your obedient servant.


David Charles Dingwall: In the spirit of trying to co-operate with members to the extreme left, we thought that we could accommodate them in that particular request. It was agreed to by the parliamentary secretary, myself and the hon. member for Burnaby that we would proceed with the Private Member's Hour, followed thereafter by the adjournment debate, and then we would resume with the major debate on the Iraq motion that we are now debating. That was the understanding of all three political parties, unless I stand to be corrected.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my friend on the extreme right is correct, that was the understanding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am glad you got your act together. Thank you very much. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on todays Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   SPORTS

[Stage Direction]
INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ARBITRATION Mr. John Brewin (Victoria) moved:
Thai, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing an independent review and arbitration process whereby disputes between athletes and sports organizations can be resolved, with power to investigate and direct such remedies as deemed appropriate.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on August 25, 1978, two members of the Canadian swim team competing in the World Championships in Berlin decided to go out for a quiet dinner. In the course of their celebration of what had
Private Members' Business
been for them a very good season, each of them had one beer and were five minutes late for their curfew. As a result, they were sent home without explanation and lost their position on the team and lost the careers they had developed.
Sports in Canada is rife with stories of this kind. What was once upon a time a simple matter of signing on for participation in an event has in the post-war period become quite a different exercise and activity.
Sports in Canada, as around the world, has become professional. Sports in terms of the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, and Pan American Games has become professional. This is not in itself a bad thing in the arts and cultural field. Because of the resources we have built and the kinds of economies we have, we have been able to employ significant numbers of our people in the pursuit of excellence. This is so in arts and so in sports.
We have provided an opportunity for Canadians of all ages. Mr. Speaker, you in fact may be eligible even now for the lawn bowling team to compete in the Commonwealth Games in Victoria in 1994.
Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Brewin:: I will take that up with the Victoria Commonwealth Games Society, Mr. Speaker. I am sure your application would be well received. The fact is, though, that if you were to do that you would be subject first of all to a body that would decide who is to be on the team. Once on the team, you would be subject to the rules of that team. Included in those rules would be the absolute discretion as to whether you would compete or not.
As we all know-and not only in the area of selection and eligibility, but also when it comes to working conditions-financial assistance to athletes is determined now by a veiy complex bureaucratic process. Young athletes-and they are primarily younger than you and I, Mr. Speaker-who are elite athletes still in competition live in a world completely dominated by the bureaucracies that govern them. Most of the people who work in these bureaucracies do so out of a conviction that sport has a veiy important place in our society. However, they do so also often without any significant training on employer-employee relations and without any significant constraints on the powers they exercise over young people and over the athletes and coaches who work for them.

Private Members' Business
Clearly one of the most dramatic examples we have seen in recent years is the Ben Johnson affair. When we look a bit closely at that, we see some of the problems that this motion is intended to address.
Ben Johnson clearly made a major breach of the rules under which he was expected to work. The penalty imposed upon him was not a penalty that had been promulgated for the offence he committed, for having been found guilty for the first time of use of banned substances. The government and, through the government, the sports organizations purported to ban him for life. Yet, the fact of the matter is that at the time the appropriate sentence that had been set down for a first offence was a two-year suspension. It is only now, two years later, that in this area justice has been restored to Ben Johnson.
This motion which is before us calls on the government to:
-consider the advisability of an independent review and arbitration process whereby disputes between athletes and sports organizations can be resolved, with power to investigate and direct such remedies as deemed appropriate.
The genesis of this motion which I placed on the Order Paper in April 1989 was a book entitled Athletes' Rights in Canada by Bruce Kidd and Mary Eberts. This book represents a comprehensive analysis of the situation facing athletes and coaches in our sports system across Canada. It was ironic perhaps that following the filing of this motion the Dubin inquiry, for totally different reasons, began to get into its deliberations.
I had an opportunity to present views to the Dubin inquiry and was appreciative of the acknowledgement of that by Mr. Justice Dubin. However, I was even more appreciative of his recommendation and conclusion. Mr. Justice Dubin concluded at page 556 of his report as follows:
As I have stated earlier in this report, the rights of athletes must be respected. It is apparent that athletes have a number of areas for potential disagreement with their sport-governing bodies, including not only doping infractions and eligibility to compete, but also the broad range of rules that govern the conduct of amateur athletes. At present there is no uniform method of resolving these disputes.
Mr. Justice Dubin, as he then was, went on to recommend in recommendation 38 as follows:
THAT all national sport-governing bodies establish within their own rules a grievance process through which athletes may receive a fair hearing from the sport-governing body itself, including a mechanism for arbitration by an independent arbitrator mutually acceptable to the parties.
I urge on the government and I ask this House to urge on the government an acceptance of that recommendation by Mr. Dubin. The recommendation is a very important one for natural justice to the thousands of athletes and coaches who compete and work in our system.
The model that is suggested by the very language is the model that comes from the world of labour relations. As Bruce Kidd has pointed out on a number of occasions, including in his evidence before the Dubin inquiry, the relationship of athletes and coaches to the sports organizations is in reality the relationship of employer and employee. However, the only rules that govern are those rules imposed by the sports organizations, often through contracts which the athletes are required to sign and the coaches are required to sign. Often those contracts are signed without any real bargaining power on the side of the athletes and coaches who have to sign them. They either sign them or they do not participate.
The labour relations model permits a process of conciliation as well as arbitration. In the world of courts and trials there is relatively little emphasis on that. The world of labour relations does permit an understanding that what really has happened in most of these cases is a breakdown of the relationship and that, therefore, there should be some real effort to mediate and resolve the underlying dispute. However, behind that there must be some independent capacity to make a decision which will be binding on the sports organizations so if someone is disciplined without just cause, or the length of the discipline is unfair, or if someone is not selected to a team outside the basic rules that should fairly apply or is de-selected, thrown off the team, or is ruled not eligible for funding, unfairly or improperly, not in accordance with the rules, the athlete or coach who is so treated will have some access to justice and to some independent ruling.
Some will be concerned that this is going to tie up things and is going to get lawyers and everybody else involved. It has been shown again in the world of labour
October 18, 1990

relations, that does not have to happen. There are hundreds of thousands of grievances that take place in the work world. Virtually all of them are decided quickly. Often the representative of the employer has barely realized that a mistake has been made. But that has, nonetheless, been felt to be a grievance by the subject employee.
In this case, the very existence of the system will act to encourage those in positions of authority in the sports world to be fair in dealing with the athletes and coaches involved.
We can easily foresee a system which will permit a quick and immediate resolution of issues which need a quick and immediate resolution, all short, I may say, of telephone judges in the middle of a day.
We can have systems which will mean that there can be a quick interim decision followed eventually by a more careful and thorough examination of the facts, and where possible, a remedy that can be applied.
It should also be necessary, as part of this regime, that the government through Sports Canada should be educating sports organizations and those involved in the system of the kind of rights athletes and coaches should have.
I hope the government members will not see fit to talk this bill out. It is an important matter to thousands of Canadians. It is nothing that is finally binding on the government, it merely asks the government to consider this proposal. We are are already looking at this in the subcommittee on Fitness and Amateur Sport and will be making recommendations on this issue to the government. We would be assisted by the general views of this House as to the advisability of an independent review. We are really simply asking the House to endorse the recommendations of the Dubin Inquiry and to pass judgment that this is a sound and fitting idea.
The relevance of the idea can be seen in a case that has already come before our committee, and that is the case of Andrezej Kulesza, the weightlifting coach who felt thoroughly abused by the findings and report of the Dubin Inquiry with respect to his case. He may be right or he may be wrong, as he appeared before the committee, he had a deep sense of grievance at the treatment he felt he had received. Our committee was unanimous in asking the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, as perhaps a first and test case, to accept the
Private Members' Business
Dubin approach in his case, which was to establish his right to appeal this to an independent arbitrator. Therefore, we have already a specific and active case, and if the House could endorse the motion I have put before it, would assist in a fair and just resolution of this.
In the Dubin report there are many eloquent statements of great as to the role of sport in our society. I would like to refer the House to the following, on page 499 of the report. At the beginning of the chapter, "Ethics and Morality in Sport", Commissioner Dubin says this:
We look to sport to build character, to teach the virtues of dedication, perseverance, endurance and self-discipline. Sport helps us to learn from defeat as much as from victory, and team sports foster a spirit of co-operation and interdependence. We look to sport to impart something of moral and social values and, in integrating us as individuals, to bring about a healthy, integrated society.
Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental rights in our society afforded to employees in every aspect of our national life is the right of association, the right to the protection of collective bargaining. That right is not afforded to athletes.
I submit this House has an obligation, as does the government, to see that one of the most fundamental elements of justice in the workplace, and in this case, justice in the field of sport, be afforded to our young Canadians, that is the right to have their grievances fairly and impartially determined.
I would call on the House to unanimously endorse the motion before you.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as has been so abundantly demonstrated on occasions, you are far more fit than I.
I am pleased, Sir, to participate today in the debate on the motion put forward by my friend for Victoria. The hon. member plays an active role in the parliamentary subcommittee and his views are of great interest and concern to the government.
[Translation\
As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada was pleased to receive the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the use of drugs and banned practices intended to increase athletic performance-better know as the Dubin Report-which the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport tabled in the House last June 27.

October 18, 1990
Private Members' Business
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give my colleagues a few additional details concerning the report because I think they are particularly relevant to the motion now before the House.
The report was the culmination of a process initiated by the federal government a little over two years ago after Canadian athletes got positive drug test readings at the Seoul Summer Olympic Games in Korea.
This was a wide-ranging inquiry. Public hearings ran from January to October 1989,119 witnesses were heard, 295 exhibits were produced and 26 written briefs were presented. In the end Mr. Justice Dubin's report contained 70 recommendations, most of them addressed to the federal government and to other interested parties belonging to the Canadian sports system, national sports organizations, the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine, the Canadian Olympic Association, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
On August 9 of this year the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport made a series of early announcements concerning about 26 of the 70 recommendations. More specifically the announcements related to the situation of people mentioned in the report-athletes, coaches and other support staff-and to a proposed structure concerning future drug-related sanctions. At the same time the minister indicated he would attempt to respond to the remaining report recommendations before year's end.

The issue of an arbitration process for sport was clearly addressed in the Dubin report. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the report contains no less than 10 recommendations which speak to the need for improved appeal, arbitration and investigative procedures in respect of doping. As noted previously, these recommendations are directed at many authorities in the current sports system. For example, Recommendation 11(a) sees an expanded role for the Sport Medical Council of Canada as "the central independent agency responsible for doping control of Canadian athletes and co-ordination of Canada's anti-doping activities." This expanded role would include among other things responsibility for "investigating and reporting to Sport Canada incidents of doping infractions".
Recommendations 37 and 38 call upon national sport governing bodies to establish under their own rules mechanisms through which the conduct of coaches can be investigated and adjudicated, and grievance processes, including independent arbitration, though which "athletes may receive a fair hearing from the sport-government body itself."
A key recommendation addressed to the federal government in this regard was recommendation 42 which calls upon Sport Canada to establish "a right of appeal to an independent arbitrator rather than to the Minister", as currently practised, in the case of those who have "violated the Sport Canada anti-doping policy" and committed other infractions.
In general, the Dubin inquiry was critical of the scope of existing procedures in this area, arguing that they are inadequate from the following standpoints: generally speaking, limited and/or inconsistent means exist in sporting governance to investigate allegations, suspicions or evidence of involvement with banned substances.
Appeal, arbitration and investigation procedures are limited. At present, the conduct of athletes alone is considered. Offences by support and other directly related sport personnel, coaches in particular, are not defined, and hence subject neither to investigation nor sanction.
At present, there is no uniform, objective method by which athletes or others may receive a fair hearing on doping or other sport related issues. In most cases, current arbitration, to the extent it exists, is deal with "in-house" by the national sport-governing bodies.

While the Dubin Inquiry on the appeal, arbitration and investigation processes dealt essentially with doping infractions, the report section devoted to the athletes' rights clearly reflects a concern for sport related disputes generally. Beyond doping infractions, the wide variety of rules which govern the behaviour of amateur athletes are not currently subjected to a standard dispute resolving mechanism.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the need to adopt a new dispute resolving approach in sport is clearly spelled out in the Dubin Report. The spirit of the motion we are dealing with today is certainly consistent with the
October 18, 1990

principle arising out of the report's recommendations and general recognition that improvements are needed in a great many areas of our sport system.
But, as I said, Mr. Speaker, this system involves many parties which all have a part to play in bringing about these improvements and whose lack of participation to the process would minimize the chances of significant changes. Fully aware of this fact, the Minister of State will live up to the commitment he made in August to carry out large scale consultations.

At the same time, the Government of Canada must ensure that, in reviewing options in this regard, it looks to those which are consistent with the complex provisions of the Charter, human rights and administrative law. It is generally recognized that input from the sport community must be balanced by considerations to be provided at an appropriate point in time by legal experts. The sport community is aware of this and I am sure hon. members will welcome this assurance.
In closing, I want to congratulate the hon. member for having made his motion and having given this House the opportunity to debate its merits. There is no doubt that the issue is a timely one.
Still, I am convinced that the honour member's well known sense of fair play and growing appreciation for the development of a unique sport system here in Canada have persuaded him that it would be irresponsible to pre-empt the consultation process in which the Minister of State is currently engaged. Today's debate makes an important contribution to the many viewpoints which are currently being expressed on a wide range of issues, arbitration being a critical one.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion presented by my colleague, the member for Victoria. I would like to commend him for bringing this motion forward, as I believe it is a very important issue to amateur sport in Canada and is deserving of the government's attention.
This motion requests that the government should consider the advisability of establishing an independent review process whereby disputes between athletes and sport organizations can be resolved, with powers to
Private Members' Business
investigate and direct such remedies as deemed appropriate.
For the Canadian amateur sport system to proceed in an equitable manner, our athletes require mechanisms that will afford them rights similar to those enjoyed by the remainder of Canadian society.
The matter of an independent review and arbitration process for athletes is a relevant issue today, especially in light of the findings and recommendations of the commission of inquiry into the use of drugs and banned practices intended to increase athletic performance, which was headed by Chief Justice Charles Dubin.
However, we are not debating today particular athletes' guilt or innocence, or the Dubin report itself. We are considering the rights of athletes. They require certain definable rights which would, for example, provide them with the right to challenge through an independent arbitrator, suspensions or other disciplinary actions imposed on them by sport organizations, the right of an independent appeal procedure or their rights in relation to national team selection.
In his report, Chief Justice Dubin pays considerable attention to athletes' rights. To him, the rights of an athlete should be respected. He goes on to state:
It is apparent, that athletes have a number of areas for potential disagreement with their sport-governing bodies, including not only doping infractions and eligibility to compete, but also a broad range of rules that govern the conduct of amateur athletes. At present, there is no uniform method of resolving these disputes.
To address this problem, Chief Justice Dubin in recommendation No. 38 of his report suggests that:
All national sport-governing bodies establish within their own rules a grievance process through which athletes may receive a fair hearing from the sport governing body itself, including a mechanism for arbitration by an independent arbitrator mutually acceptable to the parties.
In this recommendation, one can see the importance Justice Dubin attaches to providing for athletes' rights within the Canadian amateur sports system.

Mr. Speaker, our society has high regards for individual rights, and rightfully so. It follows that similar rights should be extended to athletes and that amateur sports should provide them at least with access to protection and remedy.

October 18, 1990
Private Members' Business
I suggest that sport-governing bodies understand that they must provide their athletes and trainers with an adequate appeal procedure mechanism based on natural justice. That is only fair, because the interest and welfare of the athletes and trainers must be first and foremost in the minds of sports organization.

Obviously, there are many questions as to what format athletes' rights should take. Arriving at the right formula will require viewing a number of proposals. One that has been considered is a bill of rights for athletes. This proposal has gained a following with some in the amateur sport community and is worthy of further consideration.
As I have said, Chief Justice Dubin has indicated his support for a grievance procedure and independent arbitration for athletes. I think that they could mirror similar systems that are operating within organizations in the private and public sectors.
Whatever independent review and arbitration process is eventually devised, it has to come from discussions between athletes, coaches, national and provincial sport bodies and also the federal and provincial governments. I include governments because I believe there is a role for them to play in the formulation of such a system.
I believe that given the issue of athletes' rights, it would be beneficial to have government involved in the discussion stage on shaping an acceptable system. I think that a joint, consultative process is necessary in order to examine the frameworks which currently exist outside of sport before settling on any particular model. With governmental assistance, the question concerning how to enforce athletes' rights could also be resolved.
The formulation of an acceptable system to deliver what is required will depend in large part on the work of athletes, coaches, and the sport-governing bodies combining to develop what best meets the needs of the athlete. Settling this issue will of course require a significant amount of co-operation if the final product is to work and show athletes that their rights are being protected and not just simply appearing to be.

Mr. Speaker, the abuse of banned performance enhancing substances has had a serious impact on our athletes and on amateur sports in Canada. Nothing should be done to block the efforts to stop this drug abuse. The elimination of this threat against the health of the athlete and amateur sport in general is a major objective for all those who sincerely care for amateur sport.

