1991-10-22

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see your smiling face again in this House.
As it is Small Business Week in Canada I am very pleased to have the honour of presenting to this House the government's third annual report on the state of small business in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I know that all hon. members share my strong admiration for the men and women who own and operate small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. The report I am tabling today is entitled From Best Practices to Competitiveness and it profiles these entrepreneurs and highlights many of the practices they have used to be successful.
The Government of Canada is committed to programs and policies which support the growth of the small business sector. I invite all hon. members to study the report I am tabling today in order to enhance their understanding of small business practices. I urge everyone to join me in congratulating the enormous accomplishments of small businesses in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the
Standing Committee on Finance in connection with the Bank Act, Bill C-19, that is reported to this House with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-315, an act to amend the Criminal Code (evidence concerning sexual activity).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the simple explanation of this bill that I have introduced in the House of Commons is to restore the sections of the Criminal Code commonly known as the rape shield law.
Let me make this brief remark. This is my response to the outcry from women across Canada on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada invalidating the rape shield law. This bill would allow us to use our constitutional power to reinstate the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code.
May I make one more comment, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. The women responsible for the "Take Back the Night" crusade offer a simple guide, yes means yes and no means no. It is a national shame that some of the judges in the Supreme Court of Canada do not recognize the social value of that simple rule. If we really intend to stop violence against women let us restore the rape shield law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Crosby moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.

October 22, 1991
Routine Proceedings


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCE ACT
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. Janies) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-316, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (age of entitlement, suspension of allowance and review committee).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses a couple of major concerns relating to MPs' pensions. If passed, this bill would hold back pension payouts until the age of 60. Also it would prohibit future retired MPs from drawing both their parliamentary pension and a federal salary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Harvard moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people in Dubuisson, Val-d'Or, Vassan, Ottawa, Aylmer and Orleans who respectfully submit to the government that the rules concerning compensation for pregnant women do not reflect all the requirements of their working conditions. The possibility of preventive withdrawal for pregnant women is a desirable and necessry option for working women.
For these reasons, they humbly ask Parliament, when it reviews the Canada Labour Code, to seriously consider the deficiencies in it and recognize the need to include in
the Code clauses for the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women, with pay, Mr. Speaker.


Guy St-Julien: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, concerning firearms. The petitioners are from Monkland, Cornwall, Summerstown and St. Andrews, Ontario and say that the accessibility of firearms is a key factor in homicides, accidents and suicides. Many types of weapons are easily available in Canada but not necessary for legitimate purposes like hunting and competitive shooting. They ask Parliament to legislate now to forbid anyone with a criminal record to own a firearm.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 57 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 57 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia: For the 1991-92 fiscal year, what is the amount of dollars
approved for each federal riding under the SEED Program for
youth employment?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
October 22, 1991



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway) moved:: That this House take note of the Prime Minister's recently stated commitment to the principle of linking government aid to respect for human rights and, in light of documented violations of human rights in countries such as Mexico, China, Zaire, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya and others which currently receive Canadian financial support, that this House urge the government to discontinue immediately Canadian participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade negotiations and to review immediately all international support programs to ensure that they meet the aid criteria as announced by the Prime Minister.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca who will be focusing in particular on the situation in Mexico and the implications of human rights in Mexico on the North American free trade deal.
As I said, we welcome the words and declarations of the Prime Minister during the past week at Commonwealth meetings both in Gabon and in Zimbabwe when he said "that Canada will not subsidize repression and the stifling of freedom, that nothing in international relations is more important than respect for individual freedoms and human rights," and when the Prime Minister said here in Canada that "human rights form a very important component of foreign policy for Canada".
There is a huge gap between reality and rhetoric when it comes to this important principle. I would remind the House that it was four years ago that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, chaired by William Winegard, the member for Guelph, strongly recommended to the government in its unanimous report that in fact Canada should link clearly and explicitly its policy on human rights with its policy on aid.
In 1988 the government indicated that it was prepared to implement that particular principle. The excellent report of the standing committee in 1987 called for a comprehensive set of guiding principles for a CIDA policy unit to identify human rights abusers and to advise
Supply
on trends in each recipient country, for annual reports to be made public by this unit and sent for review to parliamentary committees and for a clear linkage between development and arms control. As the Canadian Council on International Co-operation has pointed out this must be a transparent and open process.
What has happened in those four years since the Prime Minister suddenly discovered the importance of human rights in international financial transactions? Just today the Canadian Council on Churches and the Interchurch Fund for International Development are releasing a major report on Canada's record on foreign aid. That report is a scathing indictment of the policies of the Conservative government on aid.
They say that CIDA is moving further and further away from the real development issues that face the poorest countries. They say that CIDA has moved to a single neo-conservative development strategy, that CIDA's present course is a betrayal of its best contributions of the past. They point out that Canada has not come close to reaching our 1970 target of .7 per cent of GNP. In fact in real terms we have cut back on foreign aid, that our aid budget ranks tenth among the 12 largest donors when it comes to social spending, when it comes to spending on real human needs, and that we have not moved nearly far enough on the question of tied aid.
This government has said that they intend to implement human rights considerations when it comes to aid and once again we welcome that. But it is also important that in looking at other financial assistance and financial transactions that similar human rights considerations must apply.
When we are talking, for example, about lines of credit to other countries surely we have to look at human rights considerations in those circumstances as well. Perhaps the most glaring example is Iran and the fact that our government is prepared to extend a $1 billion line of credit to the government of Iran at the same time that the United Nations Human Rights Commission has found that there are a significant number of executions, repression of human rights, gross violation of the rights of women and children, that the officially announced executions for the first seven months of 1991 were three times greater than the total for the same period in 1990, that there is widespread public flogging of women, that a

Supply
woman was just recently flogged 35 times with a metal cable by the revolutionary guards and is now being ordered back by the Canadian government to Iran.
This is the government to which this country is extending a $1 billion line of credit. It is shameful and obviously sheer hypocrisy when it comes to preaching human rights in international financial terms.
We can look as well at the situation in Kuwait where we just extended a $500 million line of credit, despite the fact that Middle East Watch, a very respected human rights group, has found that murder, torture, arbitrary detention and unlawful deportation have been the tools of a campaign of vengeance against Palestinians and others in Kuwait.
Where are the human rights considerations in extending lines of credit to Kuwait and to Iran? Surely we must look at the question of extension of lines of credit at this very sensitive point in Middle East peace negotiations to Israel as well when human rights concerns have been expressed with respect to the conditions in the occupied territory and when Israel insists on additional settlements in the occupied territories.
We must recognize that this standard cannot simply apply to ODA. It must apply as well to lines of credit.
Who does Iran buy its weapons from? One of its chief weapons suppliers is China. China is one of the chief weapons suppliers to Burma or to Myanmar which is ruled by a 19-member military junta described by Amnesty International as guilty of systematic torture and routine murder. It is a country in which state sanctioned brutality is a nation-wide phenomena.
China is responsible for selling arms to Burma, to Iran and other countries. As far as Canada is concerned, it is business as usual with China, despite the fact that Amnesty has documented that hundreds of thousands of people in China, including prisoners of conscience, are arbitrarily and in some cases illegally detained under the country's blatantly unfair system of administrative detention.
We know that in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre the police rounded up leaders of the pro-democracy movement and that as many as several thousand have been detained. The trials have been held behind closed doors, despite the call by Canada and other countries to open up those trials, to ensure that international observers can be present.
We recognize, of course, the progress that China has made in feeding its people despite tremendous adversity and in housing its people. Surely, Canada cannot remain silent on these abuses of human rights.
I note as well that Canada nominated China to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, to an executive position there, as rapporteur despite the fact that we recognize China is a refugee producing country.
I could go down the list of other countries which are major recipients of Canada's foreign aid. Indonesia has been involved in the brutal suppression of the people of East Timor for some 15 years, with numerous killings, oppression, abuses of human rights. There has been the ruthless suppression of the rights of the people of East Timor, and yet Canada is actively involved in a financial sense in that country as well.
Kenya, where President Daniel arap Moi has suggested that he wants to hunt down like rats, those who have the audacity to oppose his dictatorial regime in that country. Kenya, a country in which prisoners of conscience have been held without charge or trial. In a number of cases, Canada provides $30 million a year to Kenya.

It is the same thing in Rwanda, dictatorship. Canada has subsidized the dictatorial regime in Rwanda, while the Prime Minister talks about respect for human rights. There is hypocrisy and a double standard, Mr. Speaker. Such double standards are quite unacceptable!
The same thing happens in Zaire. Canada gave a grant of some $70 million to the repressive Mobutu goveme-ment in Zaire. Where are the human rights standards, Mr. Speaker?

Is the Prime Minister in fact a bom again convert to this concept of linking human rights with financial aid as part of his campaign to become the Secretary General of the United Nations? We do not know.
We know he has tremendous support from his Conservative colleagues, but we have to ask ourselves: Why is there this last minute conversion to the principles of linking human rights with financial aid and financial support? Why is that? Why are they not practising what they preach? Why are they not practising what they preach in Central America, in Guatemala and in El

Salvador where the Central America monitoring group has documented very clearly the fact that we have bilateral government to government aid relations with those countries which are obviously guilty of profound human rights abuses? They are guilty of denial of rights to their own people.
We know as well about the concerns about the impact of structural adjustment policies in our aid as well.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us talk for a moment about the status of women. The Prime Minister in his speech in Harare, Zimbabwe, spoke about the importance of the Commonwealth setting the pace in ensuring the equality of women in all sectors of society. Yet Canada is selling 1,117 light armed vehicles to the fundamentalist regime in Saudi Arabia, a regime which has been denounced for its torture and ill treatment of detainees, a regime in which women are denied basic political and social rights.
Quite clearly there is a profound double standard in this government's approach to human rights. The Prime Minister, when he is outside the country, when he is in Zimbabwe, speaks about the importance of linkage of human rights and aid. We support that linkage. We have supported it since we joined in supporting the 1987 report. However, in closing, the time has come, Mr. Speaker, to match words to action. It is time to ensure that human rights are taken seriously by this government.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very interesting survey of the violators of human rights with whom Canada has trade and aid relations.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he can comment further on the trade side of it since there is far more money involved both ways in trade. He has referred to tied aid, but I would like him to explain what the percentage is of Canada's ODA aid which is tied and what that tie means, not only for the profit of Canadians, but sometimes to the disadvantage of the country supposedly being aided.
Supply


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the hon. member because it does point out another glaring inconsistency in this government's policies with respect to aid.
The fact is that the government declared its commitment in 1988 to untying at least one-third of government aid, and that still leaves a very high proportion of tied aid. Yet that target is far from being met by this government.
Instead, we have a situation in which only 5 per cent of the aid which is accorded by Canada to needy countries goes to meet basic human priorities such as family planning, clean water, primary education and primary health care. In fact, the United Nations human development report of 1990 was very critical of the very, very small proportion of Canadian aid which is going to serve basic human needs. The OECD was critical of what it referred to as a significant decline in Canadian aid, and the United Nations in its human development report pointed out that much of Canadian aid was in fact misdirected.
I want to take this opportunity as well, Mr. Speaker, just to note that nine of the ten top recipients in the Commonwealth of Canadian aid-and I am not even speaking here of trade, but I am speaking specifically of aid-routinely held political prisoners in detention without trial, according to Amnesty International last year, and more than one-half of them tolerated torture and extrajudicial executions.
Yes, it is important to talk about aid, but we also need to have a trade policy, a policy with respect to lines of credit that reflect that commitment to fundamental human rights. It is not good enough to say we will extend lines of credit for hundreds of millions of dollars in Mexico, in Kuwait, in Iran when what that does is allow the governments of those countries to spend even more money on the military.
Pakistan, for example, spends three times as much money on the military as it does on basic human needs. It is time that Canada recognize that our country simply cannot allow it to be business as usual in these circumstances. We must stop, for example, welcoming with open arms Nicolai Ceausescu to this country. Some people have short memories. In 1985, he was welcomed with open arms. We have to promote business, we have to promote trade.

October 22, 1991
Supply
It is time we stopped this hypocrisy and recognize that Canada must have one human rights policy.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, on a personal note I want to say how pleased I am to see the chair being occupied by our Deputy Speaker who was unfortunately ill for some time but has now returned to this Chamber.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: Under the calmness of the Deputy Speaker's chairpersonship I will make my comments to impress the House about the importance of this particular debate.
I will take just a couple of moments to congratulate my colleague, the member for Burnaby who has outlined clearly a continuation of a debate that took place in this House relative to the gulf war.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the high statements made by the former minister of external affairs about ending the arms race, and the pious statements made some months ago in this House by the Prime Minister and the former minister of external affairs that we have to control the international arms race.
My colleague has outlined in his speech how we are contributing to the continuation of the international arms race, and the high sounding, high-falutin speeches of the Prime Minister and the former minister of external affairs turned out to be hollow and empty. It came as a shock and disappointment to me as a nouveau member of this Chamber, but what comes as even more of a shock to me is the repetition of the same kind of transparent statements taking place regarding the defence of human rights while at the same time acting differently as government. The same parallels exist: statements about actions on this way but actions taking place in reality in an another way.
I relate this whole debate to the question of our sitting at the table with the nations of Mexico and the United States. The issues of human rights, labour rights and environmental rights relative to the free trade discussions among the United States, Mexico and Canada were raised in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate.
Last May I had the opportunity of appearing before a budget task force committee outlining my party's concern about the human rights aspects as well as the economic aspects.
President Bush was so concerned about the opposition in Congress and in the United States Senate that he was forced to set up a parallel study in the United States relative to the environmental issues, the labour issues and the human rights issues.
If this government is to be believed to be sincere, how can it sit at the table with the Government of Mexico, knowing in advance the catalogue of violence, torture and frankly murders that taken place in Mexico, catalogued by Amnesty International, and at the same time make pious statements about human rights relative to economic matters?
I want to refer to a recent column in The Winnipeg Free Press. It is not known as a social democratic organ or outlet. I want to quote just the first few paragraphs of a column written by Frances Russell. She says:
Like most giant corporations the Ford Motor Company has moved to the maquiladoras, the Mexican free trade zone along the U.S. border.
In 1987, the employees at Ford's Cuatilan plant earned $2.35 an hour, a generous salary compared to the average maquiladora manufacturing wage of 98 cents an hour.
Suddenly, Ford shut down the plant, laying off all of its employees.
Three months later, the company's doors reopened, but this time, the employees were offered only $8 a day. Their benefits and vacations were cut in half.
Workers demonstrated, which is their right in any civilized country. The consequence of that demonstration was that a blood bath followed. She continues:
Thugs attached to the Mexico's government labour organization, the CTM, stormed the plant, killing one person, shooting nine more and sending an additional 40 to hospital.
Subsequently, Ford president Harold Polling denied all knowledge of the incident to the United Auto Workers.
There is a catalogue outside Amnesty International of over 80 trade union activists who were murdered or who disappeared in Mexico over the last 36 months. We should contrast that statement to the response to the questions made by the then Minister for International Trade, now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in front of a committee just last year. Last October the Minister for International Affairs assured the external affairs and international trade committee that when it came to the North American free trade agreement "Canada is always
October 22, 1991

prepared to take a high moral plane". The plane left the ground without any facts. The high moral plane is ignoring the violation of labour rights, human rights and, as a matter of fact, organized thuggery under the approval of the Government of Mexico. Again I say it is documented.
Why is Canada at the table with the Prime Minister of this country making such statements as: "Canada will not subsidize repression and the stifling of freedom". It is a very bad taste in the mouth to have to repeat these words in light of what is going on in Mexico.
With deep disappointment I have to refer to the divisions inside the Liberal Party regarding this matter. I hate to bring this up again, but since the loss of the previous leader of the Liberal Party the Liberal Party is now back on the fence on this very important issue.
I quote from the October 16, 1991 issue of The Globe and Mail or The Globe and Flail as it is commonly known, where the hon. member for Willowdale, the Liberal industrial critic, said: "Canada needs to be involved in continental trade negotiations to protect our national interests. By participating Canada can renegotiate the Canada-U.S. pact". What a pile of nonsense. The fact is that this House, regardless of party, should stand and say that Canada as a nation will not sit at the table to negotiate a brand new trade agreement with one of the major violators of human rights.
How can the Canadian government and the Official Opposition suggest that these talks go on while violation after violation after violation of human rights is catalogued in Mexico? I quote the Prime Minister again: "Canada will not subsidize repression and the stifling of freedom".
I want to continue to quote the former minister of trade: "We should support the trade union organizations and shorter working hours". That is not what is happening in Mexico, and he was referring to Mexico. He said: "Workmen's compensation and all these things we have here in Canada, we want to see elsewhere. But I do not think unilaterally we can impose them on Mexico. Those are domestic matters for them to decide".
Supply
What position are we dealing with here? The Prime Minister lecturing other countries on human rights or the former minister of trade saying that we will not interfere in the internal matters of another country, particularly when those matters are so devastating to human beings and labour organizations.
You cannot have it both ways, regardless of the interpretation of the motivations of the Prime Minister. Should he indeed be seeking another job? The polls advise that would be the best and most prudent advice he could take. Nonetheless, one cannot have the idea of saying one thing about human rights here to promote one agenda, while at the same time another minister is saying: "We will not interfere with the internal matters of another country".
If I could say the word "hypocrisy", I would say it. But I know it is not parliamentary so I will not say it. Should it come from my mouth, I would withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
Having said that, I want to say that this place is being measured by Canadians from coast to coast. It is being measured on the basis of seeing whether or not we really mean what we say in this Chamber, or as each week slips by do we say one thing and then something else? This conflicting statement between the minister and the Prime Minister is obvious.
The motto of this government is: "If we are going to give you money, we will tell you that you must behave yourself. But if we are going to make money out of you, we do not care what the hell you do". That is the blunt double standard that exists and I for one do not want any part of that. I beg the Liberal Party to end its confusion about this matter.
My last comment is: when I asked in committee that the all-party committee travel to Mexico to verify these matters as they were presented to the committee, with the support of the Liberal member from Winnipeg, that request was turned down by the committee. No one from the parliamentary committee has stepped a foot in Mexico to report back to this House about what is going on there before we continue these negotiations, no one. Blindly the committee was kept here in a cubby-hole downstairs, a comfortable cubby-hole nonetheless, with

Supply
no access whatsoever to talk to Mexicans in the trade union movement or Mexicans in the religious community about what is really going on. The agenda is dictated by money, money, money.
That is not morality. That is the word that I cannot use and I will not use it.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member from Burnaby for having the initiative to advance this debate on the floor of the House of Commons today. This very debate took place in my riding last Saturday morning. It started at 7.30 at the Albion restaurant on Queen Street. We never ended it, so I am happy that we are continuing it here today.
I do have a very specific question for the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. About three years ago I had the opportunity of spending a couple of weeks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This is a country where human rights violations are quite public and quite dramatic. Hands are cut off and heads are cut off in a public forum when people are caught. Whether it is stealing or molesting women, one knows of the severe examples in Saudi Arabia. This was pretty shocking to me. I did not think that this kind of thing continued today. At the same time I discovered that through Bell Canada over the previous 10 years we basically set up its entire telephone network system. There were close to 40,000 Canadian jobs involved in putting this telephone infrastructure in place. Billions and billions of dollars went into manufacturing in every part of this country.
I am not supporting human rights violations but I want to be quite specific in my question. Do I understand the member correctly? Is he saying that that contract should have just been refused or turned down? If so, I would like to include that we just finished going through a Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto where our premier basically opened the Saudi Arabia exhibit and encouraged further trade ties to this same country where there is human rights oppression. I just need a bit of assistance on how dramatic he is proposing we should be.