It is, however, important that there be procedures in place that will offer assistance to amateur athletes in defending themselves. Athletes should have access to due process and independent arbitration. Whether the issue involves drugs or team selection, the fact is that athletes deserve to have their rights protected and to have these rights defined.
Certainly, without a system to assist athletes, they are lacking the support they require to become the best that they can be in their chosen sport. A failure to arrive at a system of athletes' rights would be detrimental to both the athlete and to amateur sport in Canada.
In its report entitled Towards 2000: Building Canada's Sport System, the task force on national sport policy recommended to the government in August, 1988, that it should:
Ensure that actions and decisions affecting athletes (selection, discipline, carding, negotiation of athlete contracts, anti-doping measures, etc.) are conducted in accordance with accepted standards of due process and natural justice.
I believe that this recommendation is right on the mark. I hope that the government will act and come forward to assist in developing such a system within amateur sport.
In responding to Chief Justice Dubin's report on August 9, 1990, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport said:
The development of an appropriate independent appeal mechanism will be addressed in the fall.
While this statement dealt with particular athletes named in Chief Justice Dubin's report, a uniform appeal process for all athletes would be a logical extension. I believe there may be a willingness on the part of the minister to assist in the development of an independent appeal process for the entire amateur sports community in the near future.
October 18, 1990

A number of national sport organizations have some form of appeal process and grievance procedure available for their athletes and coaches. However, it would be desirable to have a uniform system throughout the amateur sport community.
On October 4, 1990, the sub-committee on fitness and amateur sport unanimously adopted a motion requesting the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport to permit one of the coaches mentioned in Justice Dubin's report to appeal the action recommended to be taken against him by Justice Dubin in his report. The motion stated:
That the Sub-Committee ask the Minister of State (Fitness and
Amateur Sport), to establish an independent arbitration into the case
of Mr. Kulesza, if he applies for arbitration.
I hope that our adoption of this motion signals to the minister that there is a need to obtain a uniform system within the amateur sport community that will aid athletes and coaches to deal with problems that arise in their respective sport bodies. The federal government should now come forward and help in developing such a system.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our amateur athletes and coaches should obtain a uniform and independent review and arbitration process to settle disputes between them and the respective sport organization. I call upon the government to offer whatever assistance necessary in bringing this about. By helping to create such mechanisms, the government would be acting in a positive manner and also assisting in accomplishing the goal of providing fairness and equity in the Canadian amateur sport system.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take part in this important debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Victoria.
We on this side of the House are well aware of the hon. member's interest in amateur sports in the country and we thank him for his work on the parliamentary sub-committee on fitness and amateur sport.
The hon. member's motion calls on the government to consider the advisability of establishing an independent review and arbitration process whereby disputes between athletes and sports organizations can be resolved, with
Private Members' Business
power to investigate and direct such remedies as deemed appropriate.
Before commenting directly on the motion, I thought it might be useful to bring hon. members up to speed on the international situation with respect to sport arbitration and appeals.
There are basically two types of mechanisms in place for the review of disputes about the actions of international sport bodies.
First, there is an appeal arbitration process within international sport federations to resolve disputes among members, national federations, or between a member national federation and the international body.
For example, a national federation might dispute the action taken by the international federation in the awarding of the rights to an international championship event. In this case, the national federation could ask for the dispute to be submitted to the arbitration process established by the rules of the international federation.
In addition to disputes involving national federations, some international federations insist, through their rules, that each national federation set up an arbitration mechanism to deal with disputes between national federations and athletes.
In the case of disputes between an athlete and the international federation, the dispute may be brought forward to the arbitration panel of the international federation.
Usually, there are limits as to what can be brought before the arbitration panel of an international federation. In general, doping-related issues and eligibility matters are what the international federations are prepared to deal with, that is, subjects where penalties are automatically invoked by the international federation if guilt has been established.
It should be noted that not all international federations have clear rules concerning arbitration, although increasingly it is the case that they do. For example, the International Amateur Athletics Federation, the world governing body for track and field, has extensive rules on its arbitration panel.
The second type of mechanism for settling disputes in the international domain is the International Olympic Committee's Court of Arbitration for Sport. This mechanism, in theory, will deal with a wide variety of disputes

October 18, 1990
Private Members' Business
involving virtually any agency or individual who has a sport grievance.
However, in reality, the number of cases brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport is quite small, probably fewer than 30 cases since the mechanism was created in 1984. This is mainly because the Court of Arbitration for Sport generally insists that other avenues of appeal and arbitration be exhausted before the resolution through the CAS is invoked, providing, in a sense, a court of independent final appeal.
It can be expected that the Court of Arbitration for Sport will be used more frequently in international sports in the years ahead, as athletes and others become more aware of avenues of appeal and dispute resolution that have been established and more litigious in their outlook generally, based to some degree on the expanding commercial elements associated with amateur sport.
Over-all, Mr. Speaker, one can conclude that many international federations have dispute resolution mechanisms. Such mechanisms to consider appeals of rule application decisions are very well established, in the form of juries of appeal, which operate at virtually every sport event and have been in place for many, many years. Other non-competition grievances, that is, issues which do not have to do with the conduct or outcome of competition, are being established, with most international federations having a mechanism of some sort.
As hon. members know, the issue of arbitration process for sport was clearly addressed in the report of the Commission of Inquiry Into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performances, otherwise known as the Dubin report. The Dubin report makes 10 recommendations on the need for improved appeal, arbitration and investigative procedures in relation to doping in sport.
While the Dubin recommendations on appeal, arbitration and investigation deal primarily with doping infractions, the section of the report focusing on athletes' rights does express concern for sport-related disputes generally. And the need for a new approach in sport to arbitration is clearly spelled out.
This brings me to the motion before us today.
Certainly, the spirit of this motion is consistent with the principles enunciated in the Dubin recommendations and the general recognition that improvements are needed in many areas of our sport system.
But, as the Minister of State for Youth, Fitness and Amateur Sport indicated in his August 9 statement, there are many players in the sport system, all of whom share a role in bringing about improvements and without the input of whom there will be little opportunity for real change.
As the minister said at the time, the government is spending this fall, consulting widely on the Dubin report. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of appeal, arbitration, and investigation processes is an important part of the consultations.
Recently, the minister circulated a discussion paper on doping-related matters that includes a whole section on this area. It will form the basis for dialogue with the national sport organizations and other interested parties. The minister expects to respond before the end of the year.
In the meantime, it would perhaps be inappropriate to support the hon. member's motion and possibly, preempt this consultation process.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this issue forward and giving the House an opportunity to debate it. Today's debate makes an important contribution to the many viewpoints which are currently being expressed in the consultation process.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: addressed in trying to reach a consensus on the future shape of any system encompassing appeal, arbitration and investigative procedures.
A fundamental question centres on the scope and mandate of the processes, mechanisms and procedures envisaged. In this regard, I note that the hon. member's motion focuses on disputes between athletes and sport organizations. There is no doubt that athletes are the first affected group to come to mind, but that is not the only group.
Coaches, for example, are intimately involved in the day-to-day operations of sport. We have had more than ample evidence this year that the rights and responsibilities of coaches can be areas of real dispute.
One need only recall Mr. Daniel St. Elilaire, a track and field coach, and his complaints about the national team selection process for the 1990 Commonwealth Games in Auckland. This well publicized and controversial case demonstrated the significance of dispute resolution in the area of coaches' rights.
Coaches' responsibilities were also the subject of well publicized and controversial testimony during the Dubin inquiry. In the end, Mr. Justice Dubin concluded that there is a need for national sport-governing bodies to establish mechanisms in this area. In short, I believe a legitimate case can be made here for expanding the categories of persons affected by arbitration processes beyond those immediately prescribed in today's motion.
Apart from the question of defining whose disputes are to be dealt with under any new arbitration process, there needs to be careful consideration of the nature of complaints allowed. The open-ended wording of today's motion implies a process for dealing with disputes generally, regardless of their nature. Indeed, this appears to coincide with the sort of resolution mechanism envisaged by Mr. Justice Dubin where he refers to disputes involving "the broad range of rules that govern the conduct of amateur sport".
Whether, in the final analysis, the mandate of an arbitration process were to be very broad in nature is something that needs careful consideration. Clearly, mandate issues must be defined before informed decisions can be made about their viability from an operational, financial and human resource standpoint. Once questions concerning the scope of arbitration processes
Private Members' Business
are defined, presumably the next major question to resolve is whose responsibility it is to provide them.
The motion of the hon. member for Victoria makes what many may consider a giant presumption in that regard. It states that "the government should consider the advisability of establishing" a review arbitration process with investigative powers. What about the responsibility of the other players in the sport system? What about the recommendations in the Dubin report which, while clearly pointing out a need for changes in the current federal appeals procedure on funding sanctions relating to doping infractions, also points to the sport-governing bodies.
I think it is fair to say that the likelihood of success in implementing an effective arbitration process will depend on the degree of "ownership", as the minister's discussion paper terms it, which national sport organizations accept in the regulation of their respective jurisdictions. For example, today's motion calls for an "independent" process but independent in relation to what and to whom?
At this stage we need to think further about this concept, not in the sense of questioning the need for absolute fairness and due process but rather in the structural and organizational sense.
Again, the minister's discussion paper puts the question succinctly: In what circumstances should the provider of the appeal arbitration and investigative service be individual national sport organizations, or a central agency or a co-ordinated effort by both? Insofar as doping infractions themselves are concerned, the Dubin report appears to see the investigatory side of the process at least as a co-operative venture requiring the participation of both an expanded central independent agency capacity and concerned national sport organization.
Earlier I alluded briefly to appeal procedures for federal funding sanctions imposed on athletes who have committed doping infractions. Obviously this is one element of the current system which falls within the government's jurisdiction and one which the federal government is asked to address in the context of recommendation 42 of the Dubin report. That recommendation calls for the right of appeal to an independent arbitrator as opposed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport on the question of entitlement for direct federal funding.

October 18, 1990
Private Members' Business
As is the case with respect to review processes which may take place currently within national sport organizations, or the Sport Medicine Council of Canada, there are many questions to resolve in relation to federal sanctions arbitration. These include, among others: the parties eligible for sanction; the number and qualification of arbitrators; the means by which arbitrators are appointed and their role and jurisdiction; whether or not there would be power of subpoena available to the parties from the arbitrator; and, the public interest in having the proceedings strictly private or open to public viewing, and so on.
Clearly these are complex issues which require a great deal of consideration by the Government of Canada in developing proposals for any new federal sanctions arbitration procedure.
But that is but one discrete aspect of a broader arbitration system and it would be premature and indeed irresponsible for the government to act upon today's motion unilaterally, as if it were the sole authority in this area. It is not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the three government members who have already spoken to date have all persistently said that this resolution should not be considered because it would be premature. Yet all three speakers have said that the government is now considering the very matter which is embodied in this resolution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The hon. member for Levis has the floor.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on April 10, 1989, the hon. member for Victoria put the following motion on the Order Paper:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing an independant review and arbitration process whereby disputes between athletes and sports organizations can be resolved, with the power to investigate and direct such remedies as deemed appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Victoria. When the hon. member suggests in his motion that the government should consider the advisability of establishing an independant review and arbitration process whereby disputes between athletes and sports organizations can be resolved, with power to investigate and direct such remedies as deemed appropriate. I imagine he is referring to the current situation with respect to appeal, arbitration and investigations in the Canadian sports field.
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the appropriateness of the motion of the hon. member for Victoria, I should like to say something to my colleagues about the situation concerning recourses to appeals, arbitration and investigations just so they will have a better understanding of the whole issue.
That is what I should like to explain during the few minutes at my disposal.
For openers I notice that the motion under consideration does not say anything about appeal proceedings, yet I would suggest they are just as important as arbitration proceedings and the power to investigate.
In any case allow me to describe the context of current appeal and arbitration proceedings related to drug offences. In simple terms, the system includes three main components.
First we have the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine. This body considers appeals filed when samples are taken, when sample B is opened and following a positive reading on sample B
If an athlete accused of an infraction to the antidoping rules so request after Sample B tested positive, the Council has full authority to activate the arbitration
mechanism.
Surely you will have understood, Mr. Speaker, that these mentions of Sample B imply that a Sample A had first tested positive, the results of Sample B confirming simply those of Sample A.
Then, there are the national sport-governing bodies which hear appeals based on internal rules and procedures.
Finally, there is the Federal Government which, through its Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), which hears the appeals concerning the re-establishment of government financing eligibility.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the Sport Medicine Council. This organization, together with Sport Canada, published in July of this year a document dealing with the operation of standardized
October 18, 1990

doping control methods. In the section devoted to appeal procedures, there is a list of various steps to take.
This section describes the procedures which an athlete must follow to submit a grievance after having tested positive, the steps to be taken concerning an appeal and arbitration procedure which includes the holding of meetings with the arbitrator, as well as provisions dealing with the communication between the arbitrators and the parties and those concerning the hearing. Which means that the parties involved in the development of these methods will have to review them in the light of Justice Dubin's recommendations.
I should like to elaborate now on the situation which exists within the national sport-governing bodies I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Speaker, most national and provincial sport-governing organizations in Canada already have dispute settlement procedures which make it possible for the athletes and the public in general to appeal their decisions.
Generally speaking, these arbitration procedures put together by the various organizations could be criticized for their lack of independence, because they were set up by the very organizations whose decisions are being appealed. These procedures, however, are generally considered as quiet objective and fair.
The problems as to their impartiality arise when the grievance by an athlete or somebody else is directed at the very organization which has ruled on the original decision. It should be said that most national and provincial sport-governing organizations recognize this weaknesses, and often submit the dispute to another panel within the same sport organization.
However, organizations that are more sensitive to the basic question-probably a minority right now-submit the case to a group made up of people partly or entirely chosen by both sides, as is the case in arbitration.
Delving deeper into the subject, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal now with the various types of grievance, appeal and arbitration procedures currently in use in the Canadian sport system.
Such procedures include appeal panels whose responsibility consists in reviewing the decisions made by
Adjournment Debate
officials and other persons concerning the management of a sporting event. There are also arbitration and appeal procedures which the interested parties may follow to contest decisions made by a sport organization, for example concerning the eligibility of an athlete to compete when he has been the subject of allegations that he might have breached the amateur rules governing the sporting activities involved.
There are also appeal procedures-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member-

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period on June 7, I asked the energy minister a question regarding his commitment to reducing CO2 emissions. Specifically I asked him whether he endorsed the commitment by his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to stabilize Canada's carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2000.
The energy minister brushed off my question, referring to The Green Plan consultations, so in my supplementary question I asked him again whether he agreed to the environment minister's plans and whether he as energy minister had a plan to make these reductions possible. Again he brushed off my question.
It is because I did not receive a satisfactory answer on June 7 that I am back again this evening trying to get a straight answer either from the minister or the parliamentary secretary.

October 18, 1990
Adjournment Debate
I think this question is very important because, as we all know, greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, the gradual heating up of the earth. Canadians want to know and have as right to know what this government's policy is on this issue.
The all-party environment committee released an interim report yesterday on global warming. I want to quote one paragraph:
Given that human-sourced carbon dioxide emissions are the principal contributor to (global warming), and given that society's use of energy is the largest factor in this CO2 generation,-energy policy making must have as its immediate focus the more efficient and conserving use of energy.
This certainly is in line with the 1987 Brundtland commission report which says that energy strategies must be aimed at achieving sustainable development.
When the present environment minister of this government endorsed the commitment made by the previous environment minister to stabilize CO2 emissions by the year 2000, it seemed the most logical question at the time was to find out whether the energy minister agreed with him. After all, it would be up to the energy minister to come up with a plan to use less energy and to use it more efficiently.
I put the question to the energy minister on June 7, and I got the brush-off. I had also put this question to the Acting Prime Minister on May 25. While the government at that time confirmed the commitment of the environment minister, the question of how the energy minister stood on this issue was left unanswered.
Recently details of the energy minister's new energy efficiency and conservation plan have been released. That is a plan that had been promised as a replacement for all the cuts that this government had made to alternative energy and conservation since 1984.
Canada had been a world leader in energy research, especially in conservation and alternative energy, until this government came to power.
In 1983 the previous federal government spent almost $500 million. Under this government spending has dropped to approximately $40 million-


Mr. Crawford:: Disgraceful.


Catherine S. Callbeck: -a 90 per cent cut in alternative energy and conservation. This government also closed 12 regional conservation and renewable offices, including one
in my province located in Charlottetown. It also has greatly reduced its contributions to cost shared alternative energy programs with the Government of Prince Edward Island.
A lot was expected from this plan that we found out about recently. However, when the plan's contents were revealed, it became clear that carbon dioxide emissions would actually increase, not decrease, between 8 per cent and 17 per cent by the year 2000. That is certainly a far cry from the commitment made by the Minister of the Environment to stabilize CO2 emissions by the year 2000.
The question is: Who speaks for the government? Is it the Minister of the Environment who says one thing or the energy minister whose new action plan says something veiy different? I would also like to know what the energy minister meant when he said in August that Canada should lead by example in reducing CO2 emissions.
The new plan the minister has released is a far cry from the commitment of the environment minister. It is even further from the recommendations of the environment committee, and still further from commitments made by countries like West Germany, Denmark and New Zealand.
What does the minister mean when he says we should lead by example and he draws up a plan that fails to do so? Why can't these two ministers agree on government policy? The Canadian public-


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


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the concerns of the hon. member for Malpeque today.
The government has agreed with the need to address the issue of global warming, which is caused by an excessive production of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide. It was for this reason that the Government of Canada joined with other countries on May 16 at Bergen to establish a national strategy, targets and schedules to limit, stabilize or reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible.
October 18, 1990

Canada joined with the majority of the ECE, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, in expressing the view that such stabilization at the latest by the year 2000 and at present levels must be the first step.
Obviously all ministers of the Government of Canada accept the undertakings formally made at the international forum without underestimating the significance of targets that may be agreed upon internationally. The more relevant question concerns what specific actions we are prepared to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The government recognizes the importance of this issue, and it has a process in place to deal with it. During the spring and summer it held consultations with stakeholders in all parts of Canada to obtain advice on this and other environmental issues. It is now in the final stages of preparing its green plan which will be published later this year. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his officials have been working very closely with the Minister of the Environment in the development of the plan. The plan will set out a number of significant measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. These will include measures to improve energy efficiency and to develop alternate sources of energy.
These measures will be concrete steps which the federal government will take to address the issue of global warming and carbon dioxide emissions; but the federal government is only one of the several actors involved. If Canada is to achieve a national emissions target it will require a national effort. Our provincial colleagues also have important areas of jurisdiction in terms of energy matters. Their contributions will be vital to achieving emission targets. Municipalities can play an important role and the industry's full participation will also be necessary. Last but not least will be the actions that every Canadian can take in addressing the issue of global warming.
It has been an honour for me to address this question.


SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue a question which I asked in this House on March 8, 1990 of the Minister of Justice.
Adjournment Debate
At that time I asked the Minister of Justice when the Conservative government would finally keep the promise that was made over four years ago to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction.
That was a commitment or a promise that was made to all Canadians; not just to lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in Canada but to all Canadians. I would point out that there is serious discrimination in Canada on the basis of sexual orientation.
Indeed the Canadian Human Rights Commission has noted, in its annual report of earlier this spring, that the government's indifference in this regard has contributed to a very serious increase in the level of homophobia and marginalization in our society.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission went on to state that further delay in the amendments that were proposed to the Canadian Human Rights Act would surely bring into serious question the federal government's commitment to human rights principles.
In hearings before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Disabled later in the spring the Minister of Justice indicated that in fact she would be tabling a package of amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act this fall, some four and a half years after the original promise was made.
As well, the government promised sometime ago-and I am speaking now of the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for St. John's West who is now the Minister for International Trade-that the Canadian Human Rights Act would be amended to incorporate the principle of reasonable accommodation, which has been described by the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped as one of the most important, if not the most important the most pressing, human rights issue facing the disabled. That is to be part of this package of Human Rights Act amendments.
Now the fall is here and once again it appears that this government is afraid to move on a question of fundamental justice and equality.
This is not merely a question of words in an act. We are talking about human lives. We are talking about people being treated with dignity, respect, and full justice. We are talking about the reality of the lives of too many lesbians and gay men who are victims of violence, of gay bashing, and who are afraid to report that to the

October 18, 1990
Adjournment Debate
police, because if they do and it becomes public they risk losing their jobs. They risk rejection from their friends and family. It is only by effective human rights amendments that people will not have that fear of losing their jobs.
We know as well that the Canadian Armed Forces continues to discriminate against qualified and indeed outstanding men and women in the forces who happen to be gay or lesbian. These policies which are cruel and inhumane have caused tremendous pain and suffering for far too many members of the Canadian forces. For those who have been forced out, it shatters their lives. Others continue to live within the Armed Forces but live in fear that this essential part of their humanity is somehow going to be disclosed and their lives destroyed after many years of service.
Fortunately these policies of the forces are being challenged in the courts. Former Second Lieutenant Michelle Douglas, an outstanding officer described as one of the finest officers her commanding officer had ever seen, has had the courage to challenge the forces in the courts. Derek Dwyer, another young officer is similarly challenging this policy.
They should not be forced to the courts. Justice surely compels this government to end these policies which are so discriminatory.
The ad hoc committee on AIDS of this Parliament unanimously and strongly urged this government to keep the promise to amend human rights legislation to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation as a top priority.
The committee pointed out that failure to amend the legislation in this way would clearly impair the effectiveness of strategies to combat this terrible epidemic.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly deal with the question that was raised earlier this week by the comments that were reported by the chairperson of the standing committee on the disabled, the member for Oxford. He indicated that the government and some Conservative backbenchers are afraid to proceed on amendments to the Human Rights Act because they do not want to open up this question of sexual orientation.
They are prepared to deal with the disabled, but God forbid that they should have to deal with equality and justice for lesbians and gay men in this country.
We are not talking about strangers. We are talking about our brothers, our sisters, our sons, our daughters, the people with whom we work, our neighbours. For God's sake, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to members of this House and to the government, and through the members of the government that are here in the House today, to finally keep the promise that was made, a promise that was made in response to the unanimous recommendation of an all-party committee to ensure justice and full equality under the Charter of Rights to all Canadians in this country. The time is long overdue for action.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway has asked when the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act will be moved to give effect to the government's commitment to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
As noted by the hon. member, the government stated in Toward Equality, in response to the report of the parliamentary subcommittee on equality rights that it will "take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction".
The hon. member noted the length of time that has passed since Toward Equality was tabled.

I would like to explain that the government has undertaken an in-depth review of the legislation. Sexual orientation is one of the many important issues now under consideration. Others include, for instance, the question as to whether human rights legislation should have precedence over other federal laws. We are also considering the possibility of introducing in the legislation the concept of reasonable accommodation, the abolition of mandatory retirement. It goes without saying that the government's decision on these issues is bound to have a strong impact on the lives of Canadians and, more generally, on our society as a whole.
October 18, 1990



However, there are many groups involved in the process, each putting forward a great diversity of concerns. Some of these concerns will be difficult to reconcile but the government is, and will be, working expeditiously to do this. The review of the act continues at this time.
Officials of the department are working hard to put together proposals that will resolve the outstanding issues, meet the concerns that have been expressed so far and at the same time uphold the integrity of the commitments already made by the government.
In closing, I think it is important to emphasize that as the government had predicted in Toward Equality, the courts have found so far that sexual orientation is encompassed by the guarantees of section 15 of the Charter. While the Charter does not apply to the private sector, these judicial decisions offer a significant degree of protection against legislation that would discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on June 18, I asked the Minister of Finance this follow-up question to a question I had asked a few days previous when he invited me to visit the trustee in bankruptcy with respect to the sale of Route Canada to Transport Route Canada Incorporated. After visiting the trustee in bankruptcy I said:
I am more convinced after spending at least three hours with the
trustee that the 1,900 employees of CN Route never had a chance.
They were doomed from the day the deal took place.
The minister answered that the company had been losing between $40 and $50 million a year. CN had to make a decision. They either had to shut down and terminate the jobs of the employees or sell the company as a going concern to the Fingold brothers.
That reply brings us here today because it was unsatisfactory because of the words, "it was sold as a going concern." We on this side of the House have been attempting to get a complete and total review of this particular transaction, that is, the sale by CNR of its transportation arm, CN Route Canada, to the group of investors in Toronto, the Fingold brothers and a person by the name of Manfred Ruhland.
Adjournment Debate
We are constantly debating whether or not it was sold as a going concern. Let me advise those on the other side of the House that we will not give up on this debate until we have some satisfaction for those 1,900 workers who are affected by this terrible sale by CNR to these investors from Toronto.
As a result of that meeting and our follow-up on this side of the House, we have been trying to get before the Standing Committee on Transport a resolution and a motion passed that would allow all members of the House to review in complete detail the offer of purchase and sale and all particular matters as they pertain to this particular transaction. The one and only emphasis will be to protect the rights of those 1,900 people who were terminated who were former employees of the CNR and CN Transport. They were transferred to this new corporation and their rights were not protected in that transfer.
Let me bring those who are listening throughout Canada up to date. As of this morning, Thursday, October 18, there was a meeting called of the Standing Committee on Transport. The purpose of the meeting was to elect a chairman, since the chairman had resigned in the past week. The other matter to be discussed today at that standing committee was resuming consideration of my motion, pursuant to Standing Order 106. We wish to review the sale of CN Route Canada by Canadian National Railways to Transport Route Canada Inc., and the several other incorporated companies either involved in the sale or amalgamated as a result of that sale.
What happened at 9.30 this morning is something that I had never seen before at a committee meeting. The members of the Conservative Party that were on that committee failed to show up. In essence, the committee lacked a quorum and those items that were under consideration, particularly the item on the agenda that I just read, could not be addressed, could not be followed through, could not be voted on. As a result of further delay, those ill-affected employees are not being helped. This is another way to try to get this government to do something in the best interests of those employees and something that it is legally bound to do. It is morally bound to look after those employees of CNR.
By way of background, in 1986 CN Route sold its trucking arm to a company called Transport Route Canada Inc. Three people bought it for a sale price of

October 18, 1990
Adjournment Debate
$29 million. We have, through our investigative process, been able to ascertain that the 36 valuable property locations in this country had been appraised at about $80 million and the rolling stock that they acquired in that transaction was appraised at approximately $23 million. That adds up to $103 million, which was the value of this company. The transport arm of CNR was worth $103 million and it was sold for $29 million.
These investors operated this company only 20 months declaring bankruptcy, and the unsecured creditors amounted to $65 million. Now if we have our arithmetic correct what it amounts to is $80 million plus $23 million, minus $29 million, which leaves $139 million that is missing in 20 months-almost $7 million a month. What we are trying to do on this side of the House is find out where that money went so that we can benefit the employees that were directly affected.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my first response to my friend opposite would be with respect to the transport committee meeting. I gather that the whole question relates to the Whip's report setting out the new membership of the committee, and the three parties cannot agree on that. I guess until they can agree on it it is very difficult when chairman has resigned.
With respect to the CN Route case I really appreciate the opportunity to be able to put some facts on the record that might help my friend a bit. I would remind him that the employees' transition package was negotiated by their respective union representatives.
Employees affected by the downsizing of the new company were given termination benefits three to four times their entitlements under the Labour Code and their own collective agreement.
CN Route was costing the taxpayer, his constituents and mine, $30 million to $40 million every year. CN had two options-surely it should not have to carry on and keep the taxpayers on the hook for $30 million to $40 million in perpetuity. It had an option to sell it as a going concern or simply shut it down.
The fact is that the vast majority of the employees were much better off with two additional years of employment than they would have been had CN Route been shut down.
This government has lived up to its responsibilities in this matter, as indeed it would in any other private sector bankruptcy.
My friend opposite knows that if the NDP had anything to do with it, everything would be subsidized forever as if money fell out of the trees, but those of us who have both feet on the ground know that that cannot carry on.
Labour Canada did a payroll audit to determine employee entitlements by way of pay and benefits under the Canada Labour Code. Labour Canada then took action which resulted in vacation pay to the level specified in the Canada Labour Code, and wages owing being paid to employees shortly after Route Canada shut down.
Labour Canada also apprised the company of severance pay and pay in lieu of notice owing to employees and, upon Route Canada being declared bankrupt, sent the information to the bankruptcy trustee.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions took action in the summer of 1988 to bring its pension plan payments up to date and on September 16, 1988, terminated the Route Canada pension plan to protect employee entitlements.
At the time of the bankruptcy Route Canada owed, but had not yet been billed for, about $600,000 in pension plan payments. As a result of actions of OSFI and the plan's administrator, Crown Life, Route Canada's principal secured creditor, the Royal Bank, has agreed to make the payment. The shortfall in payments did not have any effect on payments to pensioners.
Employment and immigration established and funded employment adjustment committees where requested to do so by employees.
Transport Canada assisted independent truckers under contract to Route Canada in getting re-established with other companies. It also facilitated the establishment of an inter-city company by those owner-operators who wished to start up such a service.

The powers of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, under the Bankruptcy Act, came into play once Route Canada was declared bankrupt. The Superintendent of Bankruptcy immediately issued an investigation order to the RCMP in view of the allegations surrounding the bankruptcy.
That investigation is ongoing and I believe that it is not appropriate to make any further comment in that light.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day the adjournment motion is deemed withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (p. 13232), the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) (p. 13240), and the subamendment of Ms. McLaughlin (p. 13244).
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate. First of all I want to make very clear that I really do not support the motion before us, except in so far as that this House condemns the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. As an individual member representing my constituents I do not need to be encouraged by "unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait". I would take that as a matter of course and I would think most hon. members of the House would think likewise. One cannot tolerate aggression, no matter where it occurs and no matter by whom.
As many hon. members have pointed out in the debate so far, we have very selective memories and very selective applications of a moral high ground that we apply with respect to Iraq and Kuwait. This, by no means, should be taken or misconstrued as any kind of support, indirect or direct, for the actions of Iraq and its leader.
There are two points at issue. The first is what this government did without consulting the House when the
Government Orders
action erupted in the Middle East, without consulting citizens of Canada through their representatives in the House of Commons, without so much as giving this Parliament an indication that it had a right to be involved in actions that could precipitate the world into a conflagration matched only 50 years ago.
I have seen members of the House speak with conviction, almost with rage, on this motion. Why? Because it seems so much like residents of a house of ill-repute discussing the virtues of chastity and abstinence and, perhaps, prevention, all after the fact.
There is an enormous lack of legitimacy behind the government's initial decision to commit the Armed Forces of the country without immediately bringing Parliament back together to discuss what the government's intention should have been.
I point to the fact that this is not a question of the letter of the law being applied, but the intent of the law and a perception among the Canadian public and the global public that Parliament and Canadians had not been consulted before making a commitment that cannot be withdrawn at a later date. We seem to be missing the point that what we are doing is engaging in an academic exercise about whether it was right or wrong to get involved in the first place. Only one member, the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina, made a suggestion that perhaps we ought to consider something along the lines of withdrawal.
I was in Europe at the time of the explosion of this crisis. I anticipated being called back to the House to debate a matter of great urgency. I happened at the time to be a guest of the Commons of one of the main countries in Europe. All members who had gone on holiday were called back to debate what that country should do with respect to the crisis. The same thing happened throughout Europe. Members of Parliament were recalled because in their view a decision that was motivated by American interests in the area would involve all of Europe, maybe all the world, in an issue with which they had to have (a) prior thought and consideration, (b) an assessment of their interests, (c) an assessment of the development of the world interests as a result of their involvement or their abstinence and, finally, (d) the extent to which they wanted to commit the resources available to them in the alteration of the diplomatic, political, economic, and religious realities,

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
not only of that part of the world, but throughout the rest of the developed and developing world.
We did not have that opportunity here and it is to the great shame of the government for not having consulted with Canadians to do that beforehand and to put both opposition parties in a position where they have to produce amendments to suggest that perhaps there should have been other consultations and that perhaps the government's motion to this point not take the country in the direction in which it should have gone in the first place.
I might share for a moment or two some of the concerns of fellow parliamentarians throughout Europe, having listened and participated in some of that debate as an observer, a very intent observer at the time, as I say, because of the anticipation of being called back to Ottawa.
They were concerned that, in the event that there was not participation by European states and other states in activities that were developing in the Middle East that perhaps one very mundane consideration-the supply of oil resources to maintain the industrial power of the machinery both in Europe and elsewhere-might not be as secure. In fact, energy prices would increase immeasurably. Second, they were very concerned about the heightened Arab-Israeli tensions that might emanate. Third, they were concerned that Europe's participation in any deal with respect to the distribution of those resources could not be influenced by their absence. What would happen if they were involved? All we have to do is take a look at what has happened over the course of the last two months. Oil prices have increased. We have been given assurances, not excuses, but assurances by our energy minister that we could look forward to an additional 10-cent per litre increase in the price of gasoline at the pumps. We have had a redistribution of the economies already begun throughout the world.
They were concerned that there would be increased Arab nationalism. It is there. It is evident everywhere despite the alliance that the Americans appear to have built up. That there would be an exacerbation of east-west tensions is now a matter of fact. It is no longer a matter of speculation. That tensions between the Arab world and Israel would have risen, again, is a question of evident fact and no longer a question of speculation.
Did we consider those things before we made a decision to send our forces into the area? Did we consider what would happen to our economy if the supply of oil was going to be managed by either Arab residents of the area or American multinational oil interests? Did we consider that perhaps in neither case would our interest be served?
All we have to do is take a look at government action with respect to energy policy here today with the kinds of presentations that our energy minister is giving with respect to a very valuable resource for our industries. He is talking already about rationing gasoline and oil supplies. I cannot believe we live in a serious democracy any more. All he is doing is jacking up the price already at the pump and at the refineries.
That would be bad enough, if we had not taken into consideration as well that the government has become extremely insensitive to the evolution of its foreign policy.
This decision by the government runs counter to its normal practice. It reflects, as I said a moment ago, a policy inconsistent with regard both to timely consultation with Parliament and to defence and foreign policy.
In the past the government has felt it incumbent upon itself to recall Parliament immediately. We have seen it, as some of my colleagues on this side of the House have pointed out, a mere five years ago when there was a national crisis because 174 Sikhs landed on the shores of Nova Scotia. If it were not so tragic, it would be laughable.
Yet the government has started to remind us, and it will continue to do so-and I hope to call it to hon. members' attention-that the government will remind us that what led up to this situation with Iraq is in the past. We cannot change what is there, but I am sure colleagues will say: "Of course, but we can at least influence how we will act down the road."
The government is asking for full and unanimous support from the Canadian public for the placement of our forces in an area that is now in a state of war footing.
Cynics will say it is going to happen within a couple of weeks. The greatest of optimists are talking about containing, maybe restraining and retaining the level of conflict. We are putting our young men and women at
October 18, 1990

risk in an area where our interests have yet to be defined, whether they be moral, political, or economic.
The government does not want to address questions about why Canadian forces are positioned in the Persian Gulf within a war zone if war breaks out. It does not want to deal with who calls the shots-pardon the pun-for Canadian forces if war does break out, whether it will be the Americans, the United Nations, or Canadian personnel.
It does not want to address what Canadian forces are expected to do, if war does become a reality. Right now, the reality is that we are participating in a blockade that is intended to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, or to force Iraq into a war with the United States. We are being asked to support blindly Canadian government initiatives in this regard.
The build up of American forces, analysts said three weeks ago, is costing the American government more than $1 billion per week. This is an indication that those soldiers were not put there because they requested a holiday.
Perhaps the main motives of why the situation in the Middle East developed to the state it has come is probably to be seen in analyzing American interests with respect to its own economic interest, its declining world political influence, and the emergence of a Europe in 1992 which might find itself much more independent of American influence globally, as well as in that particular area.
If the big question is the redistribution of economic power, if the big question is the impact on the industries of the industrialized world as a result of the politics of the Middle East, why were we not given the opportunity to examine those interests? I see that my colleagues from the NDP would probably agree.
This has nothing to do with isolationism. This has nothing to do with the policy of deciding if we are to the left or to the right. If, as a country, we have in the past supported the democratrization of societies everywhere, if, as a country, we have tolerated military presence only in a peacekeeping capacity, why would we depart from those two very valuable principles now when they are needed most?
Government Orders
I am not naive, neither am I completely oblivious to the conflagrations that exist world-wide. There are areas that quite unfortunately are steeped in military conflict where we are not playing a role. There are other areas where our allies are involved in conflict and we are not playing a role. There are other areas where our friends and our allies are involved in the kind of circumstances that could at best be described as compromising of some principle and we are not involved.
It would appear that when the American eagle sneezes, we rush forward with our handkerchiefs. What have we seen in the course of this debate? Not only have we been attempting, at least on the government side, to seek reactive type of unanimous support, a whitewash of government initiative or lack thereof, but we are seeing seeping into the debate, very slowly and insidiously, the discussion that we can actually influence the outcome by now talking about a possible resolution called linkage.
For those who are becoming much more aware of what this term linkage means in international politics, I have heard hon. members from both parties talk about the secret to peace in the Middle East being seen in the resolution of the Palestinian question.
As one who has already avowed adherence to the principle of international peace, to the principle of international demilitarization, to the principle of harmony among people, I could hardly exclude the question of resolving the problem of Palestinians in any debate.
I am not here to discuss that particular issue. I was being asked-and I would have hoped that I had been asked two months ago-to debate whether in fact we ought to be involved in the activity of a legitimate president, no matter how much we dislike him, and I dislike him intensely, no matter how much we dislike the form of government, and I disapprove of it totally, to debate the action of one Arab leader against the actions of another Arab leader.
For those who do not understand it, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein did not enter Kuwait because he was interested in resolving the problems of the Palestinians in the Middle East. He absolutely did not do that. For us now to start beginning to talk, as my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway and my colleague from Trinity- Spadina said, saying we have to link the two in order to reach a solution, I think avoids the very serious question that all of us should address, and that is: What is