David Barrett: I have always been impressed with that member's thoughtful and profound observations and questions. It is a very serious problem. Of course we need to expand our trade and a high moral plane is a desirable goal. We have to face reality on the basis of
issue by issue. However, I would like to point out that obvious violations demand action by a government.
Let me give some historical examples. During 1940, before the United States came into direct conflict with Nazi Germany and our Commonwealth was struggling to maintain its freedom, behind the united effort of all political parties in the Commonwealth it was discovered that the Texaco Oil Company was selling airplane fuel, high octane fuel through Spain to Nazi Germany. There was an international outcry and the United States government under then President Roosevelt tried to take an initiative to stop those sales, but the overwhelming sense was business as usual.
On reflection, had a moral stand been taken against that kind of activity in 1940, the Luftwaffe would have been handicapped earlier than the devastation of the Battle of Britain. These are documented facts.
What do you do? You make a decision on morality. What we are calling for in this imperfect world is an attempt to review every single one of these deals and potential deals on the basis of some sense of morality. We are not perfect human beings.
In the early 1970s I was confronted with a similar situation in trade with South Africa. As a government in British Columbia we unilaterally cancelled all importation of liquor products and wine in the B.C. liquor stores and made that our statement in any other contract with South Africa.
It cost us a tax politically and it cost us a tax financially, but we made that decision on a moral ground. On the same basis I am asking that as human beings we sit down with industry, with the Canadian people and ask: Is the high price for this deal in terms of moral standards greater than the economic benefits?
I do not know. I do not have a formula, but when I am given obvious information such as what exists in Mexico, it seems to me that there is no economic benefit from us backing away from the table and saying: Look, we will sit at the table with you when you clean up your act. Even the President of the United States has been forced to set up parallel investigations in response to Congress and the Senate.
This Chamber in a sense is no different from the Congress and the Senate in dealing with these moral problems. What frightens me and frankly angers me,

with no evil intent implied to other human beings, is that we cannot even get it straight from the government of the day where it stands.
On the one hand the Prime Minister lectures countries in Africa and on the other hand the former trade minister says: "We will not interfere". That is puzzling. It is not fair. It is not right. It is not decent.


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


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to take part in this debate because it is a very serious one as the member for Broadview-Greenwood has pointed out.
It is serious first of all because victims of human rights abuses around the world want us to have a consistent policy that is sensitive to their needs. Their hope depends on it. Their lives depend on it. They are looking to Canada to have a consistent foreign policy, aid policy and human rights policy that will continue their hope.
Second, Canada's reputation is on the line on this issue. Over the years, regardless of which government was in office, Canada has established a reputation for being concerned about human rights issues around the world. Therefore this is a very serious motion.
I note with particular interest that the Prime Minister who has now generated this debate by his statements did not make his statement about human rights abuses here in Ottawa, in the House of Commons or in the parliamentary press gallery. He said it in the presence of the leaders of the world, where we are concerned about human rights issues.
I notice that the member for Burnaby said that the Prime Minister is a recent convert to human rights issues. This gadfly from Burnaby, who has taken a new interest in this subject since he has been appointed to this position, has had a very convenient lapse of memory.
The Prime Minister raised human rights issues seven years ago when he was in Korea where there is a right wing regime. He has gone to what would be called left wing regimes and raised human rights issues there. I want this member to know that the Prime Minister has been consistent wherever he has gone in raising human
Supply
rights issues, regardless of the kind of regime that was in office. He is not a recent convert. He has done it consistently. It was the Prime Minister's initiative that raised the whole matter of embargoes on South Africa.
It is just not true, as the member for Burnaby has said, that the Prime Minister is a recent convert and has suddenly discovered the issue of human rights. If we want to do justice to this debate the first thing we have to do is be honest, accurate, factual and non-partisan if he is really interested in it. While the motion is a very serious one, I am not too sure that it can be taken seriously because of the way it has been put.
The member for Burnaby has conveniently referred to one excerpt of the Winegard report of 1987 regarding Canada's foreign aid policy. I happened to sit on that committee, as did his colleague from Cowichan-Mal-ahat-The Islands, the former member Jim Manly. Now I notice with particular interest that in chapter 3, entitled Linking Aid and Human Rights, the committee recommends that verifiable reports of violations, not ideology or strategic interest, be the basis for unfavourable assessments of human rights observance.
With that in mind let us turn to the motion which the member has put forward. He says in part:
- in the light of documented violations of human rights in countries such as Mexico, China, Zaire, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya and others which currently receive Canadian financial support, that this House urge the government to discontinue immediately Canadian participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade negotiations-
We know that New Democratic Party members are opposed to the North American free trade agreement. They were opposed to the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. That is an ideological position that they have taken. They are entitled to it, but why is it that they have taken an ideological position on free trade with Mexico? Why do they now want to inject human rights issues into that area?
I noticed with particular interest the good question put forward by my friend from Broadview-Greenwood regarding trade with Saudi Arabia. But the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca never did answer his question. The question very simply put is: Should Bell Canada install a telephone system in Saudi Arabia, a regime which is guilty of human rights abuses according to Canadian standards? It is a very simple question. Should

October 22, 1991
Supply
the premier of Ontario open the Saudi Arabian pavilion at the Canadian National Exhibition?
After agreeing that there are human rights issues in that country, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca again took the high road in saying: "the Nazi regime in Germany, pre-war and during the war, got fuel from Texaco". Somehow there was a little bit of a non sequitur there, a little bit of a lapse. He never did come around to answering whether or not the premier of Ontario, of the same party of the member who put the motion forward, should have opened the Saudi Arabian pavilion at the CNE.
It is well and good to take a gadfly approach to human rights in aid and trade but surely we cannot afford to do that. Why should we, according to this motion, list the human rights abuses in Mexico, China, Zaire, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya and others and because of human rights abuses in Zaire cut off NAFTA? It seems to me that there is an ideological position which they have taken and now they want to superimpose human rights issues on that ideological position.
The second problem I have with the motion is that it is very erratic. New Democratic Party members want to take the high road on this issue, but they are very selective in their concern about human rights issues.
I was in Nicaragua some years ago leading a parliamentary delegation with the Interparliamentary Union. The member for Trinity-Spadina was with us and General Ortega was in command at the time in Nicaragua. He thought he had come to a kind of socialist heaven. I recognize that the Somoza regime had filled the penitentiary behind the hotel where we stayed with political prisoners. It was an oppressive regime.
But when General Ortega came in and took over he emptied that prison and simply refilled it with political prisoners of his choosing, people that he felt should be in prison. When mothers of missing persons wanted to take part in a parade, they were prevented from taking part because that would highlight the human rights abuses in Nicaragua. But all the time that those human rights abuses were taking place in Nicaragua, members of the New Democratic Party and the former member for New Westminster, Pauline Jewett, kept saying that we had to
increase aid. The member for Trinity-Spadina kept saying that we had to increase aid to Nicaragua. The former member for New Westminster kept asking why Canada did not open an embassy in Nicaragua to show good faith in the people of Nicaragua, to strengthen the administration and give them hope.
It strikes me that the members of that party have been strangely silent about the needs of the Nicaraguan people ever since there has been an election in that country.
If the member for Burnaby had included in his reference to the Winegard report the statement that verifiable reports of violations, not ideology or strategic interest, be the basis for unfavourable assessment of human rights observers, I think the motion would have been a little bit more believable.
We always need, in all of our programs, the opportunities for direct scrutiny to make sure that our motives, our operations and our principles are always square. We need that.
In that spirit I welcome the debate because Canada does have to re-evaluate its position. But I am surprised that when the member put forward the motion and made his speech and the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca talked about all the discrepancies that he saw they did not take time to notice the response of CIDA to the Winegard report that the member for Burnaby-Kings-way made. They never mentioned it.
In the introduction of that report we read that the government intends to ensure among other things that Canadian development assistance does not lend legitimacy to repressive regimes, that victims of human rights violations are not doubly penalized by being deprived of needed help in addition to being deprived of their fundamental rights, that there be a constructive approach to human rights rather than a punitive one, and that development assistance appropriately targeted can contribute substantially to the cause of both development and human rights.
In short those are some of the items that CIDA has responded to in that report. It goes on to say that when countries show progress toward a marked improvement in their respect for human rights, Canada will reflect this progress in its decisions about funding.

I could go on. There are several pages to the response by CIDA to this report, but suffice it to say that when it comes to overseas assistance, development assistance and human rights assistance, Canada cannot afford a gadfly approach. We need a systematic, studied, co-operative approach with other countries of like mind to make sure that our policies support our goals of human rights, not the repressive regimes but the people who need support.
I want to indicate some of the things Canada has done in working toward a human rights approach in a systematic way.
First of all, let me point out that we have to look at opportunities wherever they are and that no situation is hopeless. Canada must identify the prospects which best offer hope for change. We have to look for those opportunities. They are not necessarily what we read in the newspapers. Through all our contacts, through NGOs, through our embassies and through our consular officials we must look for those kinds of opportunities.
The Canadian practice is this: to speak out against abuses in an appropriate way and in an appropriate setting so that our message does not create the opposite effect from that sought and that we may avoid the ending impression of self-righteousness. No one's record is impeccable when it comes to human rights.
I see the member from Comox taking notes. I want to remind him of something he certainly does not remember because he was not there at the time: there was a day when Mennonites were excluded from Canada by law, prohibited from entry into Canada. It so happens that in today's world Mennonites are held in high esteem when it comes to monitoring human rights and development assistance. Between the years 1919 and 1922 by law of the Government of Canada Mennonites were prohibited from entering into Canada.
Canada's history is not impeccable. We have not always been right and we have to avoid any kind of self-righteousness on this cause.
Second, we must focus on the real problems of implementing human right's standards and strengthening the multilateral network of instruments and technical assistance. I say this in juxtaposition to a gadfly approach. It is easy enough to get up in the House of Commons and enumerate-God knows there are plenty of opportunities-human rights abuses all around the world, all too many of them. If we are going to be a
Supply
responsible administration, we have to work in a multilateral network of instruments and technical assistance and work together with other countries to make sure that we have a consistent policy.
Third, we have to co-operate for pragmatic changes. In discussions with new democracies we stress that we want to work with them as allies and partners to improve the situation in their region and to sustain reforms in their countries.
Fourth, we want to make sure that we have a longterm perspective. Human rights are partly a question of attitudes and changing attitudes takes time. Although sometimes changes can be spectacular, for example in South Africa and in eastern Europe, on a long-term basis we are progressing stage by stage.
Tailoring an appropriate Canadian policy response is the most difficult and sensitive part of human rights as a foreign policy issue. What we are seeking to do, in essence, is to take the policy instruments at our disposal and apply them in our relations with other states in such a way as to encourage or induce them into implementing internationally agreed standards of human rights.
The President of Mexico spoke in this Chamber not too long ago. I ask members to reflect on that speech. I ask them to ask themselves this question: Would it help the downtrodden, the poorest of the poor in Mexico, in Indonesia or in Saudi Arabia to quarantine Canada from every country in the world where there has been some human rights abuses? Should we quarantine and isolate Canada from the rest of the Third World, whether it be Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua or Zaire? Should we isolate ourselves totally until they meet our total criteria of human rights righteousness?
Again the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca never did come to grips with the reality that exists in the world, that there is no such thing as a perfect world. We have to live in concert with other nations.
I would like the members of that party to explain to the House how they reconcile their desire on the one hand to have harmonious international relations with all countries of the world, a kind of world of detente and peace, and at the same time isolate ourselves from that world. How do you bring together those two clashing concepts? They have never reconciled that. On the one hand they want us to trade, to get along with everyone and to give development assistance to everyone. On the

Supply
other hand they want us to isolate ourselves from everyone.
There are objectives that Canada has developed over the years, regardless of what government was in office, that we have to maintain. Throughout the course of this debate members from this side-the member for Halifax West, the member for Edmonton Northwest, the member for Kitchener, the member for Louis-Hebert and the member for Don Valley West-are going to take separate entities of this motion and are going to deal with them fully.
I hope that this party will begin to try to reconcile where it really stands on human rights issues, whether it wants to see Canada isolated from the rest of the world or it wants Canada to participate and share with the rest of the world some of the ideals that are part and parcel of our heritage.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to raise a point. It might be considered in some quarters as picayune but in fact the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was not taking notes today. He is returning from a massive victory in Saskatchewan. That of course was not a fabrication but it did resemble some of the elements of the speech that I think I would like to deal with in my comments.
The comments about Nicaragua I feel are grossly unfair. Nicaragua is involved in an enormous war, bankrolled, organized and executed by the United States, the Prime Minister's good ally. In the situation where we became involved in a war in Iraq, the member is surprised that there were actions taken in Nicaragua to deal with Contras who were at war with the government in Nicaragua and killing peasants and whatnot.
When we became involved in a war in Iraq, which the government supported, CSIS was around visiting Arab Canadians, intimidating them. It was a very questionable kind of activity. It comes very close to home when times of tensions go up.
Second, the Government of Canada helped the United States basically starve the regime in Nicaragua. It has to be remembered in the final analysis that in Nicaragua the government democratically changed. When Violeta Chamorro was elected there was no
question of the government in a fair and democratic election standing down while the next government took it. The end of the Contra war certainly changed the circumstances in Nicaragua. This government did have a hand in starving that regime out of existence with the United States.
Another point I would like the member to address if he has a minute is our bilateral aid to El Salvador. Seventy thousand people died in probably one of the most repressive regimes that North America has seen in many years. I would recall to his memory the murder of the American church women, the murder of the U.S. land reform workers, the murder of many democratic political leaders such as Hector Oqueli and Mario Zamora, the murder of the Jesuit administrators of the University of Central America. It went on and on and on.
Because the United States insisted on bankrolling that filthy little regime with an abysmal record of human rights, this government and indeed the previous government under Pierre Elliott Trudeau also insisted on bankrolling it through bilateral aid. It dignified that regime because Canada felt that it was worthy of providing bilateral aid. It was an eyesore and a tremendous embarrassment to forward thinking people in this country.
Maybe on the question of Mexico we can prevent some of those if we in fact take a stand now that we will not go to the table with a regime whose human rights record is not in any way acceptable in this country. Rather than ripping the resolution apart, the hon. member might find some common cause with people on this side of the House.
I am sure the Liberal Party will support this motion that human rights are a priority. We agree with what the Prime Minister said. Possibly, the member for Surrey-White Rock might be able to find that it is time that Canada did take a stand. Let us put El Salvador behind us. Let us put some of the other gross abuses behind us also. We have a chance to really influence this one, to influence the United States to join common cause with us to change the human rights record of the regime in Mexico and encourage it to emulate the kinds of things that are happening here and in the United States.
October 22, 1991


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer several of these questions. There are a number of questions in this.
First of all, the fact that the United States bankrolled the demise of the Contras to bring about the end of the Ortega regime may well be true. I have no sympathy or truck with the kinds of regimes that are oppressive, whether they be right or left wing. If the truth were known, I think that when the war was over some of the Contras probably sold some of their weapons to the guerrillas operating in El Salvador. There was no moral compass guiding these people. Nobody would defend that. Does that somehow justify the oppression brought in by Ortega that had nothing to do with the United States, like the filling of the prison.
It was painfully evident in Nicaragua that the regime was maintained through the barrel of a gun. Every block had its committee for the defence of the revolution. It was a systematic, oppressive regime. In spite of that, Canada maintained aid to Nicaragua all during those years. That is where our foreign policy differed very much from that of the United States. We continued aid to Nicaragua during those years.
I was with the member for Spadina when we toured some of those projects in Nicaragua and I am sure he remembers that very well. Canada's aid continued during those days. That does not justify what General Ortega did.
Second, the member says that during the gulf war, CSIS "intimidated Arab Canadians". I take some exception to that. That is not true. That is not accurate. Canadians were asked to answer voluntarily any questions that CSIS would put to them. They were not intimidated.
If this member has evidence to the contrary, I would like him to stand in his place and give evidence to the fact that CSIS intimidated Arab Canadians. If this debate is going to have any value at all, it has to be accurate. It is unworthy of this member to make accusations like that without any kind of verification.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. There was a very interesting, detailed program on CBC, the Images program the other night. The transcript of that would be very useful to the member, in which there is documented evidence and
Supply
direct testimony of people who were harassed and with whom that operation of voluntary access was not an acceptable process. There is a very good transcript of that and I refer the hon. member to it.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I really would not say that a program on the CBC qualifies as direct evidence on something like this. I would invite him to bring it to committee, to raise it there and do it in a proper way.
I know that the member has been in El Salvador. He talks about the El Salvadoran regime. I had a constituent who maintained he saw the member in the Camino Royal Hotel in San Salvador meeting with guerrilla leaders. I know he has been there and has visited that regime. There again it bothers me that some of this debate gets ideological rather than fixing squarely on human rights.
With regard to Mexico I have a question to ask him. We have a deplorable gap between the rich and the poor in Mexico. All of us agree. We know that is true. Mexico now has an opportunity to move into at least the industrial age if not the information age. It can do that through NAFTA. I will concede that there are veiy likely some very bad abuses like the ones the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca mentioned. There could be those. We have an opportunity to help the working class, the working poor in Mexico to rise from the position they are in now. Does he want to forgo that opportunity and keep them in Third World status?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. Questions and comments have now expired.