Government Orders
Canada's role in that area? What are we doing there in the first place?
Second, for those who have a genuine concern and say that this problem ought to extend to the Arab-Israeli question, I say fine. Good intentions are fine. In every other instance what have we asked for is that the partners in conflict, the partners who have a problem and are in an adversarial position, ought to have between them an opportunity to decide what the solution to their problem is. In other words, bilateral negotiations. I do not know whether this House has ever suggested that there be a solution imposed on anyone.
The massive military build-ups suggest that perhaps because of our participation, we are now coming to the point where, yes, it is now legitimate to think about imposing a solution, so we are going to democratize the entire Arab world. We are going to proselythize our religious background, our cultural values, the new values of the industrial world in the area.
I do not know whether we were all born yesterday or whether we constantly dream in Technicolor, but there are people out there who do not believe in the democratic principles to which we adhere, people who do not believe that our culture and our industrial economy is the be all and end all of their personal aspirations.
Once we begin to realize that Israel is an element that represents the western world by virtue of its presence and its values, why do we not allow Israel to work out its problems with Palestine and the Palestinians on their own?
If, out of such negotiations, comes the suggestion that there be an international conference, I think most members around this House would support an international conference. But, unlike my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway, I think it should not be one that predetermines what the agenda will be, and not one that already predetermines what the outcome will be. I think that this House might even support an international conference that was asked for by both partners in that negotiation.
If the international community were willing to stick its neck out and guarantee any of the decisions reached by those partners and by that international conference, it would be observed by one and all.
I have not heard that in any of the presentations given today. Unfortunately, I have not heard that as an initiative by the government.
And so, Mr. Speaker, on the motion, I can only say that I will support my party's amendment because it at least gives me an opportunity to affirm the principles of involvement in the United Nations and United Nations activity, but I cannot support the government's motion because I want peace first, foremost and always.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate my colleague from Eglin-ton-Lawrence who as usual gave an in depth review, showing his wealth of knowledge of this particular matter. I certainly support the position my colleague has taken.
The essence of what we are talking about in this debate and the question I want to pose to my colleague is this. Is there any indication how long this confrontation we face in the Middle East will last? How long will be faced with hurting people in Canada because of the mid-east crisis which we seem to face time after time after time? What I refer to is the fact that this conflict, although almost on the other side of the world, has a direct effect in Canada and a direct effect in the area from which I come.
Iraq, up to this point in time, had been a substantial customer of Canada in the purchase of grain, oats and barley. It has now been embargoed and we can no longer ship to that country. The conflict in the mid-east has caused some concern in the seaway inasmuch as for the last two years we have been told that the reason for grain shipments through west coast ports has been because most of our customers for export grain are in the Pacific Rim countries.
On the day the embargo was placed on goods and services sold to Iraq, boats laden with grain were destined for Iraq. Where are these boats? They are not in the port of Thunder Bay, which is the traditional route for all products being shipped to Iran and Iraq. They are not in the downriver ports of Montreal and Baie Comeau where the grain is loaded on huge tankers, but the grain and the boats are embargoed in the port of Vancouver. Those boats, laden with grain destined for Iraq and Iran, go through the Panama Canal. We have been told that any grain bound for the traditional markets flowed through the St. Lawrence Seaway and was not being
October 18, 1990

shipped out of the west coast ports. My question to my friend is how long, in his best judgment, does he think this embargo on food products will exist and does he agree with it?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I thank my hon. colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon for his question. He raised an issue that has been debated among many of our colleagues and one that I raised in my presentation. That is the question of Canadian interests. The interests are twofold; those of principle that should be applied generally and should transcend borders and individual interests, and the other one of pure monetary interest. We take the second one.
Until recently, like most Canadians, I was not aware of the level of trade in agricultural products between our country and Iraq. It appears that Iraq is one of our biggest importers of grain. It is one of our biggest customers. In fact, I heard one member claim that it is our biggest consumer of agricultural goods. If that is the case, and I take into account the fact that the member was trying to make a point when he said it is the biggest, the fact of the matter is that the blockade is influencing our export of agricultural goods. It is influencing as well the level of involvement we have in transportation. It is going to have an impact on the people who are dependent on both for jobs and livelihood.
Mr. Speaker, I would never suggest for a moment that we should examine our principles on the basis of economic advantage to a region of Canada or to Canadians at large. So, I want to address the second question, of the principle that we have already put aside by being involved in this crisis. I do not think there is anyone here or in this country can give my hon. colleague a satisfactory response with respect to a termination date. One would hope that the solution is a peaceful and speedy so that we can recall our young men and women to serve Canadians in Canada, or to serve under the auspices of international bodies that makes decision before a superpower imposes it on them.
Secondly,we hope there is a peaceful solution so that we normalize relations not only with that country, but with others so that our economies can get back on the footing they were on a couple of months ago so that we can produce for others, and return to the normalization of prices in the energy area.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to be able to participate in this debate.
I would like to begin my remarks by saying that I, along with other members in this Chamber, condemn Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. In fact, not only Iraq, but its president should be condemned for many other actions it has taken in recent years. Saddam Hussein should not be the leader of that country. In fact, should be locked away.
I would like to pay tribute to the troops who are now in that area of the world, to the embassy staff in that region under a very difficult situation and also to the Canadian citizens in that region. Of course, my thoughts go out to those people and members of their families in Canada who are very concerned about their welfare, and particularly to one individual in the City of Moose Jaw, Paul Francoeur, a member of the armed forces presently in the Middle East. My best wishes and thoughts go out to him and his family.
I would like to take a slightly different approach than some members have been taking with respect to this debate and focus on a couple of areas; the role and purpose of the United Nations, and with respect to democracy here in this country.
The existence of the United Nations fundamentally, is to provide peace and harmony in this world. Since it was created at the end of World War II, it has suffered many setbacks and has struggled during its history. I believe that the recent actions and resolutions passed by the United Nations have had the most unified support that the UN has perhaps ever experienced.
One of the reasons for that support has been the turn-around by the Americans. These days the United States is praising the United Nations.
This has not always been the case. It was not very long ago that the United States was calling for the United Nations to leave New York. The United States still owes some $750 million to the United Nations and, perhaps, should be considering paying its contribution.

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
I would suggest that the United States is not so much concerned with the United Nations as it is concerned with a steady and secure oil supply. I am also concerned about its military intentions in that area of the world. Certainly an Iraq that controls a Kuwait controls a significant amount of the world's oil production and could have a significant impact on the United States.
The desire for extended military bases in that area certainly is part of the Americans' decision to take the action that they have. I am very glad that the United States has taken the position that it has in respect of Iraq in condemning it. However, I would question some of its motives.
If the UN is now so important, why does not the United States support resolution 242 which calls for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories that it has occupied since 1967? It is interesting that since the United States has been moving into that area of the world it has now found new criticism recently for Israel because it is looking for support for the Arab nations.
President Bush said that we could not have a dictatorship running a country in this world and imposing its will on people throughout its territory. We have noticed in the past that the United States condoned Panama, for example. Panama had a dictator for years, and it was involved in the drug trade. In fact there were implications connecting General Noriega to the CIA itself. Only when General Noriega's plans did not fit with the United States did it invade Panama.
This is a similar line to that which the United States took in places like Grenada and in its attacks on Libya. Why did not the United States condemn Dictator Hussein when he invaded Iran back in 1980? There was no action when Iraq chemically gassed the Kurds, resulting in some 4,000 terrible deaths in 1988 that inflicted a lot of pain and suffering on a lot of individuals and causing thousands of injuries which people will suffer from for the rest of their lives. Also there was no condemnation of Syrian and Israeli occupation of Lebanon. What about the occupation of East Timor by Indonesia?
I am very glad that the United States has taken a turn for the best with respect to the United Nations and has condemned the actions of Iraq, but it is certainly with questionable intention that the United States has taken this action. When the United States announced that it
would be sending troops into that area of the world, it did so long before UN resolution 665 and without prior consultation. It was only when UN policy happened to coincide with U.S. policy that the U.S. began to sing the United Nations praises.
In respect of all of that we have our Government in Canada supporting a U.S. position long before the UN resolution. I would suggest that the Prime Minister acted in a fashion that has affected and harmed the reputation of this country in the world.
Why would the Prime Minister and why would this country take the actions it did in light of the background I just highlighted in respect of the United States? This decision seems to have been made on the spur of the moment. On August 3, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs had indicated that he no intention of any military action in the Middle East. On August 6, the Prime Minister met with President Bush. On August 10, after a NATO meeting, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would be sending two naval destroyers and a supply ship into the Middle East. This was a very quick turnaround. In fact the announcement by Canada was made two weeks before the UN passed Resolution 665. That resolution, of course, is the one which authorized UN member states to take necessary measures against shipping to ensure strict implementation of the UN sanctions.
With respect to the government, I think that has hurt Canada's reputation in the world. It has hurt our reputation as a peacekeeping nation. It is the first time since the Second World War, I believe, that we have sent Canadian ships under a Canadian flag into a potential war zone. I think that action by the Prime Minister was one that certainly should have led him to call Parliament back immediately. He did not. In fact, Parliament was not called back until its scheduled date of September 24. At that time this debate began, Mr. Speaker.
This action is not justifiable. The government considered it to be important, but when you consider it in light of other actions, one wonders about the respect that this government has for democracy in this country. In August 1987, when 174 refugees landed on the coast of Nova Scotia, the government considered that an emergency situation and immediately called back the House of Commons to sit. Yet, when the Prime Minister announced that for the first time since the Second World War we are going to be sending Canadian ships into a
October 18, 1990

potential war zone under a Canadian flag, he did not call back the House.
Other governments called back their parliaments. They certainly did in Britain. The absence of such action shows this government's lack of respect for democracy.
This has to be taken in the context of the attitude that Canadians have today toward parliamentarians right across this country. People are questioning parliamentarians and their actions, certainly the actions in the Senate with the banging of chairs and the blowing of kazoos.
This government's use of time allocation and closure, time after time after time, have made people become disillusioned with this institution of Parliament. We have a motion that the government wants to limit committee size because it feels that committees in this House on occasion are disagreeing with the government. It is an infringement of an MPs right to properly perform his duty. This is simply one more example of that. It is one more example of this government failing to respect the democratic institutions of this country and causing this institution to be held in less regard by the people in this nation.
What is required in this situation? We must make the role of the United Nations in the world a priority. As such, Canada should be taking a leading role as a member of the Security Council to ensure, first of all, that the UN takes charge of military operations over in the Middle East. As well, we should declare that our ships will only go as far as originally planned, and that is to the Gulf of Oman, and strictly for the purpose of helping to enforce the UN sanctions against Iraq under Resolution 665. That and no more, Mr. Speaker.
As well, Canada should be focusing more attention on the problem of the refugee situation. Thousands of refugees from numerous nations have been fleeing Kuwait and that region of the world. As is often the case with refugees, they become almost invisible. People tend to forget about them. They get quick exposure on the media and then they are forgotten. Although the government has committed some funds, which is very laudable, there should be a stronger commitment than that. Canada should be committing itself to spending more
Government Orders
attention and energy with respect to the refugee problem.
In conclusion, I would simply like to say that I was very disappointed in the actions which the government had taken. It certainly had a bad reflection on the United Nations. It has also had a very bad reflection on the way Canadians view this Parliament. It has shown a disregard for democracy in this country.
With those remarks, I would close by saying that I will certainly be supporting my party's amendment and opposing the government's resolution.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
I congratulate the hon. member on an excellent speech. I just want to take this opportunity to ask the hon. member, who is well known not only in Saskatchewan but throughout this country as a tireless defender of farmers, if he could elaborate on the implications of this serious crisis for grain farmers in particular.
What impact will this have on western farmers? I know that Canadians will await with interest the comments and the assistance of the hon. member on this important question.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, we have in this country today an rural infrastructure that is in real danger. It has been shrinking for a number of years and now it is simply beginning to collapse.
One of the reasons it is collapsing is the economic base, whether it be fishing in Nova Scotia, growing apples in the Annapolis Valley, or growing grain in western Canada. This government has failed to address the agricultural issue properly in the last number of years. Certainly since it has taken power it has been promising to bring in an agricultural program since 1985.
With respect to this situation, Iraq was our fourth largest customer with respect to grain. It is certainly an important customer. The loss of Iraq is simply adding to the difficulties that exist today. We have in Canada a problem with grain sales. One of the main reasons is that we have the United States which, through its Export Enhancement Program, is infringing on our traditional territory certainly in the U.S.S.R. and in Africa. We are

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
having difficulties making sales into those areas and then we lose Iraq. It has a devastating effect. That is why we now have literally thousands of bushels sitting in fields.
It is important for this government when it brings in its agricultural program that there be compensation made with respect to the loss of those sales. It is not the farmers' fault in western Canada that Iraq invaded Kuwait. It is not the farmers' fault that this government is not taking action against the United States for infringing on our traditional sales areas and markets. It is not the farmers' fault and the farmers should not be suffering.
This government should be taking some action, which it has not so far, to rectify that situation and assist farmers and, in doing so, will assist all of rural Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and say a few words on this motion before the House with respect to the Iraqi situation. It is particularly appropriate as we come up to November 11 and Remembrance Day.
I have been approached by a vast majority of my constituents who are in agreement with the actions of our government and the United Nations acting together. I met with many people from particularly eastern Europe. They have told me in no uncertain terms that we all know the history during the thirties when there were four or five times that Mr. Hitler could have been stopped. At that time other countries were faced with a choice. They could have stopped him or they could not. They lacked the courage or the moral fortitude to stand up and block him the four or five times when they could have. As a result, we got into a world war where 40 million people, at a minimum estimate, lost their lives. How many more tens of millions were injured, wounded, or physically or mentally affected is unknown.
Europe was destroyed as an infrastructure, whether it was roads or buildings or schools, and only recently are they beginning to recover and thrive. More than 40,000 Canadians died. That has had an impact on families and family trees. I know my own family tree in Britain was totally finished. The last Thacker in Britain in our family
tree was lost in Sicily. That has had quite an impact on everybody. You do not forget those things.
It is ironic that just at the time when eastern Europe was coming on side and adopting more approaches that were conciliatory, the United Nations was expanding, the GATT treaty was expanding and human rights were expanding, time when it seemed that we could move on to a new world order with peace and a much more co-operative relationship, we would be faced with Saddam Hussein. He is an individual like Hitler was when he took over a country, who has absolutely no conception of human rights or the feelings of other people. He simply invaded Kuwait, which everyone agrees was a total illegal act by any and all standards.
The bottom line is that our generation is faced with the same choice as our ancestors of two generations ago. We can either stop it now or we can appease or somehow rationalize it in our own minds as none of our affair.
The United Nations has decided that it is our affair and acting together is a good precedent. I hope we will continue to act together and give the Security Council the backing and the support that it needs. That is our hope. We do not have any other models, we have to use the United Nations. It is a wonderful model and the clauses are there. We have to be prepared to act together and I think we will. The fact is that we simply do not have any choice.
Even with conventional weapons we have no choice. We simply cannot afford a world war with conventional weapons. We all know we certainly cannot afford one with nuclear weapons.
I am proud to say, and I am sure I speak for the vast majority of my constituents, that Canada is part of this. Thanks should go to our navy, the men and women on those ships, in the air force and their support staff. We are thinking of them. They have our full support. We worry about them and we want them to come home without any shots being fired and certainly no one being injured or killed. They have our support.


Marcel Prud'homme: I have a short comment, Mr. Speaker. I will be participating in the debate tonight.
I want my colleague to understand that in no way, shape or form do I intend to defend the actions of
October 18, 1990

Saddam Hussein. I see the hon. member repeating the line well used by the President of the United States, Mr. Bush, comparing Saddam Hussein with Hitler. I do not know why.
Could the hon. member enlighten us as to when the western world suddenly discovered that Saddam Hussein, who for eight years has become quite well known for his tactics, and well armed by the west I might add, fit the description of Hitler. Is it now or was it recently or was it when he was doing what we could not do against Iran?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that my colleague opposite and friend for many years raises a good point. The point is when do nations act? Leaders and dictators all over the world get away with all sorts of atrocities within their own country and the world does not act. There have been all sorts of instances of Saddam Hussein killing his own people. We are a world that is divided into nation states and we accept that concept of nation states. They have all sorts of rights within their own nations to do things that we do not agree with, against human rights and otherwise, and we do not act against them. But when Saddam Hussein moved into Kuwait, that jelled everyone's thinking that this man was a madman. This man is a madman. This man knows no constraints, none of the ordinary constraints that leaders in practically every other country in the world now are beginning to accept and to operate within. Therefore, it did become a threat.
I know the arguments that it is because of oil and all of that, and there is no doubt that is a major fact because without oil imports, even in this country, we would be in very deep trouble. The United States is in even deeper trouble as well as other countries of the world. I do not take away one moment if he says we acted only for oil.
I think there was an imperative that went beyond just oil. So many other nations, including the Arab nations themselves, have joined together to say, "Okay, he has got to be stopped now". I think there was a time, if my friend wanted us to do it 10 years ago, well I would not take that away from him. He may well be right, but certainly now we have enough people standing together that I think that in and of itself that is good enough to stop Saddam Hussein. Hopefully it will be an example to
Government Orders
other dictators who will act without any sense of consideration for other countries.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I declare at the outset I support unequivocally the part of the motion which states:
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq -
I cannot however support the concluding part of the motion which states:
- take part in the multinational military effort in and around the
Arabian Peninsula -
Why, you may ask, Mr. Speaker. I begin my answers by asking two questions. Is Canada prepared to support military action against Iraq outside of the United Nations auspices? Is Canada prepared to support military action against Iraq without full debate in Parliament and full consultation with the opposition? The latter part of the government's motion, as it now stands, could be a blank cheque and for that reason I oppose the government's motion.
Let me proceed, Mr. Speaker, by remembering a past Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a man who strongly endorsed the use of international diplomacy as means to settle international conflict. However, we saw a change in 1984 when the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney came to power. We witnessed a changed in attitude from a Canadian policy based solely now using Mr. Mulroney's own words, "super relations with the United States".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the hon. member would address him as the Prime Minister when referring to the right hon. gentlemen. You are addressing him as the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, it should be the Prime Minister.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your reminder.
This subservient attitude towards President George Bush's foreign policy was evident in many of Canada's past actions that relate to the United States interests. It was there when the United States invaded Panama against Noriega; it was there again when President Bush led the American military into the Persian gulf. It was there once more when Canada's response came more than two weeks before the United Nations agreed to endorse the use of military force to ensure compliance to sanctions. While Mr. Mulroney argued that it was part of

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
a multinational effort, it was clearly initially a United States effort.
Let us not forget that the resolution passed by the United Nations endorses the use of military force to back up the economic embargo of Iraq. There is no mandate to use force to invade that country. There is no mandate to use force to invade that country.
I do not question the Prime Minister's statement of September 24, in this House, and I quote:
Our contribution to the defence of freedom and our resistance of
aggression constitute chapters of sacrifice and glory in the history of
this nation.
But I question Canada's initial involvement in this crisis as sanctioned by this government, in the absence of clear, United Nations is stewardship with Parliamentary debate in this House. I cannot trust this government with a blank cheque on this issue.
I will support the government's resolution provided we receive certain assurances from this government regarding the future or deployment of Canadian forces and the involvement of Canada in a Gulf war; specifically, a commitment that no changes in Canada's position will take place until Parliament or the opposition has been consulted and secondly, that Canada does not participate in offensive military action outside United Nations auspices without the approval of Parliament.
It should be made clear that our party took the the initiative for an all-party agreement on the resolution, not this government and definitely not the New Democratic Party.
I should point out that the approach to Canadian foreign policy by this government during the last six years has sharply turned from a strong Canadian voice to either sitting on the sidelines, or to cheering the policy initiatives of the United States with little or no consultation with our Parliament.
At this juncture I ask this government: Where was the Prime Minister during the crisis? In Washington. Who advised the Prime Minister at this time? President Bush. What were the United Nations members doing when the Prime Minister was in Washington? They were recalling their parliaments to debate the crisis with their citizens. Did we do it in Canada? Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we did not.
Sending troops to the Gulf is a national emergency, and sending troops into a possible war zone is not a decision that the Prime Minister should make on his own. The issue should be brought before Parliament for all to debate. Debate is essential in a democracy or democracy withers and dies.
I now ask if this government is prepared to make a commitment that there will not be a further deployment of troops, or the use of force without a clear mandate from our Parliament and under the stewardship of the United Nations.
What initiatives is this government making with the United Nations to find a peaceful resolution to this crisis?
In closing, I would like to say that Canadians are encouraged by the role that the United Nations has played in this crisis and we must seize this opportunity to assert the supremacy of that great institution and not of the United States. Let this be the objective that guides Canadian foreign policy.
Canada must continue to search for peace, just as Canada shall continue to abhor war. Is Canada prepared to support military action against Iraq, outside of United Nations auspices? Is Canada prepared to support military action against Iraq without full Parliamentary debate and consultation? Canada shall insist on acting militarily only under the United Nations umbrella, guided by the wisdom of this House. Hence, I support the amendment proposed by my party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I know that the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception is consulting with the hon. member in terms of a response to this question, but the member from Manitoba is his own member and hopefully will give his own answer.
The member knows that there have been discussions and dialogues in the House about some other form of a motion. The New Democratic Party has proposed a subamendment which I believe the hon. member has indicated he supports. His party has also proposed an amendment. Of course, the thrust of those amendments is to ensure that any action in the gulf must only be
October 18, 1990

under United Nations auspices. In the event that those amendments are defeated, does the hon. member intend to vote for or against the government motion?
Or, Mr. Speaker, is he going to stand up and say: "Well, you know, we are trying hard to get an agreement. We are working really hard. We are hoping that there can be an all-party resolution." Is he going to be direct? Is he going to be straightforward? Is he going to tell the House whether he supports the resolution or not?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I have always been direct in the House and I thank the hon. member for recognizing that fact.
The hon. member was trying to insinuate that I was consulting with my hon. colleague. Of course, I would like to consult with my colleague. In this particular instance, there was no consultation.
To answer the question, the hon. member was not listening very clearly to all the provisions that I indicated. I said, unless we can get the assurance from the government that it would be under United Nations stewardship, followed by debate in the House, we could not support the government's motion. The hon. member will see when the vote is called.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Davenport.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, two days ago in the House an alternative motion was put forward at page 14250 of Hansard which contains three principles. One principle is that Canada is against invasions of all kinds. The second is that Canada supports the United Nations and its resolutions since the Kuwait invasion. And the third is that there will be a debate in Parliament should there be an outbreak of hostilities involving Canadian forces.
That resolution, it seems to me, is highly commendable. It contains a lot of wisdom. It is the result of negotiations that my party has initiated with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has all the elements that would generate, I believe, a unanimous vote on the part of Parliament, which is extremely important if it is to have any impact at home and abroad.
We are against any form of invasion. In recent years, we have seen what happened in Afghanistan. You, Mr. Government Orders
Speaker, and many present here tonight will remember the outrage in public opinion throughout the world against that invasion.
We also recall, perhaps a little further in the past, the invasion of Tibet which, unfortunately, did not provoke much of an outrage in the world community. Not only that that, but it did not even provoke any movement of troops on the part of any of the superpowers to defend, protect, and restore the integrity of Tibet. I suspect that was due to the fact that Tibet does not have any oil wells. A comparison between the reaction of the world community to the invasion of Tibet and to the invasion of Kuwait is a very solitary and interesting lesson.
We have, in case of an outbreak of war in the Middle East, some horrendous consequences to contemplate, both in terms of human life and environmental damage. The debate here tonight does not lend itself to that kind of examination. I just want to make a very brief reference to that aspect which would horrify every thinking human being on this planet.
What disturbs us very much is that, in case of an outbreak, the line of command in that part of the world is not clearly defined. We do not know under whose command our troops and ships would be when the going gets rough. This is why we feel it is extremely desirable to find a way on Tuesday, when we vote on the motion, to adopt the proposed alternative put on the table only a couple of days ago. In that motion we have the establishment of a clear and important principle that it is under the flag of the UN and under the leadership of the world community as represented by the Security Council that our troops will operate.
We are in full agreement with the resolutions of the United Nations. We are in full agreement with the modus operandi of the United Nations. We believe there is a family of nations that function in this world, that it is a civilized one and basically very enlightened, and any territorial ambition or dispute, even the most legitimate perhaps within the boundaries of certain nations and public opinion of any given nation cannot be resolved by means of violence and invasion. This is the lesson of history which we have gradually, slowly, and painfully learned throughout time. Now, perhaps for the first time in a long time, the world community has coalesced behind this very important and critical point.

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
While we fully understand the importance of the presence of troops moved into the Middle East, we know that that has taken place in order to buy time. We know the solution can only be a political solution. It cannot be a military solution if it is to be a lasting one. That point was extremely well made, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you will remember a few weeks ago, at the meeting that took place between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gorbachev. There were evidently the elements in that meeting for the search of a political solution. The means probably were different. The way of thinking in Washington is suddenly quite different than the way of thinking in Moscow as to how to get there is quite different, but I am convinced as I stand in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you are too, that in both capitols the desire is to arrive at a political solution. The same applies in our House of Parliament. We want to arrive at a political solution, one that will bring us together rather than divide us when we vote on the motion on Tuesday.
For this reason, I appreciate very much the opportunity to participate in the debate, to reaffirm the confidence of my colleagues and myself in the final role of the United Nations, and to recall that it was under the leadership of a former Prime Minister of Canada before he became Prime Minister, namely Mr. Pearson, that Canada became an active initiator of peacekeeping missions in many parts of the world, some less publicized than others. I am glad to see that a Pearsonian sense of world responsibility by way of peacekeeping has also been continued and adopted by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. Along that path, the government will have the full support of Canadians because deep down in the heart of every Canadian there is this confidence, this tremendous belief, that only through the United Nations can the diffusion of world disputes, differences, and potential dangers be achieved.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, as I begin my speech, I would like to remark that our colleague from Davenport gave an excellent analysis of the situation and the role of Canada in peacekeeping.
For those who were riveted to the radio and television in the past months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, many people were upset and with good reason. We were hoping for, and we got, quick response from the United Nations. The United States took immediate action, and Canada, contrary to its tradition of following the banner
of the United Nations, decided to deploy men and material to the Middle East crisis. But I guess it would be impossible to expect the average Canadian to really understand the whole complex situation that has been that of the Middle East ever since 1948, or hundreds of years, for that matter. It has always been a very complex problem and there are probably too many factors that come into play. Do not forget the Middle East, for all practical purposes, was the cradle of civilization as we know it. Yet the problems over the years have compounded themselves to the point that it is hard to distinguish what is fact and what is fiction, and where is the truth and where are the lies. God knows there is a lot of truth and there have been a lot of lies that have come out of the Middle East.
I guess many people have taken a position on this whole issue without knowing the facts, and I can understand. Members of Parliament, our fellow Canadians, and many people throughout the world maybe just do not have time or the inclination, or they do not want to take the time, to realize there are reasons why this kind of conflict that has developed in the Middle East. A tremendous amount of resentment has been built up throughout the years, and it is understandable. I would like to point out one particular paragraph that I thought summed it up quite well.
The Arab masses resent the role that the United States is now playing in the Gulf and the financial support that some Arab states are providing, all of which they perceive as designed to protect undemocratic and feudalistic governments. They can be expected to ask with frustration and anger how many houses, schools, hospitals and highways could these funds have built in poor Arab parts of the world? How many farms and factories could have been established for hungry Arabs?
Why should this enormous amount of Arab money be diverted for the perpetuation of unjust and outdated governments? It is the anger and the frustration which breeds the Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeinis of the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, it does not take a genius to understand that in the past years in the Middle East the Arab nations have constantly been frustrated, especially by the United States, in finding a solution in the Middle East,
October 18, 1990

especially for the Palestinians who were driven out of their own homes. Has there been any effort in the last 40 years by the great powers to recognize that people who were on this land for thousands of years were literally pushed aside? Today a lot of people and nations have the nerve to point to Palestinians and call them terrorists, in their own land. When is the truth going to be known that the Palestinians have been the victims, and what other homeland, the homeland of my father from Lebanon. He is a Semitic.
Where was the United States, where were the powerful nations of this country, when they let Lebanon be sacrificed? They sacrificed Lebanon to make it a battleground between the Syrians and the Israelis and anybody else who were peddling arms.
How much hypocrisy will there be and how many lies are they going to tell us before the truth will be known? It will be too late.
How many Palestinians have died? How many have lived in the desert? How many Lebanese? There is not a week that I do not have people of Lebanese background who write and call to me, trying to bring a sister, a sister-in-law, a brother, or an uncle. It has been frustrating for all those who understand that there has been a lack of justice.
We see the United States send over unbelievable amounts of military arms and men-to protect what, Mr. Speaker? God knows that I have often said that the Lebanese problem would have been solved if they had oil underneath their soil. But, no, they are there to protect a vested interest. The cost, in human lives, never bothered them. Traditionally, under the former Prime Minister of this country, we always followed the lead of the United Nations in world conflicts. We had developed a reputation. And even as fellow travellers to different parts of the world, we were looked up to with a great amount of respect and esteem. They had faith in us. I am afraid that this faith could be eroded when we have this kind of activity.
As I mentioned at the beginning, had there just been an attempt in years past to solve the problems of Lebanon which has been bleeding for the last 15 years. How much bleeding can it take? Those who speak up in the name of the suffering Lebanese, they overtook the
Government Orders
hometown of my father. The Israelis have it under occupation.
What about the Palestinians who have been the victims? They throw stones and they get bullets in return. Yet they are called terrorists in their own land. When is the truth going to be known? Does it make me anti-Zionist because I want the Lebanese people to live in peace and the Palestinians to have a piece of land that they can call their own?
It makes me think of a former journalist, James M. Mynafee, who is now deceased. Mr. Speaker, you probably remember that name from the past. He wrote a book. I always liked the title. He asked at the time what Canada's role was. Was Canada a peacemaker or a powder-monkey? In the late middle ages, powder-monkey was the name given to one who brought powder to those who were using a new kind of weapon. That is the whole question. We want to be the peacemakers and not the powder-monkeys in this world. We have had enough of arms dealers.
It would be ridiculous to think that we could find a solution to the whole problem, but the beginning of a solution would occur if we would put into practice the resolutions that were in the United Nations and we have said that we agree to. But no effort has been made by the superpowers to find a homeland for these Palestinians who were pushed out of their land.
There are frustrations among the Arab states. Mind you, there have been a lot of Arab states which use the Palestinians as a political football. I am here as a member of Parliament, not to create enemies.
Where were the Saudis when the Palestinians really needed help? Where was Kuwait? Kuwait is a pure fabrication of a country, with a totally undemocratic system where hundreds of billions of dollars are in the hands of a relatively few people. I am sure the average American must realize that there has to be something drastically wrong when a few families control hundreds of billions of dollars, deposited in American treasury bonds and in American and Swiss banks.
How long is this frustration going to be left to fester in the Middle East, until we have an outbreak of hostilities that will have terrible ramifications? Is it going to be this time, if we can get out of this peaceably, that we will realize that we have to sit down and find the final solution to clear Lebanon of the foreign armies on its soil and find a place for the Palestinians, a right they have under the United Nations Charter, so they will

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
have a place they can call home? Still today there are universities and schools in the occupied territories which have been closed for two years.
That goes against all humanitarian things that we have stood for in the past. Yet, it is permitted to continue. We are expected to jump in line immediately because the Americans wanted to protect oil.
Once again I say: Where were they when Lebanon was overrun? Where were they when the Palestinians were calling out just to have a piece of land that they could call home?
In conclusion, for all those who believe that there is a just solution for the Middle East and in the humanitarian treatment, the place to look to is the United Nations to enforce those resolutions. It is the people in this country who can call upon the government and say that it has been 15 years that the civil war in Lebanon has been permitted to go on.
Since 1948 the Palestinians have not had a place to rest their weary heads. I call upon Canadians to ask simple questions of the Minister of External Affairs or of the government and say: Can we not use our role in the Security Council to say that time has come that these resolutions be respected? That is all we want.
To the government of this country, for the tradition and the respect that we have built up through the many years, we want it to continue, needless to say. We want to be the peacemaker and not the powder-monkey. That should be very clear. To all Canadians maybe it seems frustrating because we feel completely powerless, but we are not.
Our church organizations could be writing to our Prime Minister and to the Minister of External Affairs. If they knew that there were thousands and thousands of Canadians who are aware of the situation, we would see more action.
I was very happy to participate in this debate. It is very hard to stay calm after years of tragedy upon tragedy upon a people who do not deserve to be victims. It is amazing when one looks at the history of that part of the world to see that when the Arabs had their civilization,
there was so little discrimination. It seems ironic that today they would be the victims of such discrimination.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague just said: "How can I stay calm?"
My comment is: Why should you stay calm when you see so much hypocrisy in North America, especially in Washington and I dare say in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker? How can you remain calm when these young people I see here could be the ones who may be asked to go if things over there turn as I expect most likely and I wish would never take place? How can you remain calm? Why should you remain calm?
My comment to my colleague is when you talk about the Middle East, Mr. Speaker, you have talked about the Middle East in the past. Would you explain to me to help me for my introductory remarks later on maybe. I may decide to give up, because every time you talk about the Middle East either in the Liberal Party of Canada, in the House of Commons of Canada or in any political party, everybody gets dizzy. Mr. Speaker, you can talk about anything in the world, but do not touch the Middle East.
My colleague explained to me his understanding of this nervousness when we start talking about the Middle East. He is a distinguished member of Parliament who sat in the National Assembly in Quebec. He was not defeated. He did not run in 1976. He came back to the Liberal Party of Canada, my party, at a very difficult time, when we were very low in the polls in 1984. He resigned his seat in Quebec City and got elected. He should not apologize for being passionate.
Could he help me out? What is his understanding of the reason why so many people are so nervous in political circles, especially when we want to find in all honesty a solution and justice for all. All means all parties. Would he enlighten me, please?