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have one more correction to the hon. member's speech. At no time did I meet with a guerrilla leader. He might be thinking of the right hon. member for Yellowhead with whom I met in the Camino Royal Hotel.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to participate in debate on the motion that was presented by the opposition today.
My colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway has spoken to the motion. I would like to say that at the conclusion of

October 22, 1991
Supply
my remarks today I would like to present an amendment to the motion on the floor today.
I would like to begin my remarks by saying that if the Prime Minister goes beyond the rhetoric of his words to actually substantive changes in our foreign policies with regard to the linking of human rights to aid, I know that many people in this country will be delighted and would thank him for the new directions that he is proposing.
It is not as if the government has not proposed a strict linkage of human rights to aid in the past. Unfortunately that linkage has not been seen. In fact, if the Prime Minister does not follow through his rhetoric with substantive changes to our policies then he will be subject to the charge of hypocrisy.
I would like to start by just reiterating what exactly it is that the Prime Minister has said. I quote from a newspaper article of last week where he says: "If you are asking me if Canada will shy away from tying its aid policies, we will not shy away at all". He goes on to say that human rights form a very important component of foreign policy for Canada. If that is so, then human rights in relation to foreign policy go beyond just aid and must also include trade and immigration issues.
He goes on to say that if we go to a specific policy of linking aid to human rights there is a risk of being accused of a colonial mentality dictating morality. Nonetheless, more and more Canadians are preoccupied by human rights in aid recipient countries. I believe that he is right in saying that, and I would support that as an issue. Human rights is a serious concern to many, many Canadians.
The motion before us today, however, refers in one instance specifically to the fact that the NDP is urging the government to discontinue immediately Canadian participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade negotiations. Certainly the case of Mexico, I would say, is not clear. I think it is a difficult issue for us to address with regard to its human rights record. As well I would say that the human rights issues with regard to Mexico are not the only difficulties we encounter in the trilateral trade talks that are now taking place.
However, Amnesty International has outlined in its recent report which it published on September 18 very gross human rights abuses that have taken place in Mexico. It details those abuses very specifically saying, and I quote: "Torture is reported almost daily in Mexico
and despite the seriousness of the problem the Mexican authorities are doing little to put an effective stop to torture and ill treatment", the world-wide human rights organization said.
Yet we have to contrast that with a fact that I have taken from an article in a Mexico City newspaper dated September 19 which states: "Mexico's attorney general announced Wednesday his office would thoroughly investigate each allegation of torture in an extremely critical report released this week by Amnesty International. Attorney General Morales admitted that torture was still a problem in Mexico but said it was not condoned and was no longer widespread. Amnesty International will say that that is not so, but on the other hand Morales' acceptance of the Amnesty report represented a break from the recent past".
There are some indications that Mexico is indeed trying to deal with its human rights abuse issues. To corroborate that there was an article in The Gazette of October 20 which speaks to the case of a Norma Corona Sapien in Mexico, a Mexican woman who was murdered in May 1990. She was a human rights activist. She was apparently murdered by government security forces. The article outlines the fact that in Mexico they have now arrested a Gonzales Traveno.
We admit that it took an awfully long time for the Mexican authorities to get around to arresting anybody in this case, but I think it is important to acknowledge that they have pursued the case and have said that they will continue to pursue human rights abuse cases. Certainly this man who has been arrested is a high profile person in the security forces. The linkage there is very serious, one that we cannot underestimate and must watch. I would say that it is extremely important to look at that linkage, but we also must be very aware of improvements when they do take place and press constantly for greater improvements.
We are concerned about not only tying human rights issues to aid but also to trade. In today's newspapers there is one comment that I think bears recognition. A Toronto Star editorial today said: "While Mulroney's message deserves support, his methods also deserve close scrutiny. Will Canada throw its weight around when it has nothing to lose, such as with Haiti's enfeebled economy? What about the substantial aid allocated to Asian countries with dynamic economies such as
October 22, 1991

China and Indonesia, which are known human rights abusers but hold the promise of profitable trade links? Moreover, will human rights abuses serve as a convenient excuse for continuing cutbacks in Canada's foreign aid budget, or will aid cancelled for human rights abuses be rechannelled to more deserving recipients?"
The latter suggestion is certainly what I would support, but I think that editorial expresses a lot of the concerns that we would have over what the Prime Minister is saying and what we will watch with regard to his own statements but more particularly his government's policies over the coming days, weeks and months.
Yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister was questioned about his appearance last week before the Commonwealth Conference, linking human rights issues to aid and the importance of doing so. He was also questioned about giving a $1 billion line of credit the previous week to Iran, the worst human rights abuser in the world. Yesterday he defended his government's policy, saying there is a big difference between linking human rights to foreign aid and tying it to business deals.
In light of his having said that, I would ask why this government pursued so well its policies with regard to South Africa, which indeed did have an impact, and why did we cut back for an interim period, and I question very much having stopped this, our trade and assistance policies to China after the massacre we all witnessed in Tiananmen Square.
Surely this government does recognize that more than aid can be impacted by human rights consideration and that human rights considerations with regard to trade are very important and cannot be neglected.
Before in this debate today we have referred to the Winegard report, a report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade that was presented in May 1987 in which it was stated as one of the recommendations that human rights criteria must be developed coherently as part of over-all Canadian foreign policy and that these be applied in a universal, consistent and transparent manner.
My colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway quoted a report put out yesterday by, among others, the Canadian
Supply
Council of Churches. I found his comments with regard to that report a little bit off topic. In fact the Canadian Council of Churches has had some very relevant things to say about Canadian policy, viz-a-viz human rights. They were a witness before the standing committee in 1987 and this is one of their comments at that time. I quote:
An attempt should be made to channel all existing and new aid projects through a policy filter to determine whether they contribute positively to the observance of human rights, or whether instead they foster human rights violations.
In response to the Winegard report, the government did put out its own foreign aid policy paper called Sharing our Future. In that policy paper, the government very specifically makes reference to human rights considerations and states:
In countries where violations of human rights are systematic, gross and continuous, and where it cannot be ensured that Canadian assistance reaches the people for whom it is intended, govemment-to-govemment bilateral aid will be reduced or denied.
I think the report that came out yesterday criticizing the aid policies of CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, looked at some very specific issues. Basically it was put out because there are so many people who feel that CIDA has failed to live up to its policy statements and are urging it to get back on track or update their policy statement and improve it. To that end because it was felt by members in this House that in the instance of human rights and its linkages to our aid policies, our government was not pursuing its stated policy, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of the Disabled last year looked at human rights issues and put out a report entitled Human Rights Considerations and Coherence in Canada's Foreign Policies. Once again I can quote the Canadian Council of Churches which came before that committee as a witness. It said at that time, and this relates beyond the aid issue to that of trade:
The use of economic pressure to advance respect for human rights requires careful assessment of the specific circumstances of particular country situations in the light of human rights standards and of the likelihood that economic sanctions will be effective in either persuading or empowering a particular government to respect the rights of its people.
Our experience is that in situations where torture and disappearances are commonplace, even the most enlightened investor can be drawn into situations where the enterprise undermines the rights of victims or may even strengthen the capacity of the violator regime to maintain its grip on the country. In situations where human

October 22, 1991
Supply
rights violations are extreme, it is essential that government lend
neither active nor passive support to private sector economic activity.
The government needs to withhold the use of public funds in support of
trade with such regimes.
To that end, and how the government does not come up to the mark with regard to that statement, we can look at what we did in relation to Myanmar or Burma, as it was called. My colleague for Winnipeg North Centre raised the issue several times in this House last year, questioning why this government continued to permit Petro-Canada to be involved in a $22 million oil drilling contract in Myanmar. When we questioned the government on this, we quoted the Petro-Canada chairman, Mr. Bill Hopper, who appeared before the House of Commons committee in 1986. He said: "The controlling interest is clearly with the shareholder," in this case being the Government of Canada, "and she can order me to do what the government wishes me to do by Order in Council any time she wishes."
So it was a government decision to suggest that the human rights abuses which are very gross in Myanmar or Burma were not a consideration in providing continual economic assistance from not just the government but private enterprise here in Canada as well. It is a serious problem that must be addressed.
There are many examples where Canada has not lived up to the rhetoric of the Prime Minister's words of last weekend and my colleague has outlined some of these cases. Kenya is a country that will not permit multi-party democracy at this time and the opposition that is there is oppressed and persecuted. In that country our contribution in government-to-govemment assistance disbursements rose from $27 billion in 1987 to $127 billion in 1989-90. Zaire has received additional funds. Govern-ment-to-government assistance has gone on and has been implemented in the last few years with such human rights abusing countries as Guatemala and El Salvador. Rwanda was mentioned. The list goes on and on. As well, we have the Guyanan situation.
I would like to just quote a concern that has been expressed by a Guyanan source. It stated: "Without wishing to overstate the case, the unequivocal stand in favour of democracy which characterized Canadian policy over the years seems to have given way to a more ambiguous public posture which may relate to the overriding commitment by Canada to the success of a structural adjustment program in the construction of which it has played such a critical role. Canada's concerns for democracy and human rights should be manifest in its development program."
We have lots of examples of where Canada has definitely not shown a concern about human rights, neither in relation to its aid policies nor its trade policies and I would also say its immigration policies. The Amnesty International report of 1991 certainly outlines many of the facts of that issue.
Canada's aid record must be improved in terms of human rights considerations. Its trade policies must be reviewed as well and to that end, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to put an amendment to the motion. I would like to take the motion as it is written and delete-well, perhaps I should read the motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the Table has a copy so if the hon. member would like to-


Christine Susan Stewart: Should I read the motion as I would amend it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, please.


Christine Susan Stewart: It is as follows:
That this House take note of the Prime Minister's recently stated commitment to the principle of linking government aid to respect for human rights and, in light of documented violations of human rights in countries such as Mexico, China, Zaire, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, and others, which currently receive Canadian financial support, that this House review immediately all international support programs to ensure that they meet the aid criteria as announced by the Prime Minister and that the government implement procedures which will guarantee coherency, transparency, and accountability in relation to human rights considerations and all Canadian foreign affairs policies, including aid, trade, and immigration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I have a copy? While I am looking at it again there will be questions or comments. The hon. member for Halifax West.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to comment on the presentation by the hon. member that she was prepared to recognize the need for balance in determining what human rights situations might indicate a need to withdraw or modify assistance. What I would like to present to her is the fact that in the previous debate members of the New Democratic Party in an exchange commented on trade relationships and the indication was that if there was any violation of human rights within a country with which Canada or Canadians traded that trade should be imme-
October 22, 1991

diately stopped until those human rights violations are terminated.
What this would contemplate is a whole lot of rulemaking on how Canadian businesses conduct their affairs internationally. It would involve parliamentary intervention, governmental intervention, and so on.
I thought that the member was striking a much greater balance in terms of adjudicating these situations. I wonder if she might comment on that and indicate whether she and the Liberal Party are in favour of a myriad of regulations of Canadian activity internationally in order to link that kind of trading activity to human rights violations in the recipient country.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly respond to that question.
I think that the issue of transparency in our government's foreign policy decisions in relation to both aid and trade is the important concern. Transparency and accountability are mentioned in my amendment to this motion because there has to be balance. It is not a black and white situation. I think that we have to look openly and publicly in this country at the human rights records of all of the countries with which we deal and there are ways that through trade, even though a country is a human rights abuser, we can encourage them to refrain from their human rights abuses.
I think, however, that it is through public debate on these issues that we can come to a consensus as to just what the correct balance is in relation to our policies where we link human rights to not just aid but trade and immigration issues.
So many people across Canada are very concerned about human rights abuses, not just at home but particularly internationally where the abuses are so gross and extreme. They have been calling for many years for more transparency with regard to how the government makes its decisions. Right now these decisions are made in cabinet. Not all government members understand how these decisions are arrived at. Certainly many of the decisions that are made such as extending the $1 billion line of credit to Iran through the Export Development Corporation two weeks ago affronts many Canadians. When we look at what the Government of Iran is doing,
Supply
there is not just human rights abuse. That country is spending the majority of its budget on military expenditures this year. I understand it is to the tune of $17 billion. The Government of Iran is building up its military with that money. We have also said that we are in support of arms control, yet we stand by and watch the worst offender continue human rights abuse. Its spends the majority of its budget building up its military and we extend them a $1 billion line of credit.
It flies in the face of the integrity of the Canadian people. It is our tax dollars that are being used. We want to understand why the government could ever make such a decision. Our automatic response is to deplore that kind of decision when we have no understanding of how the decision was made.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the situation in Iran. I would just like the member to set her mind back a few years to when Canada did terminate diplomatic relations with Iran. The same kind of abuses took place then and the same kind of inappropriate activity in terms of individuals within Iran and in terms of policies within Iran. Canada had no method of dealing or responding in any way to those abuses.
If we terminate all relationships then we have no opportunity at all to exercise any influence over changes in Iran. While I am not commenting on any individual cases, I hope the member appreciates and understands that these are not always finite and can always easily be decided.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in relation to that, what the member says has to be put into the mix of consideration of how and when to provide assistance. If we contrast the situation of Iran to what our policy was vis-a-vis South Africa and China after Tiananmen Square, one cannot understand the government's position with regard to Iran.
We understand as Canadians that the government presumably has based its decision on the fact that Iran is an oil rich country and perhaps Canada can benefit. We do not want human rights related decisions made on the basis of how a recipient country can influence our well-being. We want to make our decisions on the basis

October 22, 1991
Supply
of principle and how we can encourage those countries that are human rights abusers to improve their record.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the member's amendment is quite a surprise. TTie Mexican free trade deal will probably affect Canada even more significantly than the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It promises to devastate the economy of Canada. It points out that Mexico lacks an environmental policy and a social policy including health care. It is rife with political corruption.
My hon. colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca quoted a number of extrajudicial executions and abuses of human rights. There are no fair labour practices in Mexico. It is something that only a right wing administration in this country or the United States would tolerate. Yet the Liberal Party has put forward an amendment that would cut out the most glaring example of something Canada should not be doing in a trade policy. I am absolutely astounded that this member of the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus would join with the Conservatives on this item and support a trade arrangement with Mexico. I think that amendment removes one of the key focuses of this entire debate.
This debate on human rights started when the Prime Minister, whose government is just rife with contradictions about its human rights policy, went to Africa. He was already aware while in Africa that his name was going to be put forward as a nominee for Secretary-General of the United Nations. I and millions of other Canadians hope that does not happen so that he does not have the opportunity to do to the world literally what he has done to Canada. The hypocrisy is the real serious problem. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Party in removing this Mexican trade agreement is absolutely disgusting.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond to what my colleague has just said. What I have omitted specifically from the motion are the words: "urge the government to discontinue immediately Canadian participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade negotiations". This is not to say that we in this party do not hold many of the concerns that were expressed by this member about a trade relationship with Mexico:
environment, social considerations, human rights considerations. We also feel that we must be at the table participating in the negotiations just in fact to put forward the very issues that he expresses and try to address those issues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before the hon. member asks a short question, I have no problem with the amendment.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier when I directed a question to the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, I welcome this debate today. I think it really should be a debate where we try to develop some comprehensive ideas.
I am a little bit concerned that we may be perceived as trying to be the lily white country of the world. We in this country have a human rights problem that has to be re-examined. I refer specifically to the way we treat our native people. It was just a year and a bit ago when our human rights activities in this country were being written about in every paper in the world.
First of all it is the old expression that people in glass houses should not throw stones. We have to be very careful that we are not coming across as a country or a nation of hypocrites.
My question for my colleague is: Does she not share the view of most of us in this House that in the process of having this debate today about human rights violations around the world we also want to examine and reflect on human rights concerns within our own nation?


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, certainly it has been expressed here that no nation is perfect in its human rights policies and Canada certainly fits within that category. We have many people in this country who, for example, do not feel that they receive equal treatment in this country.
We still have multicultural problems in this country, minority groups who feel that they do not experience full human rights in this country.
Our aboriginal people have had to go before the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva which is a disgrace to our nation. They felt that they had to go to that forum in order to have their rights considerations heard.

Personally I have a big concern about the poor in this country, particularly children who at this time do not have the advantage of the basic rights of decent housing, clothing and food.


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


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. It is a rare opportunity to look at Canada's record on human rights, foreign aid and international investment.
I would like to begin by quoting the Prime Minister: "Nothing in international relations is more important than respect for individual freedom and human rights". That was in his speech to the members of the Commonwealth just last week. A second quote: "Canada will not subsidize repression and the stifling of freedom". That was in his speech also at the same Commonwealth conference in the opening session. As I only have 10 minutes I am going to focus today on one country to give our viewers some idea of how what he said in Harare measures with what is actually happening.
I refer first of all to an Amnesty International report that was presented before the United Nations special committee on decolonization on August 7 of this year. This report is on East Timor and I wish to quote passages. Some of them are rather difficult reading.
Talking about East Timor: "It is a pattern of shortterm detention, torture and ill treatment of suspected political opponents described in previous reports that has accelerated in the past year. In Amnesty's view it appears to be part of a systemic strategy to silence real or suspected political opponents".
It goes on to say: "Many of those detained have reportedly been tortured or ill treated in custody. The forms of ill treatment and torture alleged include beatings with iron bars, batons, fists and lengths of cable and bamboo; burning with lighted cigarettes; sexual molestation and rape; slashing with razor blades; food deprivation; immersion for long periods in fetid water; death threats and electrocution".
"In view of the clear evidence that suspected political opponents of Indonesian rule in East Timor have been systematically ill treated and tortured while under interrogation, Amnesty International has concluded that the
Supply
safety of all those detained for questioning, however briefly, by members of the security forces must be considered at risk".
That report should be put next to an article from the Free Press by John Sorenson entitled "Canadian Role in Indonesia Opportunistic".
The history of East Timor is a sorry history. On December 7, 1975 Indonesia invaded that small island and subsequently annexed it. In the last 15 years, hundreds of thousands of Timorees have been slaughtered by Indonesian troops.
At the time of the invasion, Canada was one of the largest foreign investors in Indonesia. As such, Canada at that time under a Liberal government had an opportunity to exert some influence. However it did not. It had an opportunity to halt the genocide in East Timor but Canada did not.
Instead our ambassador at the time advised that Canada recognize the takeover as a fait accompli. This type of response fits with in a recent statement by the current minister of external affairs when she said that Canada considers, in response to a question from my colleague from Trinity-Spadina on September 18, that Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor is a fact, recognizing there has never been any history of independence, self-determination or self-government in that territory.
The ignorance displayed in that response is monumental.
The ambassador at the time also pointed out that if Canada recognized the annexation as a fait accompli, greater benefits to Canada, Canadian companies, and improved trading relations would result. In fact this proved to be astute judgment. The benefits to Canada which resulted from the decision not to criticize the Indonesian government are not as insubstantial and continue to accrue. Currently over 300 Canadian companies do business in Indonesia, which has been seen as an investor's paradise.
The Indonesian government has established this paradise by ignoring civil liberties, banning all unions, keeping the wages of most workers below one U.S. dollar a day, strictly controlling the media and maintaining an extensive security force.

Supply
Two-thirds of the population are undernourished and Indonesia's poor make up the cheapest labour force in Asia. A strict anti-subversive law and the activity of police death squads ensure that few protests are in paradise.
Canada has invested over $1 billion in Indonesia, with most of that money going to huge mining and smelting operations run by Inco, but also in manufacturing, oil, gas and financial services.
Since the invasion of East Timor, Canadian aid dollars have continued to flow through Indonesia. Indonesia is the third largest recipient of Canadian foreign aid dollars. This is the largest non-Commonwealth recipient of such assistance. Several Canadian universities have established lucrative, multi-million dollar contracts with CIDA and the Indonesian government to supply technical expertise. Put that record next to the Amnesty International report and we see the kind of thing we are talking about, the hypocrisy of not just this government but previous governments in dealing with this very important issue.
We have options. The New Democrats have options. As an opposition party we believe it is our responsibility not just to criticize bad legislation but to put forth alternatives, and that is where I want to end today. The idea of linking Canadian aid with the monitoring of human rights is not new. In 1987 the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade put forth an excellent report on overseas development assistance entitled "For Whose Benefit". It recommended linking development and human rights and called for a number of recommendations.
The NDP believes human rights and development can best be linked by increasing the quality of Canadian aid. For example, CIDA should increase funding through non-governmental channels. Credible NGOs and international NGOs are better able to direct Canadian funds to meet human priority needs. The most basic human rights are food and shelter. A 1990 UN development report shows Canada gives only 5 cents out of each aid dollar to meet human priority needs like family planning, clean water, primary education and primary health care.
If the Prime Minister is sincere about linking our development assistance to human rights, he must respond to the regret recently expressed by the OECD at the significant decline in Canadian aid and to the UN suggestion that much of this aid is misdirected.
In conclusion, I want to point out the kind of sorry history Canada has had on human rights and foreign aid and investment. It is not a recent occurrence; it is a long-standing occurrence. Consider what one international banker expressed to me when I was in New York on an external affairs trip examining international debt: "We don't care how our bills are paid as long as they are paid. We don't care about human rights abuses as long as our bills are paid". For Canada and for Canadians generally that is not an acceptable approach. We have to link human rights abuses with international aid. I urge the government not to repeat the sorry history of empty rhetoric but to put real substance behind the Prime Minister's statement and to turn around Canada's record on international investment and aid.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my comment and question will be brief so that others can participate in this period.
I would like to compliment the member on the thrust of her speech. I naturally did not agree with all of her criticism of the previous government, not because I was a part of it but because we did have a much more aggressive campaign when it came to linking our aid to human rights. I believe Mr. Trudeau was a lot more aggressive.
I agree with her idea about direct funding to non-governmental organizations, but I have a problem with her motion. When 70 per cent of the manufacturing jobs in this country are linked to countries where there is some kind of human rights violation, is she suggesting that we just cease that relationship completely with those countries?
I ask that question because I used to work with an organization entitled Magna International which makes auto parts. Currently it is doing work in Mexico on behalf of Volkswagen. It has a formula there where the people work on a percentage of the profit. They get their cash but they also get an equity participation formula.
I recently talked to a couple of priests who work in a mission near the plant. They think it is a rather constructive and positive approach to trying to improve the lot of
October 22, 1991

the labourer in Mexico who now in most instances only gets a flat dollar a day for his or her work.
If that experiment, if that relationship were not taking place in Mexico then the social standard of the Mexicans would continue to stay in a non-growth, non-improved position.
I would like to ask the member specifically if she is advocating an absolute cessation of our relationship with these countries where human rights violations exist.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians have to decide whether or not they wish to put human rights before profits. That is the question. I think most Canadians would agree that that is a crucial decision and a decision that I do not think most Canadians would have any difficulty in making.
I think that the government, the Liberal and Progressive Conservative approach is to believe and have confidence in the trickle down theory. As the Amnesty International report has demonstrated, the human rights abuses in East Timor have worsened in the past year. The trickle down theory did not work then and it is not working now.
We have a clear position. Human rights do come before profits.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to speak on this motion. The particular point of the motion, including the particular point that would be removed by the Liberal amendment, is to ask the government to discontinue immediately Canadian participation in the Canada, United States and Mexico free trade negotiations.
Because of the principle of tying aid to human rights which the Prime Minister has announced and which has been discussed in this House and was the subject of a unanimous report in this House, it is proposed that we discontinue negotiating this trade treaty with the United States and Mexico. It goes on to say "review immediately all international support programs" and so on.
The main point of the motion is not to review support programs. That goes on all the time. The Liberal amendment which cuts out the Mexico part says "review". Of course as far as the review part is concerned it is like motherhood. The Liberals always review things and this House reviews things. So there is no problem about saying "review". The question is whether to
Supply
discontinue locking ourselves into a trade deal with Mexico which would limit Canada's sovereignty in certain important respects to the benefit of the corporations and government in Mexico.
As for the NDP's position on this, I would point out that earlier this year the NDP government in Ontario did withdraw the entry placed by the previous Liberal government in ARMX, the arms bazaar that was to be held earlier this year but was cancelled. The NDP government decided not to participate in that violation of Canada's stated policy of reducing the arms trade.
However, I want to acknowledge that there is no monopoly of human rights violations by any government, party, country, religion or social or political philosophy. Whichever one I belong to, I am involved in some of these human rights violations. I would rather first of all go back to what I think is the root of the problem.
There have been several centuries of conquests, massacres and thefts by the countries of the North Atlantic. Western Europe and North America, primarily western Europe, thus are the inheritors. Because of those centuries and the trade relations which after World War II nominally replaced relations of direct political rule over the colonies of Latin America, Africa, Asia and so on, the North Atlantic community is now economically dependent through its trade empires on the oppressive governments in these countries which we sometimes call the south or contemptuously call the Third World, mostly former European or U.S. colonies with Canada, of course, as a sort of minor partner not directly oppressing but engaging in trade relations based on the oppression.
For example, I regret Canada's participation in reneging on the regulation offered to Chinese students who chose to stay in Canada after the Tiananmen massacre. They were promised in a regulation from this government that they would be facilitated in bringing their spouses to join them in Canada. About 200 who made that application while that regulation was in effect have been denied the very thing that the Canadian government promised them. They are told they may have to wait three years now, three more years after these two years, to bring their spouses here. This, I presume, is because of Canada's interest in selling more telecommunications and other goods to China regardless of the fact