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I am flattered because the hon. member for Saint-Denis is very knowledgeable an international affairs, especially the Middle East. I should be asking him for advice. I am looking forward to hearing his speech later on, and I
October 18, 1990

know it will be very interesting. I would like to say to the hon. member-


Marcel Prud'homme: There is lots to be upset about.


Mark Joseph Assad: Agreed. The hon. member is right to be upset. But he made an interesting point. One wonders about the reluctance of members of this House to talk about the Middle East in public. It seems to me that if we have the privilege of being elected and sitting in the House, we should feel no hesitation about saying what we want to say if we are deeply committed. If we don't speak out, people will not respect our opinions. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand that if you don't speak up for what you believe in, people won't respect you. I agree. The reason for this reluctance to talk about the Middle East is that they are afraid of a backlash. When we want to talk about the plight of the Palestinians, they are afraid of being accused of anti-semitism. My father was a Semite. Why should I be afraid to speak out when I saw his country being destroyed? This is the place to speak out. Everyone in this House should honestly say what they think about this issue, because if they don't, they don't deserve to be here.
To the hon. member I would like to say that when we stand here in the House, we have the right and the moral obligation to say what we truly think and to defend those who cannot defend themselves. That is what makes them reluctant because they are afraid of being accused of being one thing or another. They might as well go home and let people who do have the courage say what they think.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in what has been a debate that has not only taken place in this auspicious Chamber in the country of Canada, but right across the international community.
It is a debate that has been waged and it is a debate that continues. It is my belief that most Canadians, in my humble estimation, would react in favour with the general response from the international community in response to the blind and naked aggression of Saddam Hussein on behalf of Iraq.
I say that because I believe most people share the general tenor of what has crystalized, if you will, the United Nations on the one hand, a United Nations that is able to mobilize not only one or two or three major
Government Orders
countries or the two superpowers, but in fact a litany of proud sovereign nations which have rallied to that call. They have beckoned their men and women to tiy to stand up for what they believe is in the best interests of that great word we call democracy, which that has many definitions to many different people.
I believe also that in a certain sense many people would probably value the general actions embarked upon by President Bush. It is not often that many Canadians, indeed many parliamentarians and indeed this member of Parliament, would go out of their way to tiy to pay some degree of homage to international leadership by the United States of America. Usually it is on the receiving end. Usually the United States for one reason or another is always subject to criticism, perhaps because sometimes it is the biggest, it is the most powerful, it is the richest, and it is the most influential. Quite often it receives criticism, whether it is from this country or others, in terms of being the popular whipping boy for everyone's concerns.
I do not pretend to be a military expert, nor an expert on the Middle East. One of the most popular words in describing the affairs of the Middle East is the word complicated. It is in everyone's vocabulary. My colleague who just spoke before me eloquently, compassionately, and passionately referred to the word "complicated". I do not pretend to stand in this Chamber as an expert on that part of the world nor on military exercises. In terms of what I hear from my constituents and what I hear in terms of my discussions with Canadians and others, the situation is that if we have not acted-and when I say "we", I mean the international community-where would things be today? If no one would have stood up to Mr. Saddam Hussein, would he be comfortable now in perhaps also having invaded Saudi Arabia?
Would it in fact have destabilized more than it has already the coming together of an international resolve of enormous repercussions and of enormous consequences in the positive light of the speed with which the Soviet Union has had its own economic and political revolution and the speech with which we see the changes in eastern Europe?
If we had not stepped in as an international community, the question of what would have been can never be answered. The answer potentially in some people's minds is a very scary scenario. In general I think the actions of the international community meet with very

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
much favour in this Parliament and in fact across this country.
When we talk about things moving very quickly in eastern Europe or in the Soviet Union, we also have to say that the number of movements in the Middle East has been incredible.
Who would have thought several months ago that an Arab country would have actually publicly invited the United States of America to send troops on its soil? Who would have thought that Saudi Arabia would have permitted 100,000, 150,000 or 200,000 troops on its soil to defend not only sovereignty but to do so against another Arab country? Who would have thought of it back in May or June? Who would have thought that Syria would have been fighting side by side with Americans boys and women, when in fact several years ago the Syrians were targeted by the Americans and other in the sense of being one of the culprits for international destabilization and acts of terrorism? Today they are fighting side by side. Who would have thought that Egypt as well would have been participating and giving the green light to the Americans to do what they are doing today?
When we speak of changes in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, we also have to recognize that there have been great changes in the Middle East as well. Changes come and changes go. Friendships are made and friendships are broken. Allies are convened and alliances are disposed of as well. While I generally welcome the unity of Arabs together with the Americans and the international community, I also caution Canada and the United States not to forget and dispose of the long trusted alliances that we have seen between Canada and the United States in that part of the region.
Israel is a perfect case in hand. Israel is by no means perfect, like Canada, like the United States, and like every other country. My good friend who spoke before me talked about truth. He talked about deception. He talked about lies. Who knows where that truth lies.
I do not think we should fall into the trap that Mr. Hussein tried to set for the international community in suggesting somehow it was evil Israel that was behind the Americans doing what they are doing, that somehow it was flying by disguise in American planes. We should not fall into the trap of a leader who was desperate to regain
his foothold in the Arab communities he had lost. Nothing more unites a number of the Arab countries than that word called Israel.
We also have to recognize that we have alliances with that country and have had them for a long time. We also have to recognize when my hon. friend speaks of freedoms and democracies that it also happens to be the only democracy in that part of the world, the only democracy that has a forum like this one, where deputies can get up and debate the issues of the day, the only place where people have a vote.
I do not see this aggression as an aggression by the Iraqi people necessarily. I see it as an aggression by one individual who I think sees a lot of potential glory for himself. There probably is a great deal of trouble underground with this man called Hussein in his own country.
How long did it take the Soviet Union to change? How long and how many leaders have we had to go through for the Soviets now to enjoy a bit of the democracy that we enjoy every day and take so much for granted? It was not until Gorbachev came along and gave some power back to the people. Now he has his problems as a consequence of democracy, but they are better problems than the problems of totalitarian regimes.
That is also the situation in the Middle East-military regimes and dictatorships. When I see the new alliances I see that things are changing, but I also say that we should be very careful not to dispose of old alliances. Israel has been an alliance and Israel has been a friend, and we should continue to be.
Despite the fact that the Palestinian question should be uppermost in any agenda facing the international community, no one doubts for one moment the urgency of any peoples in that country to have a homeland, to have a place they could call home. However, it would be too simple to cast blame only on one side and not look at the realities of the other. The refugee camps in the West Bank are still in existence. We should also be mindful of the fact that those same refugee camps existed when it was under Jordanian rule. When Jordan had the West Bank they were still Palestinian refugee camps. When the Jordanians governed that part of the country which is now under occupied territories, there was not one
October 18, 1990

university. There are now six. There were not the opportunities of work that there are now.
We talk about the truth. We talk about historical forces. We talk about manipulation. Also we should recognize that the Palestinian question also unfortunately serves the political agenda of certain Palestinian and Arabic leaders, but the people who lose are the young, the old, and the Palestinians who go without a home. The situation is not so simple that we can cast blame on one side and ignore the realities of history and the reality of present circumstances. While there are changes we should also keep in mind the alliances that have stood firm through the test of time and through the test of challenges.
In terms of the Canadian participation let me first salute the men and women who are presently in the gulf. These Canadians are acting on behalf of this country and symbolically acting with the world. I salute them this evening because they merit saluting. There is no greater service to one's country than through our Armed Forces and those who defend the country.
I like every other member of Parliament have people within my riding who are serving in the forces. I have 83 such Canadians in my federal riding of York West. When we go down the list of their names it really speaks boldly and proudly about this place Canada. They are people like Staliano, Ross, Sala, Rosenberger, Samute, and Sigh. They are all Canadians, regardless of their cultural backgrounds, all Canadian Armed Forces personnel from the riding of York West who are now in the Middle East.
I believe that there are two things that need to be said about the process by which this Prime Minister has led the forces in the Middle East and in the gulf. The first one is the uneasy feeling that people have about the fact that the voyage departed before UN concurrence was obtained. There was a very uneasy feeling among many Canadians. Despite their feelings as to what Mr. Hussein was trying to do, they were uneasy because they did not like the idea of losing any independence that we had on the international stage or the idea of trying to be subservient to the President of the United States when he beckoned our Prime Minister to the United States.
Government Orders
I believe there was some discomfort because it did not show the patience and the strength of trying to provide on day one a mission that was sanctioned, that was given the political green light under the auspices of the United Nations, which I am proud to say has always been the mark of past Liberal Prime Ministers when asked to serve.
The second aspect of the process, as opposed to the substance, was that this country and this Parliament was kept completely in the dark, as many members have said before me. The American President met with his Congressional leaders. He went on national TV to talk to Americans in their living rooms. He held daily briefings for the media of that country and was able from his golf cart to suggest the latest, even though I disagreed with that kind of image politics that everyone read through.
Where was our Prime Minister, in comparison? Did he speak to the opposition parties? Did he consult opposition leaders? Did he contact CBC and CTV to try to broadcast into the living rooms of Canadians from coast to coast? Did he offer daily media briefings so that we could at least communicate with each other? No, he did not.
I know he had a barbecue in Washington. I know he came back to his residence and everything was secret. The Minister of National Defence was called in. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was leaving, but Canadians were left wondering where was Parliament, the forum of national debate.
Why was Parliament not recalled? There was no debate. There was no discussion. There was no attempt at one resolution so that we could speak as one voice, offer a political resolution to the House of Commons and speak internationally for a change, rather than try to divide and conquer domestically. Several years ago, the Prime Minister realized that 174 people who arrived on the east coast one fine summer constituted a national crisis. When we allow 200,000 immigrants a year, when we allowed 100,000 Vietnamese boat people in 1980, all of a sudden 174 people constitute a crisis. What was his response after he falsely said it was for a crisis he called an emergency sitting of this Parliament? Can you imagine anything more despicable, more manipulative and anything more misleading in your lifetime? I cannot. The Prime Minister was low in the polls then and tried to step up those polls by stepping on the so-called refugees. He is low in the polls again today. Rather than having

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
manipulated a false crisis, his responsibility ought to have been to react to a real crisis this summer, which he failed to do.
The Prime Minister had to stop the ships off the coast of Sicily because they were getting to the gulf too early. If they arrived there too early it would have triggered an earlier debate in the House of Commons. What an embarrassment it was to stop our ships midstream because the Prime Minister did not have the courage to face Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, you rightfully indicate my time is up. There is much which this Prime Minister and this government have to face. He is fortunate that he has been embraced in the sense that the international community has acted, but he should have done it like the other countries where Britain, France, Italy and countless others had the courage to take their people into their confidence and in a time of crisis unite them and stand united. That was not the case in this country and we are proud today in spite of this Prime Minister and in spite of this government.


Mr. Shields:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if all members of the House would consent to allow the Pages to leave now. I do not think we really need them. It would be good for them to go home. They have things to study. They have exams tomorrow. I think it would be all right if we could let them all go home.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Pages can leave.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a very straightforward question for the member who just spoke, the chair of the Liberal caucus. There were discussions earlier in the debate about the possibility of another motion being put forward.
A Liberal member for one of the Toronto ridings indicated that he would be prepared to support the terms of that motion which the government sought to introduce. I wonder if the member who just spoke could indicate what position he will take with respect to the resolution now on the Order Paper to be voted on. Does the hon. member intend to vote for or against that
motion in the event that the amendments on the Order Paper are not adopted?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my message, to paraphrase another great Canadian, is just watch us. I think he should just have patience. I believe that in the finest traditions of the House we, in the Liberal Party, have no apologies to make whatsoever in trying to galvanize a unified solitary voice emanating from this Parliament.
Because the Prime Minister was incapable of putting a motion before us that would speak to that, because he did not recall Parliament, we saw and felt the need among Canadians in terms of their aspirations of wanting some leadership. We have discussed with various parties in this Chamber the possibility of having a motion that truly speaks to the greatness of this country, its ambitions and aspirations. We will continue those discussions.
We take no lessons from a New Democratic Party that has very little credibility when it comes to defence matters and very little credibility when it comes to NATO. We used to have the former leaders talking about pulling out of NATO. That was when the NDP was unpopular. Do you remember those days?
All of sudden, for a short span of time back in 1987, Ed Broadbent jumped to the top of the polls. Then they asked him what the NDP policy was on NATO. This is when he was very popular. He said he might not contemplate pulling out of NATO in the first year of their term of office. I realize where my hon. friend is coming from and I realize where he is trying to go. Before he tries to talk to the Liberal Party he should realize that neither he nor his party has a monopoly on virtue, let alone defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have another question from the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence and then I have another question for the hon. member for Saint-Denis. If there is time, I will come back to the hon. member.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I shall try and be brief.
Since my hon. colleague from York West has put so succinctly the Liberal position on a hypothetical situation and has indicated that he is also very familiar with the way the NDP would vote on a possible amendment, I wonder if he would share with members of this House his perceptions on what the NDP will do in the event that their amendment does not pass. What will they do in
October 18, 1990

the event that the amendment for which they negotiated, which was supposed to take the place of these other amendments is not introduced? Also, what will the NDP do on the main motion and on the Liberal motion?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Eglinton- Lawrence asks a very interesting question. Perhaps indirectly, he answers the question of my hon. friend from Burnaby. I must be honest with my friend from Eglinton-Lawrence. I do not know from one day to the next what the New Democratic Party is going to do or what it stands for. If you recall last week when their House leader, on a Thursday evening, made his maiden speech in the Senate. He called it tyranny.
The next day, Friday morning in Question Period, the House leader suggested that the Senate does not work and it should be abolished. One cannot have it both ways. That is the fallacy that underlies many of the pronouncements and many of the policies of the New Democratic Party.
My friend from Eglinton-Lawrence will now have a chance to see what the New Democratic Party is all about in the province of Ontario. I noticed the remarks made by the member for Eglinton-Lawrence on post interviews of what happened. He quite rightly pointed to a long list of commitments and promises made by the New Democratic Party. The sixty-four thousand dollar question is, will they keep those and at what cost? I must be honest. The New Democratic Party confuses me from day to day. I am not sure where they are going to be Monday because today is still Thursday.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment while my colleague from Toronto is speaking. I am sure it is an inadvertent comment because these are very important facts. I know that some people in the world would like us to say what he said. I am sure he did not mean it. I consulted with my friend, the admiral of the fleet of the Liberal Party from Newfoundland. First, I did not know it was a debate on Israel or I would have adjusted my speech but it is too late. Second, he called the state of Israel our ally and friend.
Government Orders
It has to be corrected. It is important to correct it, because the meaning of ally means more than a friend. Israel is a friend of Canada, but we are not an ally. It is not our ally. I stand to be corrected, but the military implication that suddenly Canada is an ally of that friendly country called Israel would be immense. I am sure he does not want us to drag Canada's youth into the problems of the Middle East.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, speakers before me more eloquently talked about the Palestinians and the Palestinian question.
There have been a lot of comments about the Middle East. How the member who is a noted internationalist would speak of the Middle East by only speaking of the Palestinians without the state of Israel is a debate that will never start.
I also referred in this context to the fact that Syria right now happens to be an ally. Egypt happens to be an ally in the situation of the gulf. I make no apologies for what I said. I consider Israel a friend and an ally. I repeat that for the record.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, my comment will be very short.
In response to the question from the member from the NDP, I thought that when we were in the negotiating process outside this House that those negotiations were held in confidence and had a certain degree of privilege attached to them, or else the negotiating process would be of no avail.
I would like my friend from York West to comment on that, please.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, once again we see that my hon. friend from Thunder Bay, while being elected in 1988, is an astute observer of the workings of this Chamber and Parliament.
I think the frustration that underlies this question is once again the reality which we face. There is one face which the New Democratic Party tries to put on with the Canadian people. We know a very different face, and I believe that this debate ought to try to have one solution wherein all the aspirations if possible can be met.
I heard previous speakers talk about the possibilities of why the Middle East problems have prevailed for so long. What I think my hon. friend from Thunder Bay is trying to suggest is that we have expectations that a

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
problem like the Middle East will be solved. Yet, if we cannot resolve differences on one motion that would communicate a message to the world and to the country, then we do not really have the right to be speaking of very complicated international problems that should have solutions.
We, in the Liberal Party and caucus will continue to do that because we feel it is an honourable undertaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow one supplementary.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I just wanted to clarify one point for the hon. member.
Certainly, I did not expect that the Liberal caucus on this question would speak with any sense of unity or one voice. We know that there was blood on the walls of the caucus room when this issue was discussed.
The question that I was raising is not in the context of secret backroom deals which the people of Ontario rejected in electing a New Democratic government. It is not in that context. It is in a very open context. If the hon. member does not want to answer the question, certainly the people who are viewing the debate can come to their own conclusion.
He says: Just watch us. Canadians remember the last time that a former Liberal leader said that. I want to ask the member once again, give him an opportunity to recognize that Canadians do want openness. Does the Liberal Party and the hon. member support the government motion? Should amendments be accepted or not, yes or no?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister that the member alluded to will go down in the annals of history as one of the greatest prime ministers who ever governed this country. I do not say that easily, because there have been a great many tremendous men who have come before him and no doubt will follow.
Certainly, in terms of the comment that alluded to a previous time, that too enjoyed tremendous public opinion and favour.
This was a former Prime Minister who enjoyed not only the respect of Liberally-minded individuals, but in
talking to average Canadians, whether they disagreed with Liberal policies or not, there was a certain respect for that individual that transcended the abilities and the attempts by the current regime to be loved by all people, including this gentleman's party. We will continue, as I said, to strive for oneness and to speak with one voice, aided by one great speaker.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, in 1964, I happily made a big decision. I wanted to get into federal politics by running for a federal seat. I was involved in politics ever since I could remember. I was supposed to run for the Quebec Liberal Party in 1960, but I agreed to yield my seat to the hon. Rene Levesque. I had a passion for politics and a passion for my country. A passion for my country, meaning Canada. And I say it in French: "La passion de mon pays, le Canada". I also felt that a federal member had to be concerned about provincial matters, about families, the elderly, the needy, the handicapped and those unable to defend themselves. We must understand that in Canada, people are different. Mr. Speaker, I like you and I respect you, but your cultural background is different from mine. So I tried to understand inter-parliamentary and inter-provincial relations.
My second reason for getting into federal politics was my great interest in international politics. I demonstrated this at the University of Ottawa by organizing a demonstration against the racist policies of Governor Faubus of Arkansas. I don't have any notes, it's not in my notes. We burned him in effigy at the University of Ottawa. That resulted in hundreds and thousands of protests and congratulations from all across United States. Why? Because a reporter who knew me was there, covering the news for the international media. This caused a lot of problems with the authorities at Ottawa U which at the time was run by the Oblate Fathers. Attracting attention was a no-no. We always had to conform.