Supply
that our protests about human rights have not been answered.
My own protests in person when I had the privilege of participating in a delegation a year ago in China were not answered. My letters to the Chinese representatives here have not been answered in any substance. There has been a piece of paper but it did not respond to my questions, and I believe the same is true for all others who tried. Yet, the Canadian government is in such a rush to sell these telecommunications, whether it is to China or Saudi Arabia or to Mexico, without insisting on some performance, perhaps not absolute perfection of course, in the matter of human rights, some openness of trials, some evidence of prosecution of police and other government agents who are found to have participated in this kind of oppression.
If the Ontario government comments on that, I want to know what the Ontario government is saying. I think the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood is a reasonable one which should be answered. I think we should not unqualifiably endorse money making trade relations. Seventy per cent of our manufacturing jobs depend on selling to oppressive governments in ways that do not help the people but only increase the power of the oppressive government. I think we can find other things for our people to make because God knows, and I speak advisedly, there is plenty of need among Canadians as consumers if they could get the wages to buy the products that Canadian factories are making. We do not have to sell everything abroad in competition with the United States.
I was embarrassed about six or seven years ago when, following Amnesty International and its information from its London research section, I phoned the High Commissioner of Singapore to complain that a certain member of Parliament of the opposition party had been held for years without charge in prison. I was told it was done according to law. I rashly said: "I think that is a bad law". He said: "That is the law that the British left us".
Now I find when dealing with countries, such as those in Africa that have been mentioned that there is a heritage of oppressive British laws. The law of detention without charge is used in Britain even now against its first and oldest colony, Ireland.
I object strongly to Canada rushing into a treaty with Mexico. This is not just a trade arrangement where we
are going to buy this or sell this. This is to be a permanent treaty with a country which has not recovered from the effects of the Spanish Conquest, the intervention of the United States and other western European or North American countries in recent history. It is struggling to be independent but it is still a dictatorship in many serious ways.
In recent years they have been forcing hundreds of thousands of peasants off their land to replace their subsistence agriculture with cash crops. They are exported to the profit of American multinationals and suit the taste of affluent Americans and Canadians. The peasants are crowding into the slums, lowering the wages, notwithstanding the new factories that are built there. Between 5 million and 10 million children under the age of 15 are obliged to work in those factories by poverty to prevent the starvation of themselves and their families.
Trade unionists and over 100 members of the main opposition party have been murdered with impunity. This is the country with which Canada wants to link not just for trade. Canadian workers will be obliged to compete with workers who are not allowed to have free trade unions. Mexican investors will have national rights in Canada to treat Canadians as they treat their fellow Mexican workers. Refugee claimants, including legitimate claimants in Canada, may be contrary to UN law reform through Mexico to the country from which they fled oppression. There is a deal under way in which Canada will seek to use Mexico as the dumping ground for refugee claimants from Latin America under our so-called safe Third World clause.
Therefore, I strongly urge this House to support the motion as originally presented to discontinue our treaty negotiations with Mexico. We must insist that Mexico first of all carry out the promises which are being violated right to this summer, violated by assassinations with impunity. We first of all must demand that they clean up that act before we place our Canadian workers into direct competition with the intimidated workers of Mexico.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to the comments of the socialist party. I have finally become frustrated because I cannot believe the pious hypocrisy that I am hearing. There is no doubt that there is not a person in this House that would stand up and argue in favour of human rights
October 22, 1991

abuses. That is ridiculous. That is like arguing in favour of war. We are all in favour of peace.
I am going to enlighten the socialist party and let them know that we cannot send Columbus back. Five hundred years ago he came here. That cannot be changed. We cannot judge the actions of 15th century people with 20th century thinking. That is unfair.
I want to know what the policy of the NDP is. I do not want sanctimonious claptrap. I ask three very specific questions: Will the New Democratic Party, if it is the government of this country, sever diplomatic ties with countries that perpetrate human rights abuses? Yes or no. Will it sever all trade links with countries that perpetrate human rights abuses? Yes or no. Will that include refusing to sell wheat harvested in Saskatchewan to China, which we know is a country with human rights abuses? If so, what does the hon. member suggest that the farmers of Saskatchewan grow if they cannot sell wheat to those countries? What are they going to do? Are we going to bar Canadians from travelling to countries with human rights abuses? Because, if so, what are you going to do with your former leader who I am informed enjoyed vacationing in Cuba year after year? Let's not have some hypocrisy, let's have some answers.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The hon. member for Scarborough West has painted an extreme picture of blacks and whites, which he and his party of course never deal with. They only deal with vaguely different situations of grey.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Just answer: What are you going to do when you are in government?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: What I said in my speech, if the hon. member had bothered to listen, was that I do not claim that any party has the monopoly on human rights abuse. All governments, and that includes governments affiliated with my own party, have been participant in them since World War II, the period with which I am a little more familiar than the earlier periods.
In answer to his questions particularly, I would say that we should follow the example of Canada's Conservative and Liberal governments in cases such as South Africa where there is apartheid, a very extreme, explicit and persistent violation of human rights. We should use degrees. We agreed with the committee's report four years ago that there are degrees of violations and degrees should be used in opposition to these violations.
Supply
I myself was willing to travel to China with the delegation which included a member of the hon. member's caucus and two from the government caucus, in part to find out whether we could get answers on human rights violations. I have written a memo which I circulated and I have said that we did not get answers to those questions.
What I am saying is that I do not disagree with reviewing, as the hon. member's colleague very reasonably asked, our trade relationships and our travel relationships. I have not questioned those. I agree with their party that they should be reviewed. What I am saying is that we are being asked to give up some of Canada's sovereignty in a permanent relationship to a country that has been called by one of the presidential candidates in Peru "the perfect dictatorship". He was not a socialist of any stripe whatsoever; he was a good conservative. He called it the perfect dictatorship.
I am saying that in an extreme case like that we should not necessarily discontinue any and all trade, but we should question some of our trade deals like communications. They only help the government against the people. We should back off from locking ourselves into a permanent treaty with them.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by addressing what I consider to be the pith and substance of the motion that has been presented by the New Democratic Party. By its own declaration it is underlining what is called the clear link between financial aid and human rights. The member for Burnaby- Kingsway made it clear that it was trying to establish this linkage in the course of his presentation.
But what members of the New Democratic Party and perhaps other members neglect is that there is also an equally clear and strong linkage between foreign aid and the relief of poverty and economic oppression. We also have to consider, in terms of economic aid internationally, not only the status of the nation but the status of the people within that nation.
I will not use that word "hypocrisy", but it might be pointed out that there is a contradiction in the position of New Democratic Party members who constantly focus attention on the plight of individuals, particularly those in a state of poverty, that they should throw this out and simply concentrate on the form of government and the administration of that government in those countries and neglect altogether for the purpose of focusing attention

Supply
on those kinds of generic human rights violations the plight of the people in the country.
I have always said that the whole basis of social programs is the economic ability to cany them out. The real threat to social programs in this country and any other country is a bankrupt national Treasuty. If we reviewed all the nations of the world, it would be found that human rights violations on an individual basis are most evident in countries where there is a bankrupt national Treasury, where the assets of the nation are not being particularly applied.
I want to take up the theme introduced by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, in which he referred to the gap between the reality and the rhetoric in relation to international aid and Canada's role in providing assistance to other countries and people in other countries. I believe that the exponents of rhetoric are the members of the New Democratic Party. The purveyors of the reality include the Prime Minister and his government.
Let me take that as the theme of my remarks. If we are going to look for human rights violations across the world, we do not have to look very far. Indeed, as some members have rightly pointed out, we can start with our own country and our treatment of aboriginal people, our own history in the human rights field. We still have a lot of work to do.
Let me hasten to add, if any members of the New Democratic Party are listening, as was said by a civil rights leader in the United States: "I can talk the talk because I walked the walk".
I was involved in Nova Scotia as a legislative draftsman in the formulation of human rights legislation. I was involved as the person who established the legal aid program in Nova Scotia in the direct application of civil rights to individuals in those situations.
When we are talking about the kind of international concerns that exist today, I do not think we really need to look at Canada because all Canadians are the beneficiaries of a very strong human rights tradition, enforced in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, we are not talking about the kinds of instances which we would regard in Canada as violations of civil
and human rights. We are talking about much more serious situations.
Just the other day while reading the national press, I came across reports of two violations which would shock humanity. One came from the Republic of India, the largest unit within the Commonwealth of nations, where the practice of selling women as child brides is widespread.
The case that was pointed up that caused national and international tension was that of a young 10-year old female person who was apprehended on an international flight to Saudi Arabia. That resulted from virtual bride shopping within the rural villages of India and produced the situation in which a 10-year old girl was sold by her father to a resident of Saudi Arabia. That resident was taking the child back when the apprehension took place and has resulted in international concern being focused on this situation. The point is that it was readily admitted by Indian officials that the practice is widespread. They do not know if it can be stopped because it has roots in so-called religious traditions and other ethnic traditions and is not regarded by many people as being particularly wrong.
If we look at Brazil, there are seven million children on the streets of Brazil with no assistance whatsoever and no programs to deal with the problem from the Government of Brazil. Why? It is because the Government of Brazil does not have the economic ability to solve those kinds of problems.
Therefore anybody who would divorce economics of a country from a human rights situation is automatically going to deal in rhetoric and not in reality. I accuse the members of the New Democratic Party of utilizing that mask to create wrong impressions in this House of Commons and with the people of Canada. The rhetoric starts when you try to separate the economy from the status of the people, in terms of human rights.
We have had a long tradition in Canada of trying to keep open doors with other countries and not close off the opportunity to help those nations improve their situations for the benefit of the people.
October 22, 1991

The Peoples Republic of China is mentioned in the resolution itself and there is a suggestion that we should cut off our relationship. Canada took a proud place in the international community because it was Canada that encouraged and fostered continued relations with the Peoples Republic of China. It was Lester B. Pearson and Prime Minister Trudeau who allowed China to re-enter the international field in the hopes that that would result in improvement for the people of China and for improvement not only in their human rights but in their day-to-day lives.
Whether that has been successful, I will leave it to others to judge. Nobody, as I recall, has heaped criticism on Canada for keeping that door open, for not closing it off because of public square executions that were taking place in China long before Tiananmen Square.
If we tamper with the kind of principle that has developed over the years then we are entering the field of rhetoric and backing away from the realities of the international situation.
Take a little example like Czechoslovakia. I happened to be in Czechoslovakia with a parliamentary delegation at the time the repression was still in force. I was proud to be there because Canada has, over the years, accepted refugees from Czechoslovakia. We have criticized the administration. The member from Toronto was there with me so he remembers all of this.
We gave aid and comfort to the dissidents in Czechoslovakia. We did not say: "Stay away from Czechoslovakia. They are repressing freedoms there". We went to Czechoslovakia. Now we have President Havel, one of those dissidents just a few short years ago, governing the country. While the problems in Czechoslovakia were never like those in Brazil, India or many of the other countries that we mentioned in this debate, they were nonetheless problems of deprivation of human rights. We did not cut off the relationship. We hung in there with the then dissidents of Czechoslovakia. They are governing the country today.
The NDP has no monopoly on human rights concerns. It is the concern of every Canadian. It is a matter of how we interpret or implement those concerns. But it will not work to close off and suggest as they do in this resolution, as the member for Trinity-Spadina has said: "Cut
Supply
it off right away. Are there human rights violations? Cut off aid and cut off trade". It will not work and I think most members of this House of Commons realize it will not work.
I hope most Canadians also realize that that approach will not work. We say: "What is the NDP up to in this motion? Is it really trying to get at human rights violations? Is it really trying to help the situation in oppressed nations across the world?" It is simply bringing forward a political ploy. I will make the case that I think that it is. This is simply a political ploy.
What the NDP is doing is trying to attack the initiative made by the Prime Minister of Canada before the Commonwealth of Nations. It is trying to say: "This Prime Minister of Canada is not really interested in human rights".
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing the Prime Minister of Canada is interested in that is individual human rights. He has a long record of that. He has said on many occasions: "We are all God's children. We are all entitled to the same treatment under the law in our nations wherever those nations would be".
He has always had that as a guiding light. There is no question where he stands on that. But, if the people of Canada knew that, they might change their attitude a little bit. The NDP wants to get in there and make sure that, notwithstanding the Prime Minister of Canada stood up in the Commonwealth and advocated a new view of human rights within the Commonwealth, the people of Canada will say: "He did not really mean that".
I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker: Why did he bother to go down that road if he really did not mean it? He did not get any real support within the Commonwealth. He knew that. He knew that there were violators of human rights right before him. He knew they were sponsors of one-party policies in the political sense. He knew what was happening, and yet he said that. He said it because he thought it had to be said and, as in the case of South Africa, if he did not say it probably nobody else would.
I want to stress that if that is the purpose of the motion it will not work. Nobody is going to believe that the Prime Minister of Canada is not and will not continue to

October 22, 1991
Supply
be an advocate of human rights for Canadians and for peoples of all countries.
A second point that I think they might be getting at is that the old bogey free trade has ruined Canada.
This morning, on our national public broadcasting network, a professor from the University of Regina whose name I wrote down, Gerald Sperling, said that we all know that as a result of the free trade agreement one million Canadians are unemployed. I guess CBC does not censor anybody that goes on its stations from the University of Regina because that is an outlandish statement.
Let me put it this way: if one million Canadians would be employed, if we had not had the free trade agreement, then we would have an unemployment rate of maybe 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent, the lowest in the industrial world by many per cent.
I do not object to criticism of the free trade agreement. I do not object to re-examinations and reconsiderations. But when a university professor makes the claim that one million Canadians are unemployed because of the free trade agreement one realizes he is not participating in a factual analysis. He is just expounding his own economic ideology, and that is all the New Democratic Party is doing in this resolution. I am glad to see the Liberals are not fooled by it. They are only advocating their own ideology: Close Canada, put up the barriers.
Has anybody spoken of individuals, of the workers in Mexico? Has anybody in the New Democratic Party asked if the workers of Mexico want a free trade agreement with the United States and with Canada? I know what they will say. They will say that our Canadian Labour Congress went down there and met with their labour congress and came back with the idea that they do not want it. They want us to fight it.
But what about the people who are going to be employed who are not now employed? What about the people who hopefully will eventually get some of the benefits over the years and over the decades? Let us think about them. If the workers of Mexico are not going to benefit from any kind of free trade agreement, either with the United States of America or with Canada, then we should look at it and say that we should not go through with it because it will promote economic oppression in Mexico. It will promote deprivation of human
rights. If we think that, that is the action we should take and I would agree with it.
But should we simply turn down any opportunity for better international trade because it is not consistent with one's own ideology or with one's own concept of how Canada should function? Should this be masked as a protection of human rights of individuals? This is the ultimate concern. The NDP is not here advancing its ideology. It is here protecting workers in Mexico, do you believe that, Mr. Speaker? Does anybody believe that the New Democratic Party is here in this House of Commons advocating the rights of Mexican workers as opposed to its own ideology? I do not believe it. I hope the people of Canada do not believe it either.
The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca mentioned that awful word "hypocrisy" and I cannot mention it as he cannot mention it, but I think if you look at the dictionary definition you will find out what it is all about.
It is easy to be negative, and I understand and appreciate that. I can get up and tear the New Democratic Party apart. I have been doing it for years. I hope to continue to do it for years. The biggest threat to Canada is the New Democratic Party because it does not tell the truth. It deals entirely in rhetoric and ideology. It does not face facts. It does not face the realities. It makes it difficult for those who do. That is the problem. The NDP makes it impossible to deal with economic problems in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia and economic problems in northern Ontario, because it always says there is a simple solution, just as it says there is a simple solution to international trade.
"Stop it, stop it, stop it, if there is violation of human rights. Never mind, let the chips fall where they may". It does not work that way, and I cannot believe that given the intelligence and background of all the people in the New Democratic Party there is not somebody in that group who does not realize it. I hope and pray they will come forward.
This leads me to a point I wanted to mention. Those who are really interested in stopping violations of human rights in other nations through the instrument of withdrawal of external aid and trade to that nation should be looking for a competent monitoring body. What one would be looking for is a competent monitoring body, an officer within Canada who would say: Look, there is a
October 22, 1991

situation developing in any nation with which we are trading or are providing external aid that involves human rights violations and we should respond to that. Does anybody mention that?
The Prime Minister of Canada established by statute, by act of this body in 1988, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. That centre is charged with the responsibility world-wide of monitoring human rights violations and trying to encourage better human rights practices and so on. We know who heads the centre. It is the Hon. Ed Broadbent who sat right there with those same people.
If members of the New Democratic Party were really concerned with what was happening in a particular place, Iran or whatever, and that we should exercise some influence over that situation as the Government of Canada by threatening to withdraw external aid or minimize trade relations, I would have thought they would call up Ed Broadbent and say: "Ed, get over there and find out what is going on. Bring us back a report. We will present the report to Parliament. It will be documented and every Conservative member and Liberal member will have to respond to the facts as presented".
We cannot respond to this rhetoric. We cannot respond to claims that the ideology of one place is different from ours, and if we want them to adopt our ideology then we have to put this pressure on them. One cannot respond to that kind of situation. One can only respond to facts, and one can only respond to facts that are so blatant and so obvious and so clear that they demand a response. We cannot respond to the practice in India of trading in child brides. We cannot withdraw our relationships with the Republic of India for those kinds of reasons. I think every member knows that.
Mr. Speaker, you say I have two minutes so I want to end on a positive note. I mentioned the monitoring. There are so many other things we could be directing our mind to. As I mentioned, bankrupt national treasuries are often behind human rights violations. Sometimes they do not have an adequate tax system. They do not tax the rich to help the poor in so many apparently deprived nations. We can help with that.
Supply
What we want to talk about is a positive approach. We want to talk about a long-term program. We cannot cut things off immediately if something goes wrong.
A second point beyond the long term is that we have to be concerned with a nation on a broad base. I have already indicated that. We just cannot focus on one item. We have to look at the welfare of the people, as well as at the status of the government. We should look for co-operation of the government and try to obtain it.
A positive approach and a positive foreign program have to have their roots in reality. I hope when I sit down that I will leave the NDP with that message. Let us talk about reality. We are politicians. We recognize rhetoric. Maybe its members do not recognize rhetoric out in the streets of Canada, but they certainly recognize it in this Chamber and should not use it.
As I said, they can take a message from the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister has stated the principle of good governance in relation to international and external aid, good governance within the recipient country. If they have good governance then everything will flow from that, including human rights.
What we have to do and what we have been trying to do is to assist those governments so that there will be good governance in the country, so that there will be a taxation system, an educational system, a health system and a social security system. When we have all those systems in place then, in my belief we have human rights established and we can deal with human rights like we now deal with them in Canada. I do not think too many nations around the world, 160 nations, have reached that plateau and it is our responsibility to help them.
I would like to say one more remark about trade because NDP members would have us think that we can reach out and stop an international nickel company from trading with a foreign nation that violates human rights without affecting workers in northern Ontario. What do they say about that? Would the member for Trinity- Spadina cut off trade and unemploy workers in northern Ontario? Yes, he would. He said: "Why?" It is because the member from British Columbia said we have to stand on principle. My principle is employment for Canadians,