You were not allowed to dare-

I always like to-
October 18, 1990



I always loved to dare to be different in international politics. I know many of my colleagues seem to be friendly to me and I appreciate this very much. Our young colleague in the NDP, for whom I have great esteem for his brightness, his energy, and his courage, has tried to divide us. He knows I do not play that kind of politics. That is the only place where I will disagree with him-trying to say that there was blood in caucus yesterday morning. There was no blood. If there were blood, I would be the one who would be bloody.

Yesterday, emotions ran high, but this evening I will try to be at least outwardly calm.
I am going to tell you, without actually doing so, what happened in caucus. Yesterday, I explained more or less what had motivated me throughout my life: my country, Canada-it seems it isn't very popular right now to say this in Quebec but I am going to say it anyway and my abiding interest in international problems.
Even when you are misunderstood and harassed and blackmailed, you have to stand up to defend your views, while respecting those of colleagues who do not share them.
I watched the debate this evening. It was about everything except the debate. There is a motion. It's not very complicated. To Canadians who are going to listen to this, let me explain that we have a government motion that was amended by my party-I repeat, my party-the Liberal Party of Canada, and again amended by the New Democratic Party.
Well, I have read and I support the NDP amendment. I didn't think twice about it. And I will tell you why. Of course, as a member of this party, I have not really had a chance to disagree, but my time will come. However, I support the amendment presented by our competent new External Affairs critic. He is brilliant, intelligent, but always uneasy when the subject is the Middle East, like anyone else, like me and like the others. But he is brilliant and intelligent, and he has his heart in the right place. I hope to win him over on the Middle East.
So I intend to vote for that motion. But I cannot vote in favour of the government's motion. In any case, my colleagues- At least, not for the motion before the House, and as for a future motion, I haven't heard about
Government Orders
it, because this is all going on behind the scenes. Some members are consulted, others aren't. Imagine! I say this for the benefit of those listening because I intend to ask my friends to review my speech-I told them about it-because for me, this is a very demanding debate. So I will try to be very calm as I prefer to be on these serious occasions.
What really upsets me, and that is why I intend to defend the amendment of the Liberal Party of Canada, and so I should, because it condemns the government for not having recalled Parliament. And I think that is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker.
In 1986, Parliament was recalled for a minor incident, compared to what might happen in the Middle East-it was about the Parole Board. In 1987, Mr. Benoit Bouchard said: "Parliament has been recalled-

-to deal with an issue of great national importance. [Translation]
At issue were a few miserable Tamil refugees in Nova Scotia. The nation in an uproar! Canadian racism! People were horrified because these refugees probably did not have the same colour of skin as my friend from Toronto or my own- people often tell me that if they had been Poles or Germans or people like that, there wouldn't have been this uproar in Canada. However, the government was up in arms and Parliament was recalled. I found that positively horrifying.
An international crisis is in the making, and the Government refuses to call back Parliament. That is what the Liberal amendment is about. We won't recall Parliament because it's nothing serious. Nothing serious at all. We are going to send young Canadians-first three ships, three ships which my eminent colleague, Admiral Fred Mifflin, had under his command-we start with three. The great Canadian contribution, in answer to the call of warriors Bush and Thatcher! We are doing our bit for the war effort.
But this is not enough, because if you send three ships you need someone to defend those ships. So we are sending 18 CFs to protect our ships. But there is more. I hope everybody is listening very carefully. We also had to send several hundred people to take care of these planes. And there isn't a war on yet. There is no conflict.

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
I said earlier that in my student days I organized a demonstration against Orval Faubus. In 1957,1 set up the National Welcome Committee and I was a student coordinator when we received the Hungarians who came to Canada, who had left their country and who went as far as Vancouver. There was a reception in every city. Later, in 1968,1 was a member of Parliament, and I was involved and went to take a look personally in Czechoslovakia. I defended and protected U.S. draft dodgers. There is an American book on the subject, and I was surprised to see it was written in 1970, and the title is The New Exile.

I wish you would read it. There are just two or three pages that tell what I did, because others could not do it. It states that the man the hon. member mentioned, one of my ex-leaders, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, could not do so. I was used willingly, because the caucus was divided. It seems we are always divided on great questions. It is all right. That means vitality. Maybe it is a speech of return that I am making, but I want to show consistency. That is why I am trying to enumerate, not to be pompous. I hope people who know me know that I do not give a damn. But I want to show that I have always had that commitment of daring and of consistency.
I was a delegate, appointed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, at the United Nations in 1974 when Arafat said: "Please listen to me. Don't let me down." The western world, instead of listening, boycotted Arafat. I am the only one who stood up. I was blamed by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, but Trudeau did not recall me from the United Nations.
But I paid a hell of price, my dear friends. I do not mind. We should have listened to that voice in 1974 that was saying: "Please don't let me down." Remember what happened in Lebanon in 1976, and on, and on. Again, it is this refusal of being there at the right time, instead of waiting for contamination and then finding a solution.
Of course, this invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein is unacceptable. I have met Saddam Hussein. I spoke in the Parliament of Kuwait. That was before the Emir disbanded the parliament because he did not like it too much. Perhaps it was going too fast. Of course, I
condemn that, but let us go back to the source. The young people today would like to benefit from the dividends of peace. Have we forgotten who gave him the best of arms and arms-

Well, I know and Quebecers know that despite its competences our army certainly does not have all the sophisticated weaponry that the super and intermediate powers were fighting to sell to Iran or Irak for eight years, to Israel and Syria- I name them all because they are all countries to me. And today, it seems to come as a shock, as an insult or just as a surprise to some people suddenly to discover that Saddam Hussein is a great military man. The military strength of Hussein is incredible. But who armed him to the teeth in the first place? We did! That is a fact.
So there is a question we must answer. I was saying that as a proud French Canadian, for which I insist there is no translation-

I am a Canadian frangais. There is no translation for that.

But with an abiding concern for international affairs, I said to myself: What would Canada's role be in this kind of crisis? And that, hon. members is why I am disappointed in this government which failed to take advantage of Canada's extraordinary reputation throughout the world, which did not know what Canadians want-

What Canadians want is not to say yes, Mrs. Thatcher, yes, Mr. Mitterrand, yes, Mr. Bush. It is to be that kind of country where you have the Marchi, the Comuzzi, the Volpe, the Prud'homme and the Paproski. This is the kind of country that could be so exciting. What kind of international role can that country play? What role can it play at the United Nations? Have you seen any nervousness of this cabinet?
Mario Andreotti is my master of international politics. He writes to me, could you believe that? Ask Mr. Bevilacqua. He used to read the message to me because it is in Italian and he writes so small. But he is my master
October 18, 1990

in international politics. He is working hard. Mitterrand, he is working hard.
Let me ask a small permission. As long as I am not too attacking, I am sure I will get it. What I would like to know of my colleagues, Canadians, do we really reflect the kind of action Canada can better play than to send, with all due respect, three ships and 18 planes? Is that not what Canadians really would prefer even though people see how Gallup last night says 58 per cent approve of the government's action, so we all get excited. We say we cannot vote against the motion, 58 per cent. It may be 38 tomorrow, and maybe 12 if war starts and we lose young Canadians who could have been used otherwise diplomatically. And I will tell you why. Canada is one of the few countries that already has Canadians over there.
The Associate Minister of National Defence, a gracious woman, nice lady, nice member of Parliament, said she felt great last night for these 900 and 500, but I feel equally great, my friend from Toronto who is listening so intently. He thinks I am going to explode. I will surprise him.
We have hundreds of young Canadians on the Golan Heights. We do not talk about that. The pride of Canada, Mr. Speaker, a hundred young Canadians, young Canadian girls and boys are in Cyprus. They are the pride of Canada for our reputation.
My colleagues, I could speak for hours. I prepare myself accordingly. Do you know how many resolutions there are on the Cyprus question, asking ask Turkey to get out of Cyprus that it has occupied 40 per cent since 1974? Have you ever mentioned that? Have you ever heard about that? No, as someone would say, there is no oil there.

200,000 refugees out of a population of 600,000, and we do nothing, we say nothing. We have young Canadians on the border between Iran and Irak, we have young Canadians in the Sinai. What kind of role do you think Canada will be able to play tomorrow, hon. members? of course, there is the economic blockade. We are helping to enforce. It was a UN decision. I support that decision. We support it. This military aspect, is that Canada's calling? I say no. How many countries now contributing to this major military effort are also considered to be
Government Orders
supportive of UN contingents? Few. Examine, look around! All of a sudden we have a crisis on our hands. I am very glad that the United Nations should experience such renewed vigour, despised as they are by the Americans who still owe them in excess of $500 million. The United Nations may have to close the shop. Then overnight there is a world out there because the Soviet Union is falling apart, they are no longer a dangerous military power, so now there is no problem. Good. But we will have to respect all United Nations resolutions, not just some of them. Those of Cyprus. Go and ask-
Go and ask your friends of Greek and Cypriot origin, numbering some 200,000 in Toronto, if Marcel Prud'h-omme is a kook in defending the importance of respecting the United Nations resolution on Cyprus. Ask them in Toronto and Montreal. I know the answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has more than expired. Does he have unanimous consent to continue.


Marcel Prud'homme: One minute.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will not be provocative. I thank the House.
There have been a multiplicity of resolutions on the Middle East by the hundreds. The United States used its veto 20 times. I could go on and on, but because the House has been indulgent, I will not abuse the privilege.
Tonight I could have been negative. But as most of my colleagues know there is a little something in me that says even if I am outraged about something, I still prefer to try not to go the anger route, but try to convince people that this country, so beautiful to work and live in, has such a great role to play in the world. I am not going to beg to do that on my two knees because I come from-

-the Province of Quebec and I am a French Canadian. Never will I go down on my knees before the rest of Canada to defend my views because to me that is only part and parcel of what Canada is.
I could have talked to you about this newspaper-

October 18, 1990
Government Orders

The Suburban, Montreal. So, I will be positive, I will only attract attention. If people want to know what they write about me, every Quebecer, Canadien frangais, knows about that paper. The Suburban, Wednesday, October 17, page A5. I am told that is one good way I am told to attract attention. Please read that. The Suburban is a sick paper from west Island Montreal.

But like Gorbachev once said here in Parliament, while dogs bark the caravan goes by. So I would rather not comment on that. But all I am asking, dear colleagues-I wish there were more of you, I realize that international affairs wear people down, so before I tire you out and abuse I want to assure you that I deeply regret the fact that the government did not see fit to recall Parliament for an emergency debate. That is the resolution of the Liberal Party, of the Official Opposition, to censure the government for failing to recall the House. I will vote in favour. We should not wrap ourselves in the flag of the United Nations- Not the United States. I have nothing, I am pro-American. I do not like their foreign policy in the Middle East. That is all I am a very civilized man. As neighbours go, they are terrific, but I do not want to take orders from the United States. If this is a United Nations mission we will take our responsibilities.
I know-and I will end on this note, Mr. Speaker- that a catch-all resolution is being drafted so that all members might vote with a clear conscience.
Because, in conclusion, I must say that some people have been very nervous over the past week. Because they do not want to discuss the real issues in the Middle-East, they do not want to get to the bottom of things. My colleague from Gatineau-La Lievre did so in such a brilliant manner. We must get to the roots of the larger problem.
But remember that on October 29, 1947, my country- [English]
-your country, my colleagues, November 29, 1947, voted at the United Nations to create two states on Palestinian land, by a vote of 13-10. I think I know my facts very well.
Why do we not finish that job too? Do not be afraid of those who talk about linkage. I heard colleagues say: "We must not have any linkage", as if these things are not links. We must have that first. Fine. Let us solve that one.
But we must also be prepared, and announce ahead of time, that immediately upon having finished solving the Iraq-Kuwait issue, it should be well known internationally that there will be as much devotion and passion in the world community.
We should first solve what is going on in the Middle East. Then Marcel Prud'homme will be the happiest person because he will have the same devotion to his country and, hopefully, to international affairs. But do not ask me to be someone else in my country. I will always be myself. I have as much pride as anybody else.
I have much interest in world affairs, and I think that this government will find it unusual to hear me speaking so vigorously against the government. I think that the government has failed me-of course when I say me, I mean Canada- on this particular issue by not using this opportunity to see what all of us, together, the Marchis, the Comuzzis, the Mifflins, the Robinsons, the Prud'-hommes, the Paproskis can do to see if there is not something different, if there is not a role that could be different for Canada at the United Nations and in this crisis.
That is why I will vote for the motion. I am a responsible person. That is why I will vote for the amendment. That is why I will vote against the motion of that government because I am against it.
I am told now that there is a surprise coming. Well, my commitment at the moment is to vote yes, yes and no, and wait for the surprise, but I hope some people will take me in their confidence. As the oldest parliamentarian, I can only smell that there is something going on, but everything is escaping me. I almost live in this Parliament, so it is very difficult to escape me because I am devoted to see what kind of country we want and what kind of role we can play in world affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway and the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre, and then I will ask the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence.
October 18, 1990


M. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for his excellent speech and especially for the courage he has demonstrated on this issue. I know full well that he has had to pay a very high price within his party for the courage he has shown from the very beginning on this major issue, demanding justice for the Palestinians. I know he has paid and continue to pay a very high price within his party, and I wish once again to congragulate him for his courage and the fact that he has always stated his mind on this issue of justice for the Palestinians. Mr. Speaker, he was attacked recently in a degusting manner in The Suburban.
I have two very straightforward questions for the hon. member. My first question is with respect to the position of the Liberal Party on this issue. I know my hon. friend does not necessarily speak for the party on this question, but perhaps he could clarify for the House the position of the Liberal Party-a party of which he has been a member for many years-with respect to the question of an international conference on the Middle East, a conference including all parties affected, as well as representatives of the Palestinians, which dealing with the issue of self-determination may very well lead to the creation of an independent state for the Palestinians side by side with a secure Israel.
Second, my question concerns the motion discussed by some members in the House and referred to by the hon. member for York West, the motion which the government attempted to put to this House a couple of days ago to which the hon. member for St. Denis objected at that point because quite properly from his perspective he had not been given notice. What is his position with respect to the substance of that motion? Does he support that motion as his colleague from Davenport and others have indicated, or does he oppose that motion?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, and I talk to you as I have always talked to you privately, as a young friend. I find you bright, articulate, devoted and sincere. But, please, on this important issue, I hope that you are not trying to show that there is division in the Liberal Party. There is strong opinion in the Liberal Party on this
Government Orders
question, but to me the subject matter is so important that I am not interested in showing there is division.
I am glad to report to you that ten years ago, or five, six, four, or three, we talked about international conferences and it was unacceptable. I am glad. I do not want to take any credit for anything any more in this House. I have not sat in this party yet, but I think we are moving there. So, I have little reason to rejoice.
Yes, I think it has to be accepted. I hope there will be a debate and I will then throw you the book. Give me two hours, and I will get out. I am even ready in two hours to get out of the House on this issue. I mean it, every second of it. I have paid too much in my emotion, my blood and my thinking to stand up for the damn thing because I am convinced it is in the interests of world humanity that we address the question of the Middle East as a whole.
Second, I will give you my position. I do not think it is the role of Canada to send troops. I will see what they say on Monday. They may know more than I on this resolution. I was not consulted. What I have to defend is what I read and what I read is that we will most likely vote on that. If it is like that, yes to your amendment, yes to our amendment, and no to the government motion. If others want to vote differently we will see what they come up with, but I will be surprised if they will get my support.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis has always shown great courage; he has always stated his mind and always been consistent. It is also true that he has paid a high price for his convictions, but he was not afraid.
As he said-I am coming to my question-how does he manage-? He has always been recognized, and he often tells me: "I am a French-Speaking Canadian and proud of it!" God knows that he is recognized as such. Moreover, he has always spoken out against the fact that the United Nations and the major powers have never helped Cyprus against the Turks who raped the island.
Being a proud Canadian and pro French-Canadian has he ever been accused of being against English Canada? Never! I have never heard that.

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
Has he ever been accused of being against the Turks? Never! How is it, then, that when he tries to defend the interests of Palestinians or those who suffer in the Middle East, he is accused of being antisemitist? Could the hon. member explain that? How is it possible? You have been categorized in the Suburban, but I have never seen a Toronto newspaper accuse you of being against


Marcel Prud'homme: I will be very cool on that- [Translation]
For me, as a French Canadian, it is natural. Any human being belong to a corner of the earth.

I will do it in English. Yes, I am Canadien frangais but I hope its for life. You understand that, but you have to feel at home. I have never known anybody since I have belonged to this country, in my country I am not recognized. I am not equal, so-

I am a French Canadian, but I am a Quebecer first, that is clear. Personally I have no problem. I know that tomorrow some people will say: He has defended Canada. It is not true! I said that I will never kneel in front of anybody, because I have my pride. But I recognize also that my friend Comuzzi has his pride, just as my friend Mifflin.
The second? My God, it is so provocating that I would rather pass.