Supply
not cutting them off because of some suspected violation.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member. I think they were a bit overzealous in terms of criticism of the NDP, which they always are, and I enjoy his speeches.
I would first say that I congratulate the Prime Minister on the remarks he made as every other member of the caucus does. The Prime Minister stood in Africa and said he was not prepared to provide aid or trade to nations with track records in human rights which do not warrant that. We applauded him. There is no doubt about it. But what we caution and what this motion cautions is that it is only empty rhetoric if there is no action. It is called into serious question along with Canada's credibility if there is not action. This motion proposes action.
It is ironic that the debate has centred on the Mexican trade agreement. We thought that our colleagues in the Liberal Party would support that. It is there and it is prominent. First it is an erosion of Canadian sovereignty, and it clearly is. It is going to compromise the Canadian economy.
An enormous number of Canadians are opposed to it. When we look at the motion to delete, that aspect of the motion, the trade agreement with Mexico is going to harm the economy of Canada. It is going to support a nation with no acceptable policy on the environment, no acceptable social policy, political corruption and extrajudicial execution of hundreds of trade unionists and members of the political opposition. That is what the Liberal motion supports. There is also a lack of any fair labour standards in that country. We are saying as Canadians that is the first and most critical thing facing this nation on the human rights issue and we can do something about it. We can say that we will not go to the table with that nation until its judicial system and its government's commitment to human rights matches this country's or shows significant progress.
The member for Nova Scotia stood up and said that we could not or should not do anything. The United States did something in response to its citizens' concerns. Certainly there are enough citizens' concerns in this country about the performance of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party that we could start a parallel
process here. We could start a committee here in the House to look at the human rights record of Mexico and make suggestions to them about killing trade unionists and opposition political members. We could do that. We could set up a parallel process with a committee to look at the environment standards, the social policy and the lack of fair labour practices in Mexico.
We are asking for some fairness. I applaud the Prime Minister for his statements but for all our sakes do not make it empty rhetoric. Let us take some action. Let us take the focal point. I plead with the Liberals to withdraw this wrong-headed amendment where they say they are prepared to sit with the government at the Mexican trade talks. This is absolutely wrong. Let us start the parallel process in this House of Commons with our committees the way the Americans did.
Again, my last and parting remark: I applaud the Prime Minister and those statements. Those were worthy statements of which Canadians can be proud but they must be followed by action. Give us some action that we can be proud of.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, what is permeating this debate are those two fruitful words advanced by the member from Burnaby at the outset of the debate, that is rhetoric and reality.
I think that anyone who listens to this debate will recognize what is rhetoric and what is reality, because the old bogey of the free trade agreement is being brought before the House of Commons again. It is the ideological position of the New Democratic Party that is divorced from the realities of the world situation, divorced from the realities of trade and divorced from the reality that trade creates employment in Canada and that people in Canada are dependent for employment on selling our products abroad. The members of the New Democratic Party do not want to face up to those hard facts and keep them in mind when they are dealing with their ideological positions. I applaud the Liberal Party. There is some hope that sensible people in this country will get together and try to find sensible solutions to the real problems of our national economy and unemployment. If that involves exploring a trade agreement with Mexico and if that involves exploring, and I underline the words any trading arrangements with any country, then that is what we should do.

If down the line we find out that there are militating factors in relation to human rights, unstable government, and unfair demands then we can make our decision based on those facts, but we do not get the facts unless we examine the situation.
Let me ask the NDP in return: What are the other possibilities to a North American trading bloc? I am from Nova Scotia. They have virtually shut down a segment of our important fishing industry, the sealing, because people in Europe did not think we should be doing such a thing. They thought we should be getting our fur coats in some way other than the destruction of seals. That is how much Europeans care about employment in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. They will just shut it down if it suits their fancy.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Halifax West who has been in the Conservative caucus for several years and knows the Prime Minister well what he expects the Prime Minister's follow-up will be to his declarations at the Commonwealth. In terms of specific concrete actions, what can we expect from the Prime Minister on this?
Specifically could the member share with this House what positions the government has been taking in the opening rounds of the Canada-Mexico-U.S. trade talks with respect to the human rights positions of the Mexican government and the linkage between those two issues at those talks? Could he share, from his perspective, what his government has been doing to advance these causes in this forum?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member probably knows well that I am not privy to the negotiations between Canada and Mexico with respect to trade or quite frankly with any other matter. I can tell him that the Prime Minister has underlined time and time again the situation in Mexico.
I think the difference lies in the fact that the Prime Minister sees some hope for improvement through trading relations and the creation of wealth in Mexico. He believes that there is the possibility of substantial improvement in the welfare of the Mexican workers both with respect to day-to-day living and human rights.
Supply
I also offer to the member the fact that over a period of time the Prime Minister has underlined the linkage between aid, trade and human rights. I do not need any better evidence than the establishment of the centre that is now headed by Mr. Broadbent. That is tangible evidence that the Government of Canada under the Prime Minister has funded an organization with a duty and responsibility to monitor human rights legislation, report on it publicly and make recommendations with respect to it.
In relation to the Commonwealth, I think it is well expressed in an article by Ross Howard in Toronto's The Globe and Mail where the comment was made that with the 50-nation bloc all that was achieved was one small Canadian made candle in the dark in relation to human rights. I think the Prime Minister has made it clear that it was not a great impact on the Commonwealth leaders at the conference, but it did make a start. If we thought it was one small candle in the darkness of human rights, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth said that the statement on human rights was a beacon of guidance on the issue of human rights.
Whatever we think, whatever the NDP thinks of the efforts made by the Prime Minister, they were cast as the beacon of guidance for the future by others.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I too am delighted to stand here in the House today to debate the important motion that is before us. While I support the purpose of this motion to bring before the House the issue of linking government aid to respect for human rights, I cannot support its basic premise which is to discontinue immediately Canadian participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade negotiations. It is for these reasons that I can quite readily support the amendment as put forward by my colleague, the member for Northumberland.
I want to address the issue of linkage shortly. First, I would like to say why Canada should be involved in the negotiations surrounding this North American Free Trade Agreement.
Canadian interests, by putting them forth while we can still make a difference, are of great importance. On a practical note, this means jobs. We must not forget that by being at the table we can also influence other factors such as extending the agreement to include other partners from the hemisphere to create a western hemispheric agreement.

October 22, 1991
Supply
The more partners involved, the better is the counterbalance to the power of the United States, the greater the market potential for Canadian products, and the faster we can help developing countries in this hemisphere create the wealth they need to provide decent lives for their people.
By participating at the table we can lobby to ensure that comprehensive adjustment programs are devised to protect Canadian workers from the possible adverse affects of this deal. We can also ensure the protection of Canada's existing social, cultural and regional development programs.
We can, through involvement in the negotiations, encompass other issues such as the environment. My personal favourite of course is human rights. I would much rather be sitting at the table now than crying over spilt milk later.
With respect to the phrasing of this motion today, we are not talking about aid in this particular case with Mexico. Nor are we talking about investing per se. We are talking about a trade deal and we are talking about participating at a table where negotiations are under way on an agreement that will have a profound effect on Canada, Mexico, the U.S. and indeed the world.
I think this motion, although it does have good elements to be sure, is mixing apples and oranges by insisting upon the withdrawal of Canada from these negotiations.
We can ensure through our participation that environmental standards in each of the countries involved continue to be or in some cases are made to be stringent. There is concern that the inevitable harmonization of environmental standards could bring it all down to the lowest common denominator.
I for one do not want Canada's environmental standards to be brought down to the level which exists in Mexico. Remember, this proposed agreement is still in the stage of negotiations. We can better deal with all of these issues including Mexico's human rights record while at the table. If we are not at the table we cannot have any influence.
One thing that is lacking in making this deal is the open consultation with the Canadian public. We in the Liberal opposition have been calling for such consultation so that the Canadian public could have a say in such a profound deal. This process could and should involve the debate on human rights.
Presently our clout with Mexico is limited in terms of affecting its human rights record through a linkage with aid. Canadian aid to Mexico is limited. We sent close to $2 million through the Industrial Co-operation Program in 1990-91, as well as $350,000 for local initiatives. That is a total of $2.5 million.
Earlier this summer I along with my caucus colleagues sponsored a symposium on international human rights which involved Canada's non-governmental organizations, intellectuals, church and human rights groups.
We had discussions specifically about the linkage of human rights to Canadian aid and trade. These front line people agree in principle with the Prime Minister's recently stated commitment to the tentative linkage in light of documented violations of human rights in various countries. However they believe that the government is not practising what it preaches. The Prime Minister told this House yesterday that his cabinet has been discussing linkage policy since 1987.
We have the government document from the same year called "Sharing Our Future". Yet as the Canadian human rights community points out, human rights records in recipient countries are not reflected in project approval.
Participants at our conference agreed overwhelmingly that there should be uniform criteria for rendering decisions with respect to how and if Canada should provide and conduct trade with certain countries, specifically those with questionable human rights records. That is why I have no trouble at all supporting the amendment of the member for Northumberland. I would like to reread that amendment:
That the government implement procedures which will guarantee coherency, transparency and accountability in relation to human rights considerations in all Canadian foreign affairs policies, including aid, trade and immigration.
It was felt that foreign aid was a tool which could be used in a relevant manner in bettering human rights records in certain countries. Participants at our symposium believe that there is no question that violations of human rights are more severe in developing nations. Governments of these nations are so busy trying to eke
October 22, 1991

out a method of survival that they have little time to worry about basic human rights.
Instead, they must deal with the social unrest caused by abject poverty, the social upheaval caused by policies of the governments of developing countries which as they struggle to improve their trade balance and a desperate effort to improve their balance of payments to international lending institutions multilaterally and donor countries bilaterally have a direct relationship to the massive move toward urbanization which leads to a further burden of populations in urban areas already ill-equipped to handle rampant over-population.
While this is not meant to excuse Mexico or any other government from the mistreatment of any individual or group, it does provide a relative description of the situation in Mexico.
Perhaps, as the symposium participants pointed out, an improved trade balance will have a direct and dramatic effect on Mexico's human rights record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the hon. member. She will have 12 minutes remaining after Question Period today, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are delighted that their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales will visit Canada.
The monarchy has made a contribution to Canada's distinctness in North America and has played a key role
in stabilizing Canadian society. It should not be neglected in our current constitutional debate.
The Crown has protected Canadians from the expansionary and assimilationist United States and has protected minorities in Canada, a prime example being the Quebec Act of 1774.
The Crown permitted and encouraged the development of representative institutions to serve Canadians whose ancestors have come from all corners of the world and has acted as a court of last appeal for all.
I do not suggest that we return to our past, but I do urge Canadians to appreciate and perhaps be guided by our heritage. For over 200 years, the monarchy has given Canadians common purpose.
Today, as we search to redefine that purpose, we must not forget the legacy and role of the constitutional monarchy.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in my province of Prince Edward Island there is close to
3,000	farming establishments. Almost 25 per cent of those farmers are dairy farmers.
I join with them today in calling on this government to maintain its commitment to supply management in this country. It must not waiver on any of the fundamental aspects of this system. Import restrictions, price adequacy and production discipline must be maintained if our dairy, poultry and egg farmers are to stay in business.
The livelihoods of many farmers depend on this. The welfare of their families is at stake. I dare say, there are many rural communities that would be hard pressed to survive if this government buckles at these GATT negotiations.
We must not trade away one of the most sophisticated marketing systems in the world. We must not diminish a system that has ensured ample quantities of high quality food to Canadian consumers at reasonable prices.
I call on this government to stand up for the farmers of this country.

October 22, 1991


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, this year's theme for Small Business Week, from October 20 to October 26, is about entrepreneurships as a national resource.
The purpose of Small Business Week is to emphasize the contribution made by small businesses to the economy and give entrepreneurs an opportunity to meet, exchange information and learn how to improve their business management skills.
Owners of small businesses have injected about $64 billion into the Canadian economy in the form of wages and have created two million jobs during the past ten years.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the substantial contribution of small business to the economy in the riding of Drummond, where leadership and entrepreneurship are second nature.
Thanks to the involvement, know how, creativity and co-operation of its business community, Drummondville was named Quebec's industrial city of the year by the association of Quebec manufacturers. The purpose of government's Economic Renewal Program is to create a favourable climate for small business, and thanks to the Free Trade Agreement, Canadian entrepreneurs can take advantage of new business opportunities.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, Haiti is a country that has just come through decades of oppression under the cruel dictatorship of the Duvali-er families and continues today to experience the cruelties of the vicious Tontons Macoutes and now the illegal government forces.
A year ago Haitians had the privilege of being able to democratically elect their own leader but as we know have just experienced the cruel withdrawal of that leader from power. Canada, with the OAS, has publicly supported the return of the democratically elected President Aristide to power in Haiti. The people of Haiti are
hour by hour, day by day, threatened by the Haitian military. They demand the return of President Aristide. They need our help.
What is Canada is doing today to guarantee the return of President Aristide? Haitians who have been able to clandestinely make contact with the outside world speak of the murder, terror and persecution of those not in power in Haiti. Will this government assure us today that the trade embargoes against Haiti will be increased immediately to pressure a speedy return of Aristide to Haiti and that we will support his return with an international monitoring team.


NATIONAL INFECTION CONTROL WEEK
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, October 21 to 25 has been designated as National Infection Control Week. The Community and Hospital Infection Control Association, known as CHICA-Canada, in conjunction with local health care facilities and community agencies will be promoting infection control and the role of the infection control practitioner.
A few patients acquire infections as a result of hospitalization. These are known as nosocomial infections, but for those who do become infected there can be a prolonged hospitalization stay and chronic health care problems.
Economically nosocomial infections may cost Canadians as much as $1 billion annually in terms of cost of treatment and loss of work due to a prolonged hospital stay. Many of these infections are preventable.
Throughout this week health care facilities across Canada will again be conducting special Infection Control Week activities to raise our awareness.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the politics of green have caught up with the Government of Alberta and sadly Canada's wildlife is the victim.
Alberta wildlife officers are now under order to kill all wild elk that come in contact with elk held at tuberculosis stricken game farms across the province. This bizarre shoot-to-kill policy is supposed to halt the flow of TB
October 22, 1991

from the game farms into the wild populations. What a policy. Protect the sick by killing the healthy.
The image of Alberta government sharpshooters surrounding the 26 quarantined Alberta game farms to slaughter Canada's proud wild elk population is truly sickening. Warnings of the spread of disease from the penned elk have been on the desks of federal and provincial ministers for many months. Who knows whether tuberculosis or other domestic diseases have not already been transmitted from the disease ridden stock under quarantine? In the greedy rush for the big bucks the Getty government has placed at risk elk and other ungulates of western Canada.
What's next? The slaughter of the elk in Banff and other national parks to protect the profits of a handful of greedy breeders raising wild animals for slaughter and body parts?


ABORIGINAL PEOPLE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, an advertisement in the New York Times describes Quebec as the worst possible place for aboriginal people on the North American continent. In response to those lies, I have some statistics from Statistics Canada. Indians are over-represented in the prison population across Canada, except in Quebec, where they are underrepresented. Quebec has fewer Indian families living below the poverty line, and the gap between aboriginal people and the rest of the population is smaller in Quebec. Ninety-one per cent of aboriginal people in Quebec speak their own language, while in Ontario only 50 per cent do so. Quebec also has the lowest suicide rate among aboriginal people. In Quebec, the number of homes without central heating, among aboriginal people, is much lower than in the rest of Canada. Canadian politicians should stop this hypocrisy, and aboriginal leaders should tell the truth instead of letting themselves be used by the federalists against Quebec.
Let us hope that the new government in Saskatchewan will be able to improve the situation of aboriginal people in a province that was headed by an NDP government for
a long time and that has the sad distinction of having the worst record for the way it treats aboriginal people.


NATIONAL INFECTION CONTROL WEEK
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, like the member for Oxford, I am pleased to inform members that this week, October 21 to 25, has been dedicated National Infection Control Week in recognition of the many health care workers who have worked to assure the application of effective infection control measures to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases in health care agencies and community-based institutions.
The purpose of this week is to focus public and professional attention on the seriousness of hospital acquired and community infections and on the measures that can be taken to reduce them.
I am particularly proud to applaud the efforts of the Community and Hospital Infection Control Association for their efforts in sponsoring and organizing this week across Canada.


ECONOMIC UNION
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, economic union has proved beneficial for Canadians, but we should not take it for granted. We cannot maintain or improve our situation by marking time while the rest of the world marches on. We must constantly work on developing our prosperity by improving our competitive position on international markets.
If we achieve our ultimate goal, which is to reduce the national debt, we will contribute to our future prosperity. However, every level of government and every sector of our economy can and must do more to meet the challenges that will face us in the future.
No more status quo. We must make a concerted effort to ensure that our economic union leads to productive growth and creates jobs.
Mr. Speaker, we must reduce barriers to the exchange of goods, services, people and capital within this country. We must eliminate overlap and duplication in government services, so as to provide for maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

October 22, 1991
Mr. Speaker, these are major challenges that cannot be met without the participation of each and everyone of us.


IMMIGRATION
Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration announced on October 4, 1991 that the refugee backlog clearance program would be completed by December 1992 and within "its original budget of $179 million". There are at least two things wrong with this announcement.
First, when announced in December 1988 the deadline for completing the backlog was September 1991. Now we are told by the present minister that this date has not been met and that in fact cases within the backlog and in particular in Ontario, where most cases are, will not be completed until December 1992. This is a difference of 15 months.
This may not seem like a long time for the minister but for the tens of thousands of refugee claimants trapped in the backlog it is like a decade.
Tune in tomorrow when I will discuss the second major error.


MEMBER FOR SHEFFORD
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome - Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, this government recently distributed to all Canadian households a brochure entitled "A Personal Message to All Canadians-An Invitation to Help Build A new Canada".
Several days later, on the floor of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Shefford criticized this message and launched some cheap shots at the principal originators of this important document, the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the Hon. Joe Clark.
A Granby daily, La voix de I'Est, in an editorial under the headline "Joe Clark was right, whatever Jean La-pierre says", said that Mr. Clark was to be commended for his message to Canadians and especially to Quebecers.
Subsequently, editorial writer Valere Audy, who has known Mr. Lapierre for some time, severely criticized the attitude taken by the hon. member for Shefford. Mr. Audy writes: "The M.P. for Shefford can keep this up if he wishes, but except for a few people who are prepared to laugh at his jokes, his audience is dwindling rapidly. In other words, Mr. Lapierre, when you make fun of others, there comes a time when the joke is on you!"


DOMINION TEXTILE FIBERWORLD PLANT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform the House today that Dominion Textile's Fiberworld plant, located in Hawkesbury, in my riding, has closed its doors. Mr. Speaker, 86 hard-working constituents will swell the overflowing ranks of job seekers.
Two years ago, imported carpets accounted for only 10 per cent of our market; today this share has risen to 35 per cent. Fiberworld is thus unable to compete with the Americans. Our Canadian dollar, which was worth 75 cents U.S. less than two years ago, now trades at 88.7 cents. Fiberworld is no longer competitive with its American counterpart. The most outrageous part is that Canada will now import carpet canvas from an American subsidiary of Dominion Textile called Waynetex. The government must devalue our overvalued currency. I also reiterate the appeal for the federal government to set up an economic development program for eastern Ontario.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the House the dismal condition of our country's mining industry. In many communities all across Canada mines have been closed, workers have been laid off, and entire towns and surrounding areas have suffered. We all recognize there is a life cycle to a mine. But many jobs in communities can be saved by positive action.
I call upon the government to establish a national mining reserve fund, a special fund created by a percentage of mining revenue. This fund would be used to assist mining communities prior to any possible closure. Mo-
October 22, 1991

neys obtained could be used to further exploration that may uncover new resources which would extend the life of a mining operation. The fund could also be used to build infrastructure that would attract businesses to mining communities, and money could be used to help laid off workers.
A national mining reserve fund would be an ideal vehicle to provide more stability for mining companies, mining communities and miners. The ad hoc approach of the past must be replaced. The federal government needs to be involved in an ongoing process to assist mining in Canada and to provide more security for those living in mining communities.


NATIONAL HOMEMAKER AND HOME SUPPORT WORKER WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, October 20 to 27 National Homemaker and Home Support Worker Week will be celebrated across the country. This will be a time to recognize the outstanding work done by home support agencies. Congratulations to our government for supporting Home Support Canada, the organization representing such agencies.
Home care helps people to remain independent and allows them to receive any necessary care in their own homes. Continued support funds research into such significant areas as services to persons with AIDS and persons with Alzheimer's.
Home care provides a multitude of invaluable services such as snow shovelling, meal preparation and child care. So let us take the week to commend the homemakers in our communities for their important contributions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The name of the Prime Minister is now on an official list of names under consideration by the Security Council for the job of Secretary-General of the United Nations.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can understand some Tories being very happy about that. But this has very serious implications for the Prime Minister and his government and for the international reputation of Canada.
Canadians have the right to know this: Does the Prime Minister want to be Secretary-General of the United Nations? If not-


Mr. Speaker:: I do have to remind the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, that that seems to me a personal question and I think it is out of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a serious question and we want to know-


Mr. Speaker:: I did not suggest it was not a serious one. I think it is a personal one and I think it is out of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We want to know why, if he does not want to be the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Prime Minister let his name be put on such a list.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not put my name on any list, but I would tell my hon. friend that he should not lose any sleep over this.
The thing that I look forward to perhaps most in the world is meeting him in an election campaign in 1993.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the Prime Minister that I am delighted. There are millions of Canadians who are disappointed because he is not leaving. One Canadian is very happy, and that is me.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was afraid he would chicken out and I am happy that he did not. Now we can come back and ask the Prime Minister this, if he does not intend to go there.


THE ECONOMY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister subscribe to the proposition of his finance minister, who said yesterday that 1.5 million unemployed was the normal level in Canada and that he could do nothing to change the situation. Now that the Prime Minister says that he

October 22, 1991
Oral Questions
wants to take care of problems in Canada, instead of going around the world distributing his C.V. to everyone, will he soon present policies to put people back to work in Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the Government of Canada could do nothing.
The Government of Canada is doing everything to get Canada's economic and fiscal house in order. The fundamentals are right. Every think tank and objective organization in Canada and throughout the world recognizes that we are on the right track in containing inflation, bringing inflation down, regulating inflationary expectations, bringing about price stability and bringing about durable growth.
I think even the hon. Leader of the Opposition recognizes that there is restructuring and adjustment that must take place in the Canadian economy. That will provide a little more lead time in terms of being translated into jobs.
The fact of the matter is we should accept these serious challenges as a challenge. It is going to require not only governments, but it is going to require business, labour and everyone working together in co-operation to improve our competitiveness and our productivity so that we can take advantage of the opportunities in a globalized world.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the members on the other side are disappointed that the Prime Minister is not leaving-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and disappointed too by the answer of the Minister of Finance.
The minister is asking for more time. We have been in a recession for almost two years. It is the longest recession we ever had in Canada.
We want to know from him when he will do the right thing and put the workers of Canada back into jobs so that there will be money for the fishermen and the
farmers in Canada. We are fed up with hearing statistics that mean nothing for them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the statements of the hon. Leader of the Opposition are categorically false.
This has not been the longest recession. As a matter of fact, the recession which he was very familiar with lasted 16 months. This one lasted 12 months. We have recovered one quarter earlier than that which was expected.
Interest rates are down. They are the lowest they have been in 13 years. They are continuing to go down and not go up. Inflation is going down and not going up. We have one of the lowest inflation fates on record. Unemployment is going down. It is not going up. The trade balance is going up. It is not going down. All the indicators are pointed in the right direction and that will be translated into jobs.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Canada's prolonged unemployment crisis, a crisis the Minister of Finance acknowledges, is having a catastrophic effect on young Canadians. Canada's youth has to live with the harsh reality of a national unemployment rate of 17 per cent and in some regions of 25 per cent.
What immediate action will the minister take to solve this extremely serious crisis facing young Canadians?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are looking at their future and their current situation and are asking their governments at all levels not to do as the previous government did and tiy to throw money at a problem by bankrupting the country. That is what the youth are saying.
We have in place under the Canadian Jobs Strategy initiatives throughout Canada that require cash disbursements by our department of over $3 billion a year.
If the hon. member is not aware of the multitude of programs in place in every province, I would be more than pleased to give him time after Question Period and brief him.
October 22, 1991


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister.
I gather from the minister's response that 17 per cent youth unemployment is indeed part of the jobs, jobs, jobs strategy he is talking about.
At a time when this government is talking about prosperity through competitiveness and while our global competitors are busy training, educating and offering employment opportunities for their youth, can Canada as a nation really afford to have 400,000 young people standing in the unemployment lines of this nation? Is this the new way to global competitiveness?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it takes some gall for a Liberal to stand up in this House and complain about the youth and about unemployed Canadians being out there without help. We tried to pass Bill C-21 and I remember the Grits opposing that bill, where we activated $800 million more to train Canadians in order to be ready for the global economy that he does not understand.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, that spontaneous outburst from my caucus obviously was out of respect for the premier elect of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow. We are happy to see that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government continues to talk about economic recovery and by the government's standards, perhaps it is a recovery. But hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have no work do not see this recovery. We have thousands of farmers who are no longer farming. Thousands of fishermen are no longer fishing. Factories lay idle and empty while unemployment and welfare offices are full.
Today we hear that the finance minister has said that it will be two years before he can see these people back working.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if it is this government's policy to do nothing for the 1.5 million unemployed in this country, and say that there is a recovery. There is no recovery. There is just more unemployment.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just to advise the hon. member, last month 65,000 new jobs were created and the unemployment rate went down, from 10.6 per cent to 10.2 per cent. I think that is going in the right direction.
The Gross Domestic Product is increasing. Housing starts are on the increase. As I said, the key to job creation is bringing interest rates down. Interest rates have come down by well over 500 basis points, or 5.5 percentage points. That is creating and stimulating new investment and new opportunities for job creation. I might say that interest rate is the lowest rate in 13 years. Inflation is going down and prices are coming down, which adds to our ability to compete more effectively internationally.
The merchandise trade balance is up. Housing starts are up. Business confidence is up. As I indicated to other hon. members, there is a certain degree of lag time before that is translated into jobs.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A million and a half people are jobless and that is reality for many Canadians. Often children live in poverty because their parents lack work. When the Minister of Finance is faced with this reality, he says that he can do nothing for two years because price stability must be maintained. I want to reassure the Prime Minister that price stability will be maintained. His fiscal policies have knocked consumers out. Will the Prime Minister finnally tell his minister to implement a job creation program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance already indicated that nearly 75,000 new jobs were created, that interest rates were going down, that inflation was down and that everything was in place for quite a solid, lasting economic recovery. The real gross domestic product increased 0.2 per cent in July, the real production of goods increased, the volume of exports rose 3.5 per cent in July, housing starts jumped 6.9 per cent in September,
75,000	new jobs were created since the recovery began, including 37,000 in the manufacturing sector alone, and

October 22, 1991
Oral Questions
unemployment fell 0.4 per cent in a month. Although it is not a miracle, I think that the Leader of the New Democratic Party should admit that the policies advocated and pursued by the Minister of Finance are in the national interest and producing real gains for all Canadians.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Clearly what is happening with the fiscal policies of this government is that we are continuing to see more people unemployed. We had a debate two weeks ago on the prices in the farming industry. Everywhere you look, people are seeking jobs. That is the criteria this government should be looking at.
The Atlantic premiers are meeting because they have been told that they can expect $160 million less in transfer payments. As the Prime Minister well knows, that reduction would have a devastating effect on the people of the Atlantic who have suffered very badly from the decline in the fisheries and other economic factors primarily created by this government.
In the past, the federal government has had a supplementary expenditure for transfer payments. I want to ask the Prime Minister, if the premiers of the Atlantic provinces request this, in order to address the very serious problems they have, will his government consider their request.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. That is a completely hypothetical question. The minister may want to deal with it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that there is nothing unusual here. The equalization program is enshrined in legislation and there is a formula that is enshrined within that legislation. These adjustments occur at least two times a year. This normal adjustment process has occurred over the last number of years. As a matter of fact, in the last two years there have been incremental increases as a result of the new economic and financial data coming in.
Is the hon. member suggesting that we should readjust the figures and contravene the legislation? If that were
to happen, then the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which under this review are going to get more money, would be getting less money.
I think what the hon. member has to recognize is that we are governed here by a legislative measure. I should advise her as well that the issue of equalization and the whole issue of fiscal transfers is under review by the federal and provincial governments. If there are any inconsistencies or problems with the existing program, we will review that and hopefully provide the necessary corrective action in the next bit of legislative that will come down the pipe.


DE HAVILLAND
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister of Canada and it is in regard to the future of de Havilland.
Given that the European consortium will not pursue majority ownership any longer, and that without a new arrangement Boeing can possibly close and wind down its operations in Downsview, when will the federal government, rather than passing the buck continuously to the provincial government, act in the national interest and commit itself strongly and immediately to saving the thousands of jobs at stake at de Havilland, which only happens to be the leading aerospace manufacturer in our country and the single largest industrial employer in all of metropolitan Toronto.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of the position of de Havilland and its importance to the economy of metropolitan Toronto, of Ontario and indeed of all of Canada.
We have been working with the province of Ontario, with the Boeing company and with ANA. We have made representations to the European Community. We have been very much involved in trying to find ways to allow this company to continue in a successful way.
I would caution the hon. member from drawing too hard and fast conclusions from things that he reads in the media. These discussions are continuing and I would hope would have some successful conclusion.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers have invested nearly $1 billion in the Augmenter and STOL wing technologies, making de Havilland the world leader.
However, in the United States Lockheed needs this technology in order to rebuild its C-130 Hercules aircraft and Boeing needs this technology in order to build military transports.
Will the minister tell us what guarantees he has that these technologies will not be stolen from Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a fairly complex question. If he had given me notice I would be able to give him a specific answer. But if he wants to provide me with the information that is behind that question I would be happy to get him a specific answer.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister seemed personally touched by the case of the Iranian woman who was being held under house arrest by his government following her torture in Iran.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, having had a chance to review the case, he is now willing to personally take up her case and ensure that she and her family will not be sent back to Iran where she faces torture and her family faces a threat to life and limb?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, without at all commenting on the premise of the hon. member's question, which I really ask myself what the purpose of it is, I can advise the House that, as I indicated yesterday I have completed my review of this case and all the aspects of it.
Some information which was not before the Refugee Determination Board having been brought to my attention I have, following representations on the part of colleagues and members of this House, indicated and directed to officials of my department to process this family for admission to Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I for one am very happy that this happened and I am sorry that the issue had to be brought up on the floor of the House of Commons.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, personally intervened with the minister last week to bring to his attention the new information.
I want to ask my question now of the Prime Minister. Given that this particular case has been resolved in a positive way, and for that I thank the government, will the Prime Minister advise the Immigration Appeal Board that in future similar cases involving flogging will be dealt with in a positive manner so that no other woman will face the possibility that this woman faced?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I noted and took care to note that the decision that I have made to process this family for admission to Canada is based on information I have received.
The immigration refugee board, to which the hon. member refers, is an independent board set up by this Parliament. It operates without political intervention. Surely she is not suggesting that this minister or this government intervene in an independent process.
As for her larger issue, I do not think that it would be proper for me at this time to speculate on decisions which the board has to make. If the Liberal Party wants to suggest an amendment to the Immigration Act on the definition of what is a convention refugee let them do that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we too welcome the decision of the minister on humanitarian grounds to allow this family to remain in Canada.
I want to ask a question of the Prime Minister which touches directly, however, on the situation of human rights in Iran. Yesterday when I asked the Prime Minister about the extension of a $1 billion line of credit to Iran, the Prime Minister said that his human rights policy only applied to the extension of aid.
I want to remind the Prime Minister that the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, now the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, said in a letter last year: "The Export Development Corporation takes direction from the Government of Canada on matters relating to

October 22, 1991
Oral Questions
human rights abuses. The government can direct the EDC not to support exports to a certain country because of that country's human rights record".
In view of the clear contradiction between the Prime Minister's statement yesterday and the minister's letter, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he stands by the earlier assurance that the EDC will take direction on human rights and, if so, will this government stop this $1 billion line of credit to Iran, a country which flogs, tortures, detains, and executes its own citizens.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to draw a distinction for the hon. member between aid and EDC credit. EDC credit is made on commercial terms in the case of the arrangements with Iran. It is not aid. In no way is it considered to be aid.
We have on a number of occasions expressed our concerns to the Iranian authorities about their treatment of individuals. I did it personally when I was in Iran about a month ago. The Secretary of State for External Affairs did it when the deputy foreign minister for Iran was here earlier this year. This concern is something we have kept in front of the authorities in Iran and we will continue to do so.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister states that these considerations are based solely on commercial factors, yet his colleague the former Secretary of State for External Affairs said that human rights considerations should be a part of EDC financing.

My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. For 30 years, the American government has imposed a total embargo on Cuba, including food and medicine. At this session of the United Nations General Assembly, many countries will propose the elimination of this destructive embargo.
Given the policies of the Canadian government, which never imposed such an embargo and which supports the admission of Cuba to the OAS, will Canada support a resolution asking the United States to lift this embargo against Cuba?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is not a specific question to which I can give a precise answer, but I believe the position of the Government of Canada in dealing with Cuba has been quite clear. In dealing with Cuba, we have taken a different position from that of the United States in our relationships with Cuba and I think that the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. member have been reflected in the policies carried out by the Government of Canada.


ATLANTIC ECONOMY
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the four premiers from the Atlantic provinces are meeting on Wednesday to discuss an attack by this government on the equalization payments to the four Atlantic provinces. They are not meeting, as the Minister of Finance would have us believe, to have a tea party.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that the equalization payments to the three maritime provinces for this year are practically the same as they were last year, according to his department, and the equalization payments to the province of Newfoundland are actually less this year than they were last year.
How can this government be so cruel as to now suggest a further $116 million cut? Why this Atlantic attack?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I advise the hon. member that equalization payments are not being slashed. They are being increased by $250 million to $8.3 billion. Unless the hon. member wants me to unilaterally change the formula, there is nothing I can do about it. This formula is enshrined in legislation. It is implemented on the basis of financial and economic data that flows in and these adjustments are made on a regular basis.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the utilization payments to the four Atlantic provinces are being cut. Not only are they being cut, but the Atlantic provinces have been asked, and they are doing it, to pay back equalization money that they
October 22, 1991

received years ago because of an audit done by the Department of Finance in March 1990.
I ask the Minister of Finance: How can the government of Canada forgive loans to foreign banks and to foreign countries while demanding money back in equalization payments from the four Atlantic provinces? Why this double whammy to eastern Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in 1988-89 when this same adjustment was implemented, the adjustment ended up in an additional $1 billion directed to the provinces from the federal government. Does the hon. member want us to cancel that too?
For 1989-90, after the review was taken, as a result of the regular review based upon the formula and using the financial and economic data that flows in, there was an increase of $720 million. Does he want me to collect that back from the provinces?
You cannot have your cake and eat it. A formula is in place and it has to be honoured.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the fisheries aid package and it is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who yesterday accused members of Parliament of rumour-mongering that the package was inadequate.
Since that statement, I have received over 100 telephone calls in my offices from people who are very angry and very distressed by that statement. They are reaffirming that there is not enough money, there are not enough programs and the ones that are there are coming on stream too late to be worth while.
I am going to ask the minister again to consult with his job creation colleague and tell us why he cannot put more teeth in this program.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, all I can do is repeat to this House and to hon. members that we have in this program sufficient funds for the volume of people who have been identified. Assessments however, and this may explain perhaps his number of phone calls, are
Oral Questions
taking longer than we expected given the numbers involved. That is a reality out there.
We have begun the job of identifying specific amounts of money and negotiating contracts. This is being done as we speak. As the minister said yesterday, all people who qualify will be able to take advantage of that special program.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not listening. If you boil that $57 million package down, it works out to somewhere in the vicinity of $25 million for job creation. That is for 10,000 people. The Fishermens Union suggested $100 million might be more appropriate. In the minister's own figures that works out to $2,500 per person.
The minister may consider that as more than adequate. He may even consider it generous, as he said yesterday. Certainly the Newfoundlanders and the Atlantic Canadians who are receiving at that end do not consider it adequate, neither do I nor my colleagues. It simply is not good enough.
I want to ask the minister one more time: When will he get serious and come clean with Newfoundlanders and tell them how he is going to provide a reasonable solution to this devastating and demoralizing problem?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we are not Liberals, we cannot predict the future. However, it is estimated that 4,300 fishermen and 6,000 plant workers have been unable to acquire sufficient weeks of insured earnings to qualify for UI. It is this money that the hon. member refers to which will create some 45,600 job weeks of work for those people.
Maybe we could raise taxes and or increase the deficit to give more, but I think that this package will help the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador.


ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
President Bush has now recommended to Congress that the largest unspoiled wilderness in the United States be opened for the development of gas and oil. These lands are known as the Arctic National Wildlife

October 22, 1991
Oral Questions
Refuge. Since the drilling would take place in Alaska on the coastal calving grounds of the porcupine caribou herd, a decision posing a direct threat to the 200,000 caribou that spend most of their life cycle in Canada, will the Prime Minister contact President Bush and express the deeply-held Canadian view that we support wilderness designation for the 1002 lands.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been ongoing for a certain number of years. In fact, the Government of Canada has been making representations to different representatives in the United States Congress and with the administration on this issue. In fact, we have been working in close co-operation with the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and with native people on this issue.
Last week, no later than Thursday, there was some positive developments when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee I understand voted 12 to 4 in favour of designating that area as an Arctic national wildlife refuge, as a wilderness. That is a positive development. We intend to pursue this issue very vigorously.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the more important vote on this issue is going to take place on the floor of the whole Senate later this week, and even the members of the Senate there are encouraging Canada's Prime Minister to get in touch with President Bush if Canada is serious about drilling not proceeding on the 1002 lands.
I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of the Environment. Earlier today the all-party Standing Committee on Environment passed a resolution calling on the Prime Minister to call President Bush. All parties in this House for many years have unanimously held the view that there should be wilderness designation for the 1002 lands.
Since the minister has offered to lead an all-party delegation to Washington to talk to the Congress in the next short period of time about this, will the Minister of the Environment at least rise today and call upon his Prime Minister to call President Bush as this is a key executive decision-making ingredient to protect Canada's porcupine caribou herd?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has made a series of representations on this very important issue to
the American government at the executive level. No later than the week of September 16, for example, our embassy in Washington was instrumental in putting together a lobbying effort on this very specific issue. We have been very active at every level and we intend to pursue this issue, to be very vigilant, and to do anything in our power to ensure that this area be designated a wilderness area.


RAIL SERVICES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. For several months, Via executives in their ivory tower in Montreal have been trying everything to abolish rail service in Abitibi and Champlain, with the complicity of CN President Ron Lawless.
Is the Minister of Transport prepared to make a decision this year on the future of rail services in remote regions, including Senneterre and Amos in Abitibi and Parent in Champlain County?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that both the President of Via and the Minister of Transport are concerned about this issue of rail services to remote regions. We are concluding a study on the costs of maintaining these centres and should be able to make a decision in a few weeks.


VALUE OF THE DOLLAR
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Canadian dollar reached 88.77 cents, its highest level in 13 years. Since every cent increase in the value of the dollar costs nearly $1.3 billion in exports, can the minister tell us why he is pursuing policies that are disastrous for the Canadian economy and guarantee very high unemployment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the House before, the Government of Canada does not have a set target for the value of the dollar, nor does it have a range, nor does the Bank of Canada have a range
October 22, 1991

or target for the valuation of the dollar. It is essentially set in the marketplace, and based upon a whole number of factors, including the capital flows, the need for capital, the need for capital to invest in meeting fiscal deficits, with respect also to inflation and the economic fortunes.
I should indicate to the hon. member that notwithstanding the value of the dollar which he suggests is too high, the trade figures indicate that Canadian companies are competing. Our merchandise trade balance is increasing, particularly our trade balance with the United States, which again demonstrates the effectiveness of the free trade agreement.
As was pointed out in The Financial Post this morning, Canada cannot devalue its way to prosperity.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister.
The government has added to the problem of high unemployment in the forestry sector with its high dollar policy. In that sector every one cent increase in the dollar translates into a loss of $100 million in exports.
What new and specific measures will the minister implement to assist the forestry sector in regaining its competitive edge and when can the forestry sector expect relief from this devastating high dollar policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are very serious competitive pressures in the marketplace, not only from the current value of the dollar.
I remind the hon. member that for the last 40 years, the average value of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar was 92.6 cents. So, in historical terms it is not high. I know that it is high relative to recent trends, but the fact of the matter is that the value of the dollar does reflect a certain strength and stability in the Canadian economy and it provides the way in which we can continue to get the fundamentals right, that is bringing inflationary pressures down, bringing interest rates down. That will increase the opportunity to compete more effectively, bring down the cost of living and bring down prices.
Oral Questions POVERTY


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Canada Assistance Plan was established over two decades ago by a Liberal government to help Canada's poor maintain an adequate standard of living. Parliament defined "adequate" to mean that all Canadians should have food, shelter and clothing.
Given the number of Canadians who go to food banks every day, how does this minister define adequate for these people?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that what we do in terms of the Canada Assistance Plan is done with the provinces and in conjunction with the capacity that the provinces have to put money in the system. I think there is a billion dollars put in by us and by the provinces into the system. By and large the system works well, but it has to work within the capacity we have to create the resources.
If my friend would would like me to say that we are ready to put in $1 billion, $2 billion or $3 billion more, I have to say that we do not have those resources.
As the Minister of Finance has said, we are trying to improve the economy to have the capacity to put in more and more.
I would say that if we can do more for poor people and for those in need in terms of services, we will do it. The member will agree that the resources have to be there. Maybe his party created the plan, but it created the deficit and the debt that came with the plan.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, several colleagues stood up and asked questions about food banks across this country. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are fond of responding that national economic policies are helping Canada's poor. In Winnipeg we now have 36,000 people looking for jobs, and several thousand aboriginal youth who can no longer find jobs or training. We have thousands of people using the food banks to the point

October 22, 1991
Oral Questions
where they are no longer able to feed people each month. These macro policies are not working.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister what specific plans he can present to the people of Winnipeg to help provide for them in the future.
This government has done nothing but take away things such as the Core Area Initiative and needs federal government intervention.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what we said yesterday about Montreal and Toronto is true for Winnipeg.
With all the help that foods banks provide, I believe everybody in the House and in the country would like to do without them.
Second, he knows too that in order to be reasonable we have to provide as much as we can to have an economy which will produce jobs and let people work. We were talking about young people before. Now we are talking about everybody in the country.
The first move to deal with that is to give people the capacity to work. As simple as it is, when you work, you do not normally need food banks.


LESLIE JAMES BENNETT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Very seldom in the lives of those of us who have been elected to office do we have an opportunity to correct an injustice of the past. I am putting my question to the minister in that light.
I think the time has come to correct an injustice. Leslie James Bennett was forced to resign as deputy chief of the RCMP, counterespionage section in 1972. He was accused of being a mole for the KGB and has proved to be totally innocent. His pension today is $4,500 a year and he is living in exile in Australia.
Will the minister review the file of Mr. Bennett with a view to a full exoneration and a reinstatement with full pension rights?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend who makes the point that when we have an opportunity to correct unfortunate cases from the past we should do so.
My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question. I have taken the opportunity to review the file with my staff and I find myself in a position of referring to the answer given to one of my predecessors in this House, the Hon. Francis Fox on November 24, 1977.
"Mr. Bennett left the RCMP on a medical discharge and in spite of rumours to the contrary, he was not paid off and nor ordered to get out of the country." I have nothing more to add at this point.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -StoufT-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
I believe the middle income earners have gradually been burdened with an unfair proportion of total personal income taxes. Will the minister be reviewing this problem with the idea of reducing tax rates or perhaps eliminating the surtax which was brought in in 1985 and now generates over $1.5 billion in taxes.
Clearly such a measure could give our sluggish economy a boost and help alleviate the unfair tax burden on middle income Canadians.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member's question, but I think that he would be the first to acknowledge the tremendous overhang of debt that Canadians face. The cost of servicing that debt consumes about $43 billion annually and takes 35 cents out of every taxpayer's dollar that we collect. It really restricts our ability to bring about any tax cuts.
What we are endeavouring to do, as the hon. member I know is aware and supportive of, is the ongoing attempt to reduce the deficit, bring our fiscal house in order, bring down interest rates and bring down an inflation rate.
The fact that we have brought interest rates down by over 5 per cent has translated into reductions of payments on a monthly basis on $100,000 mortgage. It
October 22, 1991

reduces monthly payments by roughly $320 per month. I think that is a good break for middle income people.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I have a single question. My question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister on April 6, 1984 in commenting on the then suggested appointment of the Minister of Finance of the day to the OECD as Secretary-General said: "Canadians have had it up to here with the hypocrisy of people who inflict unemployment on Canadians and then go off to cushy jobs".
My question is straightforward. Does the Prime Minister consider being Secretary-General of the United Nations a cushy job?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that question is in order.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by the Hon. Robert Boscawen, M.C., Member of Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Robinson and the amendment of Mrs. Stewart (p. 3782).
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate and to add some thoughts to this whole question of human rights and
Supply
Canada's aid policy and to respond to the concerns of the hon. member opposite.
There are few development issues quite as complex or as sensitive as this one. It is an issue for which there are no easy answers, no fast solutions and no quick fixes. It is a matter that at times calls for delicacy and careful diplomacy. At other times more forceful measures are required.
I believe that Canada's policy on human rights and aid reflects a balanced and judicious approach, one that emphasizes progress rather than postering and one that is concerned first of all with helping to promote human rights through the development process.
Promoting human rights with development assistance is part and parcel of Canada's over-all foreign policy goal of encouraging greater-


The Deputy Speaker:: Allow me to interrupt the hon. member for a minute. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I think I will make his life and my life a lot easier once we get a little bit more quiet in this House.
Would it be possible for conversations that are held behind the curtains to be held in the lobby? We cannot hear anybody in this House except people who should not be heard. That goes for both sides of the House. The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, our approach emphasizes support for the victims of human rights abuses while maintaining pressure on oppressive governments where required. TTiis means that we do take human rights records into account in determining the nature and size of our aid programs in the developing world.
This does not mean that we automatically terminate assistance to the countries that do not have spotless records. We do not expect miracles. We do look for trends that indicate improving or worsening human rights situations.
It is true that in some cases assistance may be reduced or denied where systematic gross or continuous violations of human rights occur.
We do not think it wise or fair to punish the victims of oppression doubly by withholding much needed development assistance. Instead we look for the best means of delivering our aid to the people who really need it.

Supply
In many cases that means channelling our aid through non-governmental organizations or community and grassroots organizations, through the very groups that work with the poor, the disadvantaged and often with those bearing the full brunt of human rights abuses.
We work through them because very often they are in the best position to ensure that our aid reaches those in need. I could refer to the example just five years ago where, with the toppling of the Marcos regime in the Philippines, there was a re-evaluation of our aid program which up to that point had been delivered by non-governmental organizations. I will have something to say about that shortly.
This seems to me to be a far more reasoned and, I would argue, far more compassionate response. To cut off all aid without looking for alternative means of reaching the poor seems to me to be ill considered, counterproductive and harmful.
There are many ways to reflect this concern for human rights and democracy in our aid program. For example, personnel within the Canadian International Development Agency are trained on human rights issues. Our government has established the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development headed by the Hon. Edward Broadbent to support research and provide guidance on this issue.
Canada has always been a forceful advocate of human rights in the international arena, in the UN, as well as within the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. Canada is continuing to move forward on the issue. We are refining our policy and exploring new avenues that broaden our conception of human rights to encompass the notion of democratic development. We are doing this because we recognize that development, democracy and human rights are closely linked and interdependent.
Development does not depend simply on economic and technical co-operation. It ultimately depends as well on economic and political pluralism, on grassroots participation. In a word it depends on democracy.
Democratic systems with their emphasis on free and open participation in the political and economic life of society and their respect for human rights are clearly best suited to creating an environment where human potential can be developed and put to full and productive
use. For that reason CIDA is continuing to develop its thinking and activities on the theme of democratization and human rights.
Although CIDA's policy essentially remains that defined in the releases Sharing Our Future and To Benefit a Better World, the mechanisms for its implementation are rapidly changing. This enables Canada to maintain its position as a leader in defending human rights and democratic development.
We must show imagination. We must do much more to encourage and help our partners gradually to lay the foundations for a truly democratic society: elements such as an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, opinion and association, the establishment of the rule of law, a multi-party system and so on.
Even so lasting democracy cannot simply be built on a legal or institutional framework. For democracy to flourish and prosper many other elements are needed including a pluralistic and participatory society where a wide variety of organizations, institutions and enterprises are all free to express their views and pursue their interests. There must be a democratic culture that accepts compromise, the free exchange of ideas and the peaceful settlement of political competition.
There must be good governance because the legitimacy of a democratic process depends to a large extent on fair, open, competent and honest public administration.
Finally there must be progress toward economic and social development so that citizens have the means and ability to participate in the civic and political life of their societies.
There is a whole range of constructive activities that can be undertaken to build the foundations for democracy around the world. Let me now turn to some of those activities. Some are very direct, for example providing assistance to electoral processes. In the past two years Canada has been involved in electoral competitions in Namibia, Nicaragua, Benin and Malaysia.
Our association and assistance have taken many forms ranging from the provision of ballot boxes, paper and ink, to providing training for polling officers, electoral observers, jurists and legislators. In the case of Namibia, we sent election observers as well as 100 RCMP officers to
October 22, 1991

help ensure stability during that country's difficult transition to democracy.
Strengthening the institutions of government or international organizations is also important. As I have noted, we have created here in Canada the International Institution for Human Rights and Democratic Development as a new mechanism to further promote human rights and democratic concerns. We have carried this institution strengthening over into the international arena where we have put forward a number of proposals that would build respect for human rights and democracy right into the framework of a number of multilateral institutions.
For example, the Prime Minister recently announced that at the coming November summit of La Francopho-nie, he intended to propose the creation of a secretariat to support democratization within that organization's Agence de co-operation culturelle et technique. Canada has also suggested that a human rights information unit be established within La Francophonie. Similar initiatives are also planned for the Commonwealth and the Organization of American States has adopted Canada's proposal to create a unit for democratic development within its secretariat.
Within our aid program we have made decisions on aid funding that directly reflect our commitment to support the democratic and social stability that makes democracy possible. For example, Canada decided in 1986 to establish a major bilateral program in the Philippines in support of President Aquino's re-establishment of a democratic government in that country. In this case the program was subsequently developed very specifically to include two major components, one focusing on community development and the balance directed to broader economic support for central government needs. Our increased support is a clear sign of our commitment to help the people and the Government of the Philippines as they promote democratic development.
I had the great good fortune to have had a hand in this operation. In May 1986 I led on behalf of the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was governor of the Asian Development Bank, our delegation to the annual meeting of that bank. Shortly after I agreed to do so, there was the election of February 1986 in
Supply
which the Marcos regime was defeated and President Aquino succeeded in part through people power. I was asked then by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister for External Relations to extend my visit in the Philippines and visit the areas where our aid was being delivered by non-governmental organizations, the Asissi Foundation and many others.
I spent 10 days travelling the country, visiting Cebu and Negros provinces and had an opportunity to meet not only government leaders, who were the fresh new leaders of democracy, such as Governor Daniel Lacson of Negros Occidental, but also church leaders, community development leaders and co-operative leaders.
Because the co-operative movement in the Philippines is doing very well and is very strong, the Bayawan Fisheries Co-operative in Negros Oriental is succeeding largely due to our efforts. Not only was there economic success but there was also success leading towards democratization and freedom of economic action.
While I am on the topic, I should also mention the great value of mission administered funds which are available at the discretion of our local ambassador. The example that I saw was the remarkable infusion of a very small number of dollars into a convenience store on the edge of Smokey Mountain.
Now Madam Speaker perhaps you have visited Smokey Mountain. It is a heap of garbage as tall as Parliament Hill. There are approximately 6,000 to 10,000 individuals living off that heap of garbage, ferreting around for valuables that can be sold and in some cases searching for discarded food.
Those people are the poorest of the poor in the Philippines. What happened there was that those living in that area had no store to go to not even a convenience store or any grocery store nearby. The nearest one was two or three miles away and it was run by the loan sharks. These poor people were in hock to the loan sharks.
What happened was that our mission administered fund under the direction of our then ambassador, Hon. Russ Davidson, offered something in the way of $150 Canadian in terms of capital to capitalize a convenience store on the edge of Smokey Mountain. That freed not only the people from the loan sharks but freed up a

October 22, 1991
Supply
beginning of a market economy for those very poor people.
I had an opportunity to see some follow-up to the five-point program which I was able to recommend to President Aquino and our government. I saw it consummated when I met the other day with Mr. Robert Dowling, a resident of Alberta and a former minister of tourism in the Alberta provincial government. He was on his way under the auspices of CESO, the Canadian Executive Service Overseas to Negros Occidental to advise Governor Lacson and the government of that province on developing a tourism industry in what is a very, very desirable tourist destination.
You see that our aid projects and programs themselves contribute in a very fundamental way to building the foundations of democracy throughout the developing world.
For example, the programs we support in the field of human resource development are essential parts of our strategy to support human rights and democratic development. Literacy and education are basic to forming the human capabilities that are most crucial to democratic life.
Human resource development, as the sponsor of today's debate knows, is a priority of side's work and programs like these account for a significant portion of Canada's development co-operation. Moreover women in development, another priority of side's work, makes a crucial contribution in this area. The programs Canada supports here help women throughout the Third World develop the personal capacity and the collective means to participate in the economic and political life of their societies.
CIDA has had a women in development policy since 1984. All of its bilateral projects must be evaluated for their impact on women. It also supports a wide range of projects that are especially designed to benefit women whether by providing them with credit to establish private enterprises or through support for groups that defend the most basic rights of women.
For example, we provide support to the Asia-Pacific Forum on Women and the Forum on Women, Law and Development, which is working to promote greater respect for women's rights.
Support for NGOs and community development organizations is also fundamental. Here again Canada is a leader, challenging a larger share of its aid through NGOs than any other major aid agency. NGOs connect individuals to the political process and are often in the front lines in defending citizens against abusive governments.
Just as importantly they serve as schools for democracy, teaching their members the value of free expression, compromise and civic life, all crucial qualities that can be carried over into the wider political arena.
In short they build the foundations for a culture of democracy that allows free and open systems to take root and flourish. Often NGO programming makes a very direct contribution to democratization. CIDA's program in the Philippines is a very good example. The government of that country has made it clear that it views NGOs as an important force for development and for democracy. I think one of the reasons for that is that President Aquino herself had a background in working for NGOs. Its mid-term development plan for 1987 to 1992 set out a policy for what it called "people powered development" which encouraged NGOs to promote the welfare of the nation.
CIDA has responded with a number of programs to help NGOs and co-operatives that are involved in poverty alleviation and community development. One of the goals of this programming has been to reinforce the capabilities of NGOs to influence the Philippine government policy on poverty alleviation issues, as well as providing them with direct input into the planning and orientation of the CIDA program.
Similarly Canadian NGOs are veiy active in the community level throughout Indonesia where they are playing an important role in empowering people to take charge of their lives.
Clearly there are a lot of positive things that the aid program can do to promote democracy, but if we are to encourage greater respect for human rights and democracy we need judgment, patience and understanding. That is why we have opted for a constructive rather than a punitive approach to human rights. We need these qualities because democracies and respect for human rights are not created overnight nor is the path to democracy direct, continuous and free of trouble. We must exercise careful judgment in responding to tenta-
October 22, 1991

tive initiatives or setbacks for democracy. To act hastily and terminate aid may simply nip democracy in the bud.
We must recognize that many factors go into creating and nurturing democracy. If development is essential for democracy, and I believe it is, then we must expect that the state of democracy throughout the developing world will to some extent reflect the differing levels of social and economic progress.
If we do not take these factors into account we may end up punishing the poor and therefore less open countries in favour of the wealthier nations. This in effect would amount to punishing those who are already the worst off.
Moreover we must always remember that our system of democracy is not perfect and may not be suitable for every society. Our democracies are not perfect nor are they the final immutable product of all human striving. We must therefore be prepared to accept that other countries will adopt other systems of democratic rule that reflect very much their own history and culture. We cannot impose carbon copies of our systems on to other societies.
It will require patience, understanding and careful nurturing if democracy is to take root throughout the world. Nonetheless I believe that however bleak the situation is in many countries the prospects for democracy have never been better. A vast wave of democracy is surging around the world sweeping aside decades old military regimes and one-party states. In its wake are a host of fledgling democracies and literally thousands of popular organizations that together give expression to a collective desire for greater freedom and self-reliance.
Canada is supporting that movement, but we are not doing it through empty gestures or moralistic and indulgent rhetoric. We are supporting democracy and human rights through a balanced and pragmatic mix of programs, policies and diplomacy. Our approach places a premium on helping those who need help the most. It is a positive and a practical approach and in an imperfect world the one that works best of all.
Years from now the 1990s may well be recorded by future historians as the decade of democratization. We can help in this process but only by making hard choices and difficult decisions. Our government is making those decisions. I believe that if Canada continues along its
Supply
present course, future generations of Canadians will be able to look back with pride on the record of this government and this country and our collective contribution to human rights and democracy.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate and I have followed the Prime Minister's remarks, particularly those made in the context of the Commonwealth.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister took the opportunity to discuss human rights on a broader basis rather than just simply linking it to development with other members of the Commonwealth, particularly with countries like India where there is a widespread abuse of human rights in the Punjab.
Amnesty International has said in a report that serious human rights violations in the Punjab have persisted under three governments. They have set the stage for the widespread abuse by passing the grossly unfair 1987 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act and letting extreme violations like torture and killings go unpunished. Suspected government opponents are routinely tortured in police stations and detention centres. Hundreds of Sikhs are killed in fake shoot-outs staged by police called "encounters". Well over 10,000 Sikhs are being held in the state without any chance of getting a trial under laws which members of the UN Human Rights Committee recently called disturbing and completely unacceptable.
Amnesty International said people are often picked up by police, tortured or disappear on the slightest suspicion that they have ties with the armed Sikh secessionist groups.
The New Democratic Party and I condemn this type of abuse of human rights in the Punjab. We are wondering whether the Prime Minister raised it with the Prime Minister of India at the Commonwealth Conference. I note that the Prime Minister of India was the first member of the Commonwealth to dissociate himself with the linkage of aid and human rights when the Prime Minister raised it.
I would like to ask the member if he feels that the appropriate venue, as I feel it is, for the Prime Minister to raise these matters is the Commonwealth. Does he