In the spirit that we have developed tonight, I would not answer the second one. I will not, I regret. But I will make another statement for The Suburban, that doggy newspaper-I do not even know bad words in English, and preserve the House that I use the one in French. Just to conclude, I will not answer that except, and I am not afraid to say this, I have always said and it is on record in the House of Commons that anti-Semitism is a cancer. Do you understand what this means?

Antisemitism is a cancer which eats up the inside.

But how many times do I have to repeat that? I never receive any flattering article by the Canadian Jewish Congress or the Zionists of Canada and yet Marcel Prud'homme, Canadien frangais montrealais time and time and time again, for 25 years, has always said that. There is nothing worse than anti-Semitism because it eats you from the inside. Once you allow your heart, your passion, your head to become anti-Semitic you have opened the door to yourself to be anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-everything you do not like. So how do I still feel so healthy? But I understand the passion of the people they want to defend. It is their problem. They should understand that the greatest friends of Israel are not necessarily their blind friends because their blind friends may not help that state to survive.
People like me, and I say it seriously, can do a hell of a lot more to say to people: "Hey, buster, that country exists. Canada voted for it. That country has the right to exist but like every other country, but the other one has the right to exist". I know it is a perpetual debate. If you want to know more, I conclude by a quote. Why do you not read a fantastic book. Parliamentarians, I will send all of you who are here tonight a copy free. I will pay for it. It is entitled They Dare to Speak Out written by an American parliamentarian. He explains what the outcome is all about in that book.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on my respected colleague's speech. I had originally planned to ask the question my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway asked, which brought to mind the following quote from La Fontaine, a French poet from the Renaissance:
Flatterers laugh at the expense of those who listen to them.
I am very proud of my colleague from Saint-Denis for not listening.
The point I want to make in this debate tonight is that the hon. member for Saint-Denis touched on two themes which unfortunately come back often in our debates. One is passion for this country, an emotion all the hon. members must respect because, in our state-
October 18, 1990

merits, speeches and questions, we always talk about the interest of Canada, and not that of other countries.
The French language, Mr. Speaker, is a wonderful tool to express passions. I note that my friend said, and this is the second time I hear him say it: "I am a Canadian, yes, but French Canadian." The English language is not as precise. Blame it on the structure of the language. In French, Canadian always comes first. The second word acts as a modifier introducing an idea without cancelling out the others. Speaking with heat, my colleague also touched on a second theme: in this House, given the parliamentary system set up by the Canadians, it is always allowed to express dissenting views, because all the hon. members always put up with differences of opinions. Within certain limits, with your permission, Mr. Speaker! There are opinions we can respect without sharing them. I respect my colleague's position and I am glad that he made his position clear to our colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway on the motion debated tonight. It is a positive stance for the Liberal Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know if there is a question, but the dean can answer that last question


Marcel Prud'homme: I will answer the second part.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Italian.]

Latin is certainly one of the languages I enjoy most as a listener because I understand it. But I simply want to answer on the first and not on the second. Do not be mistaken. When I say French Canadian, that to us is inseparable. It is not Canadian and- it is French Canadian. It is inseparable. It is inseparable in our proudness. And if people do not accept that, I am afraid a good many will drop one of the two parts and take only one. It is not because I want to please my colleagues, but I prefer saying that I said so because I believe it. This is not to please my colleagues. I say that because I am convinced, not because I want to be nice.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the words of my hon. colleague from Saint-Denis, I wanted to rise in this
Government Orders
debate because of the eloquence and passion with which he spoke.


Marcel Prud'homme: I hope you are not on standby in case I go too far.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. members says he hopes I am not on standby. Certainly not.


Marcel Prud'homme: In case I go too far, I said.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: In either case, whether he goes too far or whether he did not go far enough.
I was here, and I had this opportunity to participate. I decided I would do so after listening to his very eloquent contribution to this debate.
As someone who has watched this Chamber for a long time and hearing the hon. member speak with the passion which he did and delivering the address he did to the House tonight, I could not help but think back to days when I sat in the gallery of this House as a student in the sixties. The hon. member was a member of this House then.
He has been a member of this House continuously since that time. For well over 25 years he has served in this place. It is an enviable record, and one of very distinguished service to Canada in his efforts to ameliorate the condition of hundreds of Canadians as the member of Parliament for Saint-Denis.

I am very pleased to convey to him my congragulations because his impassioned speech was very good. As he said, when one has conviction, one must have passion. That is fine.

Of course, I also listened with some amusement to the questions put by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway. I must say I share the words of the hon. member for Saint-Denis in describing him as erudite and clever. I am sorry that he has taken it upon himself to try to sow seeds of division in the members of this Liberal Party.
He is shaking his head and suggesting that it is not so. Words speak for themselves, and I am sorry that he is trying to be mischievous this evening. I would have expected better of him. Someone as eloquent and as capable as he is, I would have thought might have felt happier in the Liberal Party than in the New Democratic Party.

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
We have tremendous tolerance for varying viewpoints. One of the strongest points of the Liberal Party-I have watched it for a very long time-is its ability to open itself and embrace people of a great variety of opinions and views. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, instead of trying to accept that that is the fact, is busy trying to suggest that somehow because these views can all be accommodated in this great party, somehow a wedge needs to be driven in to drive some members out.
I suggest that it is unworthy of the hon. member. I would suggest that in future he try to contain his enthusiasm for wedge driving, and stick with fair questions that seek to elicit genuine information rather than these efforts to make people feel uncomfortable in the convictions that they hold.
Certainly, the members of this party are encouraged by the example of our string of distinguished leaders, and by the leadership of the party generally to hold their convictions.
The Liberal Party is in fact the party of individual rights. It believes in the worth of the individual, and it accepts differences of opinion. I ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway to bear that in mind when he presses his mischievous questions.
What I wanted to speak about tonight was something of some considerably grave concern, because I think the situation that we are faced with in dealing with this motion is one that arose out of a lengthy summer adjournment that this government foisted upon the House, and really upon the country.
I think it is fair to say that Canadians all across Canada were appalled when this crisis in the Middle East erupted. Indeed, there was another crisis as Your Honour will recall at Oka when the government, despite repeated calls from the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier who is House leader for this party, for the recall of Parliament at an early date to deal with these matters, stonewalled and refused.
This motion is the result of the government's reluctant recall of Parliament. It had to do it, because we had adjourned until September 24. To show that it was really serious about this, it introduced this motion on the first day back. It was debated for a day, and the government expressed some surprise that it did not immediately pass.
Apparently one day was supposedly enough to discuss this important issue. So, they called it another day, and at the end of the day, they said: "How long do you want? Why is this going on so long?" They gave notice of closure. They have never in fact imposed it, but they did come and say we are going to use it unless we get some kind of deal. Now we are sitting late to deal with this issue and we have co-operated in that. We have agreed to sit late in order to allow members who wanted to speak on this issue to do so. I am sorry that the government regards this as so unimportant that four days of debate, strung out over a period of weeks, is enough for the members of Parliament to express the views of their constituents on this very important issue.
I can think back to 1956 when the government of the day was faced with a crisis in the Suez. There was an immediate recall of Parliament to deal with the crisis. Parliament was called into special session. There was a Speech from the Throne and everything. A special session was held so that the members of Parliament could be present and discuss what the Canadian government was doing in an emergency world situation.
We were confronted with a situation that was just as grave, just as serious for world peace this summer. This government did nothing. It twiddled its thumbs and did nothing. It said we will send troops abroad, we will make our decisions but we do not need to call Parliament together. We do not need to discuss this with representatives of the people. We do not need to call the Leader of the Opposition. We do not need to speak to anybody. We will simply talk to the President of the United States, as my hon. friend from Thunder Bay-Nipigon has suggested.
We can talk to the President of the United States. If he says we should send troops, then we will send them. It was a deplorable approach to diplomacy and to the Canadian people. It was contemptuous of Parliament and an insult to the peoples' representatives here.
What the government is doing is exhibiting a pattern of contempt. As someone who appreciates this place and believes that the House of Commons is where matters should be discussed and disposed of, I am appalled at the record of contempt that is shown by the government throughout the two years I have been here. I know the hon. member for Saint-Denis with his 26 years of
4-;


experience could list far more than I could of the way this government has acted in its contemptuous fashion. I can think of a few items that indicate a similar approach to the House of Commons. The failure to call Parliament back this summer is only one. There has been closure used constantly in this House, more than all the other Parliaments in Canadian history put together. That is how often closure has been used in this Parliament. We have had time allocation used in this Parliament time after time. We had the government House leader on his feet the other day saying that in the six years it has been in office, it has used it as many times as the Liberal government had before. I do not think that is much of a record. When you add in the closure use, it is a much more impressive and debilitating record. It shows a tremendous contempt for Parliament.
There are regular lengthy adjournments. You would think that if it was using closure it is because it is jammed with work. But it is not. It uses closure, closure, closure. Then it says, okay, it is time to go home now early and have a long holiday. Do not come back too soon. It asks for extended periods off. We left early in June, we came back late in September. Last year we were off until an extra couple of weeks in January. The year before, we had an extended break. It would not call us back at all until after April 3, I think, in 1989, after a two week session in December. All through the December session in 1988 it used closure at every stage to get it all through in two weeks time.
There is a pattern of contempt and disrespect for Parliament of a constant unwillingness to meet the opposition to deal with us in this Chamber. Why? It is fear. The government members are afraid to face the music that is put to them by us in the opposition. They are afraid to listen to the voices of the people. The evidence of that is in the string of unpopular policies that it pursues when we are not here and when we are here. It says we do not really care whether you want to change this bill. We really do not care if you like our policies. We are going ahead with them anyway. Shut up. If you do not shut up we will put closure on you and shut you up. If that is not enough we will send you away for a long holiday so you really have not got a platform in Parliament to speak on. That is what is going on here and that is what went on in this case. Here we have the govern-
Government Orders
ment choose to send troops abroad. There was a two-week delay while the ships were outfitted. Parliament could easily have been recalled in the two-week period and could have discussed this resolution or some other such resolution. And, instead of doing that, the government said that it did not need to discuss this with Parliament, it would simply leave it until September 24 when Parliament is back.
This was one other piece in the whole string of contemptuous actions to Parliament, contempt bred out of disrespect for the House on the one hand but fear on the other, fear that it does not know how to control the House, fear that it cannot control what the opposition says in this House, fear that it is going to have its sins exposed by the Opposition in this House.
I do not mean necessarily bad things but I mean the unsatisfactory parts of its policies are exposed and brought to light in this Chamber. That is what this place is all about, so that the deficiencies in the government's performance can be brought to light so that it can correct them, but the government resents having them exposed. I do not know why. It should say it is sorry it made a mistake and will fix it at once. But you never hear that, Mr. Speaker.
Who has been here in Question Period and has heard a minister of the Crown rise in his place and say, "The hon. member has a good point. There is a problem there. We will have to do something about that and I will see that it is corrected", and report to the hon. member the next day. It does not happen, the government never admits there was something wrong. If a minister of the Crown does not want to answer the question he always says how bad things were under the previous Liberal regime and how much better they are today. What nonsense that is. What Canadian alive today thinks things were worse under the previous Liberal regime, other than the members of the Cabinet who sit opposite. Virtually every Canadian you speak to says we have never, ever, ever, had such a bad government as this one.
No wonder it is afraid to face the people's representatives in Parliament. No wonder it sent the troops abroad and when there was a hue and ciy it said, "Well, we are not calling Parliament. The last thing we need is a place for those people to utter their hues and cries and object to this".

October 18, 1990
Government Orders
Well, we do not object to it as long as these troops are under the purview, under the control of the United Nations. We support this; and we have said that all along. And we have said it because this effort on the part of the United Nations represents, as my hon. friend, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has said, the first time the international community has acted in concert to deal with a world crisis. We have participating in this United Nations force, representatives of Third World countries, of middle powers and of the great powers and it is supported by all the great powers. Never before in the history of the United Nations has there been this kind of support for this kind of initiative. I think Canada, as a staunch supporter of the United Nations and its work, is delighted and should be delighted to be involved in it.
But surely we should have been consulted about our involvement. Surely that is reasonable and fair. Surely the people who have elected their representatives to sit here ought to have consultation, they ought to have some input into it and some discussion about it before it happens. And that is what I am objecting to, that that was denied.
We also feel that the attempt of the amendment that we have moved to this resolution, tries to assert in stronger terms the importance of the United Nations role in the entire crisis and the fact that we believe the Canadian troops should be under the direct control of the United Nations. We supported and continue to support the resolution that the government sought to introduce on October 16 in this House. And we would have preferred that that resolution be before us for debate now, because we believe that that resolution more accurately states what is intended by the resolution and the two amendments which are before us. We support that motion and still support that motion. And if we could have a vote on that one, we would support it.
I know that the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is going to tell us that his party supports it too. At least, I think it does; it did the other day, but it may change. New Democratic Party policy, as I heard earlier, changes from day to day. Earlier this year the hon. member for Kamloops was up, speaking about the Senate. The NDP have been around the place, up the tree, and down the hole on the Senate so often that I do not know whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway could tell us the party position on the Senate. He must be even more
confused than the hon. member for Kamloops who is completely baffled. I remember asking him a question last summer about their views on the Senate. He gave me an answer which was at variance with what he said a week before. Then he told me that that was a re-interpretation of a resolution passed at some convention they had had a few weeks before that. And that was different from the policy of the previous convention, because they no longer wanted to abolish it and they were in the process of forming some new policy on the Senate which I thought he did announce the night before, but apparently he had not. It was something different.
Really the confusion and obfuscation on the part of that party and its policies is sometimes a little disconcerting. I wish the hon. member for Kamloops were here, because I would be delighted to hear his views on this particular set of motions. I believe he was supporting the one that was to be introduced on Tuesday. I think he was aware of the terms, but I would not want to put words in his mouth.
I would be delighted to have the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway support the resolutions that we are supporting. We are delighted to be able to support his amendment. I think it is a reasonable and sensible one. I am sure he supports the very sensible amendment we have moved to the motion as well, and I expect he is going to vote for it when the time comes.


Marcel Prud'homme: How?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I do not know how he is voting on the main motion. I assume the hon. member is voting-


Svend Johannes Robinson: How are you voting?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Having said that, the hon. member could save his question until the end. I know he will want to ask questions.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, because I sense from your attitude that my time is about to expire, I want to say how pleased I am to be able to participate in this debate tonight, to share the floor with the hon. member for Saint-Denis who spoke very well, and the other hon. members whom I heard speak earlier; the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon whose speech was a good one, and of course, I heard the hon. member for Bonavista-Trin-
October 18, 1990

ity-Conception when he opened the debate on this motion.
All of the members in this party, it seems to me, have indicated with clarity our views of the position of the government on this matter, our abhorrence at its continuing contempt for Parliament, and our desire to get on with this now and allow the question to be put, and the matter to be dealt with so that the expressions of the wishes of the people of Canada can be made manifest in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member who just spoke about the clarity of the Liberal position will want to demonstrate that in responding to the question that I want to put to him about the intentions of his party, particularly his own intentions, on the vote on this important issue.
We heard from the member for Saint-Denis. He was very clear. He intends to support the subamendment. He intends to support the amendment, and he will vote against the main motion, if, indeed, those are defeated.
We have not yet heard from the very distinguished member for Kingston and the Islands on this question. He told us that he supports a motion which is not even before the House, but he still has not told us whether he supports the government motion which in fact is before the House. Now, I know his colleagues have dodged, bobbed, weaved and tried to avoid this question with one noble exception, Mr. Speaker, but I want to give the member for Kingston and the Islands-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We are getting awfully close to the end. Would the hon. member please come to the question?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is somewhat rattled these days by the fact that he has a New Democrat right in the heart of his federal constituency, elected from the provincial constituency of Kingston. I know that rattles him.
I know that he is as confused as I am by the goings on of his Liberal colleagues in the Senate. But I want to ask the member this very straightforward question: Does the
Government Orders
member in fact support the motion of the government which is on the Order Paper and which will be voted upon at six o'clock on Tuesday evening, or is he going to wait and refuse to tell the people of Canada and his constituents? Perhaps he has not made up his mind yet, that is entirely possible. How is he going to vote, yes or no, on the government motion?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, it is the same mischief that the hon. member has been trying to put out all evening, but I am delighted to answer his question.
First, I must say I expect that the amendment that we moved will carry, so I think his question is entirely hypothetical. I fully expect that the members on the other side of the House will see the wisdom of our amendment, the folly of their ways, and vote for the amendment and I expect it will carry.
I can tell the hon. member without any shadow of a doubt, without any possible doubt, that I would vote for the amended resolution. That should make things crystal clear in his mind. I hope he understands that.
My expectation is the amendment to the amendment will carry, the amendment will then carry, and then we will vote for the amended motion which will then carry. I hope that that clarifies things for the hon. member.
He has raised a hypothetical question. He raises the question of what am I going to do if the amendment to the amendment is defeated, the amendment is defeated, and we are left to vote on the main motion. I will tell the hon. member my expectation is that I will vote against the main motion. But something could happen between now and Tuesday at six o'clock that would persuade me to change my mind. If that happens, then I might rise on Tuesday at six o'clock and vote the other way.
I invite the hon. member to attend in the House on Tuesday night at six o'clock and watch. He will see me vote. God willing, I will be here and I intend to vote the way I have indicated unless something changes.
Having said that, I know that the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is planning a foray into Kingston and the Islands this weekend. I can only say how delighted I am to welcome him to my riding and I hope that he will be the very model of decorum and good behaviour and say all the right things to my constituents when he is visiting in the delightful riding of Kingston and the Islands.

October 18, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to Order made earlier today, the questions are deemed put on the subamendment of Ms. McLaughlin, on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) and on the main motion, and recorded divisions are deemed
demanded and deemed deferred until six o'clock p.m., Tuesday, October 23, 1990.
It being 9.38 p.m., pursuant to Order made earlier this day, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday October 19,1990