October 22, 1991
Supply
not feel that he should have spoken out on all types of violations of human rights, not just linking it to aid?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It is a pertinent question since the Prime Minister has just returned from the Commonwealth Conference.
I do not believe that the Prime Minister confined his observations on human rights to the linkage with aid, nor has he historically over the past seven years. One will find when one examines this country's record in its dealings with South Africa, for example, that it is a very rigorous approach. It has been a graduated approach and only with the movement toward democratization that has occurred recently in South Africa has consideration been given by Commonwealth members, with a great deal of leadership from Canada, to the relaxation of some of the so-called people sanctions.
There are 25 countries in the Commonwealth that have declined to subscribe to a code of human rights behaviour. I do not know if India is one of those.
I listened with care to the comments the hon. member made about the situation in Punjab. I am aware of a number of the situations he describes.
I am afraid I do not know whether the Prime Minister in his bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of India did discuss these instances, but I will undertake to relay the hon. member's question to the Prime Minister. It may be a question he may wish to put to the Prime Minister on some occasion.
I believe that the Prime Minister sincerely and very profoundly has human rights as a personal cause and that he does not see it within the narrow confines, although the very important confines, of linkage to aid.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the member opposite and his speech on aid and trade.
Recently the Prime Minister announced a review of all international support programs to ensure that they meet the aid criteria. It is still unclear to us on this side of the House what exactly the policy of the government is with respect to the linkage question. We in opposition, in fact all Canadians, have been asking for clarification on this point.
At a recent symposium here in Ottawa, NGOs put forth recommendations for a clearly defined criteria in determining aid and trade linkage issues. In other words, coherency. They agreed that there should be transparency in the development of foreign policies so that all Canadians could have input and that the government could be held accountable for its decisions.
I think we are curious, for instance, as to why Canada treats Myanmar, China and Indonesia one way and South Africa and Haiti in another. Those at the symposium expressed repeated frustration over the lack of consistency and transparency with the government in terms of the foreign policy development. They would like the government to live up to its own rhetoric on its behalf. If there is going to be a policy, it has to make sure that the policy is even right across the board.
These NGOs suggested strongly that the government take a holistic approach to its own foreign policy to involve in the process the NGOs.
I know the previous speaker mentioned that there was a good relationship between the NGOs and the government, as well as church organizations and human rights groups. These people wish to be involved and in fact do not believe that they are presently involved to an adequate extent.
They say consultation, consistency and conviction has got to be more prevalent with regard to the government's approach. I guess I would like the previous speaker to respond to whether Canada is isolating itself from some countries as opposed to others, or are we being more free with our policies with some countries? I have mentioned a couple of them with regard to high economic growth.
Take a country like Haiti where we do not seem to be dealing economically. I am wondering if he could comment with regard to the government's appropriate action and a rational approach to developing a foreign policy.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions of the hon. member opposite.
With regard to coherency, transparency and input from NGOs into our aid policy, I do not think there are any countries that have a better relationship between their aid policy and the formulators thereof under non-governmental organizations.
October 22, 1991

There may be times when the input is not followed to the letter, but consultation is constant. It is thorough and cordial, and it will continue that way.
The hon. member referred to Myanmar and Indonesia as two examples by implication where Canadian aid is continuing in the face of repressive regimes. There is no doubt that the regime in Myanmar is repressive.
Perhaps the hon. member did not hear the Prime Minister's response in Question Period yesterday when he confirmed that the Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation program in Myanmar has been terminated for the veiy reason of the human rights abuses in that country.
In addition, I did refer in my speech to Indonesia and a number of programs whose purpose is in power and that in itself is, I think, salutary. Indonesia is not nearly as repressive a regime as Myanmar, God forbid. It is not a pluralist party state and the military is intimately involved in the administration of the government.
With reference to Haiti, I believe if the hon. member checks she will find that there are a number of NGO funded programs aided by CIDA within Haiti. A number of them are properly targeted.
I take her point about a holistic approach and I believe that that is exactly the kind of approach that is being followed.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, the motion proposed by our colleague from the New Democratic Party would have Canada terminate immediately its assistance to some countries which are listed in the resolution.
I have a copy only of a draft resolution in front of me and I think that draft perhaps indicates the difficulty in this type of approach to foreign aid and trade. More specifically, the listing that was proposed by our colleagues from the New Democratic Party have been changed.
They cited among the other countries Gabon as a violator of human rights. Then Gabon was crossed out and Zaire was added. I do not offer that comment facetiously but rather as an indication of the difficulties in determining what I think is a misdirected exercise those countries which by some criterion are less than
Supply
admirable practitioners of human rights and those which are not. I suppose all of us could be tempted to identify from our own particular points of view those countries that we think are violators and those countries that are not, but it always seems to me that in this sort of discussion that our energies would be better directed in two ways. One would be to attempt to promote the international criterion widely accepted, globally accepted if that were possible, but widely accepted criteria for human rights. Then you have a measure, then you have something that you can say: "Well, Indonesia and Iran do not measure up, but some other countries do".
The second thing that I think the energy should be directed toward in this sort of exercise is to ask ourselves this, and I say this quite seriously to our colleague in the New Democratic Party. Our international institutions are based essentially on a 19th century idea of the sovereignty of nation states. The United Nations is founded on the principle that the collectivity of the United Nations cannot intervene in the sovereign affairs of a nation state.
Yet, the sources of conflict today are increasingly at the sub-national level. They are within nations rather than between nations.
To what extent are we reshaping, modifying and improving our international institutions, and I speak not only of the United Nations family, but of a variety, a galaxy of international institutions. To what degree are we asking ourselves how those institutions can be improved so as to deal more effectively with sub-national disputes and by implication to deal with the questions of human rights, because almost invariably ethnic divisions within a nation state, or what I have called sub-national disputes, involve human rights problems?
I would urge my friends from the New Democratic Party, when they are considering this sort of an initiative, to ask themselves whether their time and energy would not be better directed to considering how Canada could contribute to a strengthening on the one hand of international criteria of what constitutes human rights, and on the other hand, to consider how our international institutions might be improved so as to enable them to deal more effectively with that growing source of inter-

October 22, 1991
Supply
national dispute, that is the ethnic and sub-national difficulties that we see in many countries of the world.
The second part of this resolution before us today urges the government to discontinue immediately Canadian participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade negotiations in light of documented violations of human rights in Mexico.
Let us leave aside the question of what degree there are violations of human rights in Mexico, but let us think for a moment about the broader question. Is it likely that Canada will be able to contribute to the improvement of human rights in countries which, in our view, may violate human rights by terminating aid and trade with them? Do we think that is an effective sanction against their practices? Does history suggest-most recently I suppose in the case of Iraq and the gulf war-that economic sanctions of the sort envisaged here are the most effective way to bring about internal change in a country and to enhance the human rights in that country?
I think you will be able to infer that I have some real misgivings about this approach to our international relations.
I do not deny for a moment, and I cede to no one in my wish to see the evaluation of human rights be a feature of international relations, but whether those human rights are advanced by terminating aid and, as this resolutions says, terminating immediately Canadian participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade negotiations, it seems to me an entirely different question.
Let me deal for a few minutes with the question of the negotiations with the United States and Mexico with a North American free trade area. In calling for the immediate termination of the negotiations, it strikes me that the New Democratic Party is once again setting itself on a course of protectionism. It is setting itself on that familiar and timid course of trade policy which is to attempt to develop autarky in Canada presumably and eschew the opportunities to develop greater trade relations elsewhere in the world.
Certainly for our part on this side of the House we seek to give further substance to Canada's long-standing commitment to freer trade, and I mean that in a broad, global sense, and to deny the sort of protectionism that
seems to me implicit in the resolution that is before us today.
My party on this side of the House has urged co-operation among labour, business and government in Canada as a means of achieving a united front in the face of global competitive challenges. I have to regret that the government of the day does not seem capable of making any progress in bringing forward its ideas on how to enhance Canada's international competitiveness but, leaving that aside, in promoting our interests in multilateral free trade we have argued on this side of the House that the factors extending beyond the more traditional definitions of trade policy, such as environmental protection, labour standards and human rights concerns should also receive recognition.
We have certainly emphasized that continuing consultations with Parliament and with the people of Canada have to be prominent features of trade policy, again a commitment that this government seems incapable of giving substance to.
The talks involving Canada, Mexico and the United States were in effect triggered by the United States and Mexico. They were not a Canadian priority. By no stretch of the imagination could they be seen as a Canadian priority, but certainly once the two other countries in North America had embarked upon such discussions, it would have been impracticable for Canada to stay out of those negotiations.
The question however remains of how the government of the day has chosen to commit itself to those discussions. I deplore that in entering the negotiations the government has at no time set forward in a clear and cogent manner the reasons why it followed the U.S. initiative, the Mexican initiative, to attempt to create a North American Free Trade Agreement.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade-its distinguished chairman is with us today and I say this is an all-party report-noted and I quote: "We were frankly amazed by the lack of detailed economic analysis of the cost and benefits of a North American free trade area".
Exactly so, we have not had from the government any clear indication of what it is that it is pursuing in the negotiations, what Canadian goals it is trying to achieve, what Canadian values it is attempting to express in those negotiations. Myriad questions remain unanswered
October 22, 1991

about the trade negotiations with Mexico and the United States.
Has the government embarked upon the talks with the goal of enhancing Canadian export opportunities in a growing market? Is that a quite clearly defined goal, the principal goal or the only goal? Is the government attempting to, on the other hand, multilateralize Canada's bilateral trading relationship with the United States? Does it see the continental relationship which it helped to create as rather restrictive and now embraces the Mexico opportunity to, as I said, multilateralize Canada's bilateral trading relationship with the United States?
Did the government, when it announced its intention to participate, regard the possible formation of a North American free trade area as an insurance against a possible failure of the Uruguay round of the GATT? That is something we should know in a few weeks time.
Did it base itself on a more negative or at least the passive belief that Canada, having entered into a free trade agreement with the United States, had no choice but to participate? I think the answer is probably yes. That remains the government's basic position.
At the negotiating table have we embarked upon policy initiatives to attempt to protect our vested interests in the existing Canada-U.S. trade agreement, or does the government see this negotiation with Mexico as an opportunity to reopen some of the issues which have been a matter of concern and debate within our country?
Specifically on the question of subsidies, does the government see the Mexican talks as offering an opportunity to ensure not only guaranteed access to the U.S. and Mexican markets but a commitment from both those governments to limit, reduce or eliminate subsidies, an area which has not yet been tackled in the bilateral agreement with the United States?
The government's failure, it seems to me, to articulate its position clearly in these talks has contributed to the sort of resolution that we get today which, as I suggested earlier, seems to me to be an example of muddled thinking but one which, at the least, can be justified to some degree by the fact that the government has never
Supply
been clear on what exactly it is attempting to do within the proposed trilateral agreement.
At the same time that the government has failed to offer Canadians a clear explanation of its policy initiative. We have not had any indication from the government that it is prepared to undertake the adjustment assistance which is a necessary corollary of both the bilateral free trade agreement with the United States and the proposed trilateral agreement involving Mexico.
Any comprehensive adjustment assistance program for Canadians who are affected by these two trade agreements should, in my view, recognize the uneven impact on Canadians of moving toward freer trade.
I would cede to no one in my advocacy of multilateral free trade. I doubt very much that the government has fulfilled any of the requirements with regard to adjustment assistance that would make such an opening an effective opportunity for all Canadians.
Let me say that on our part, our approach to the Mexican talks has been predicated on a number of principles. We would seek, if we were directly involved in the negotiations ourselves, the following points.
We think that the agreement should be a truly comprehensive trilateral agreement which would both further multilateralize our trading relations and mitigate, to put it at its least, the unsatisfactory bilateral nature of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
Second would be the negotiation of trilateral provisions so as to ensure that Canada is not asked to cede more than Mexico is prepared to contemplate.
Third would be an agreement which could be extended to Canada's trading partners elsewhere in the western hemisphere and potentially to Europe and to the Pacific region.
Fourth, we believe that an essential part of any approach to liberalized trade must be a comprehensive adjustment program for Canadian labour and for Canadian industry to be undertaken prior to the conclusion of the agreement.
Fifth, we would seek commitment from the government to uphold Canada's social, cultural, and regional development programs and an explicit statement of Canada's minimal position prior to the upcoming subsidies negotiations.

Supply
Sixth and finally, we would look for provisions in a trilateral agreement for the protection of environmental and social standards including labour.
That represents our approach to the current Mexico-Canada-U.S. trade talks, but I want to turn to a moment in conclusion to a somewhat wider issue concerning how we trade with the world, an opportunity that I want to develop a little as a result of the initiative taken today by the New Democratic Party.
Members of the House will remember that my party opposed the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988, not simply because of flaws in the agreement itself-and there were certainly a number of those-but more fundamentally because of the threat such a bilateral agreement can pose to Canadian independence. By entering into a bilateral free trade agreement with the Unites States to the relative exclusion of the rest of the world, Canada in our view would become further dependent on the U.S. market while diminishing its historic counterbalances overseas.
This, in short, was the road to continentalism and away from internationalism, a road which in my view a strong, independent Canada travelled at its peril.
The central question is how Canada can reduce its dependency on the United States within the context of the existing bilateral free trade agreement. Is there a way for Canada to avoid on the one hand continentalism and on the other a retrograde slide into protectionism as represented as I said just a moment ago by the approach adopted by the New Democratic Party?
What we have suggested is that the most effective and certainly the boldest way of achieving such a goal is to continue to expand Canada's open trading relations beyond the United States and beyond the continent. That is to say Canada should seek to become the first truly global outward oriented trading economy in North America.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague- from Etobicoke North and his comments with respect to this opposition motion by the New Democratic Party and the points he made
I might add that I am also a little confused by this New Democratic statement today. One would wonder why it would not have included in its list of countries that have violated human rights a country that should stand foremost in our minds today: Iraq.
The hon. member who posed this motion missed Iraq and Romania with the dictatorial regimes that they once had. You would think they would come at the top of the list because all of us in this Chamber and around the world did not have any difficulty noticing what those individual leaders and regimes did to the very fragile part of the economy and ecology of those countries, as well as what they did to human dignity.
The same member who proposed this motion recently asked that special consideration be given to Iraq and yet by this motion supports the Prime Minister in opposing aid to any country that has great human rights violations. If that is not the greatest contradiction of policy that I have heard in the last little while, it really poses some very difficult questions for me to understand what the point of view is of the New Democratic Party.
I will not comment on the fact that I cannot ask a question directly of the member, but to the previous speaker who had some difficulty with it. Regarding tremendous violations, and one that we are so familiar with which happened so recently, does he believe that we should not rethink the situation as we have done with South Africa because of a human rights violations and the lack of democracy?
There are a lot of other countries listed here that clearly have dictatorial regimes, very evidently very hard on any individuals who oppose them. Should this government or other governments not consider some aid sanctions under those circumstances? Would he not agree that unless some very severe situations should turn around in those countries and regimes we should demonstrate publicly, openly and in this House some restrictions of aid? I did not say total trade, but I talked about aid. I would like him to comment on that.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, my colleague from the government side of the House has asked, as it were, for a comment on the policies of the New Democratic Party. I would only say to him that they are like the peace of God: they passeth all understanding.
October 22, 1991

On the substance of his question as to whether there are instances where Canada should pursue unilateral economic sanctions, there may be. I would hope that in every instance before contemplating such a step we would consult with our friends in the OECD and in the United Nations on such matters and attempt to evolve, as we did successfully in the case of Iraq, a system of economic sanctions that might, if given more time, have been more effective. That question is somewhat academic now.
It does not undermine the fact that the consultations and co-operative effort are, I think, a better way to go in almost any instance than to pursue a wholly unilateral approach. I think one gets into this terribly difficult question of arbitrarily deciding who is good and who is bad, who is reprehensible and who is to be rewarded. I think that sort of approach is more effective if it is carried out on a multilateral basis.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask the hon. member for Etobicoke North some questions about his comments on trade policy generally. He used his intervention in this debate to discuss some of the issues on trade and particularly his attitude toward a free trade agreement with Mexico.
I take it, and I hope I am correct in this, that he is the spokesperson for his party on issues of international trade and therefore his comments on the issue of the free trade agreement and discussions with Mexico are an authoritative statement of his party's position. I just want to be sure that I understood the general drift of his remarks.
As I understood it, he sees no problem whatever with Canada entering into a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, but what he had instead were some-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


John F. Brewin: We hear the other wing of the Liberal Party apparently objecting to this characterization of things. I will rely on the member for Etobicoke North to explain himself rather than his erstwhile friends to my far right.
Supply
As I understood his position, he essentially agrees in principle, if I may put it that way, with a free trade agreement.
He would have us participate in the discussions. His concerns are rather that the government is, if I can put it in the vernacular, screwing up the idea rather than with the idea in itself. I think I should explain to him that our party's position is very clear and unequivocal. We do not favour a free trade agreement with Mexico and we are strongly opposed to participation in those negotiations.
I would like to hear him just clearly put on record so there can be no misunderstanding his party's position with respect to the free trade agreement discussions with Mexico.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, I would refer the hon. member for Victoria to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade dated December 12,1990 where the position of the Official Opposition is set forward quite clearly and in some detail.
My hon. friend spoke about my erstwhile friends to the right. They are not erstwhile friends. I am proud to say they are present friends and they will be future friends, so I would not accept for a moment that they are erstwhile.
Indeed, I would also recommend to the hon. member for Victoria who seems to take an interest in these matters that on this complex question we eschew the simplistic and protectionist approach of the New Democratic Party. It is in no way our policy to attempt to circle the wagons and not equip Canada to compete effectively with the challenges of a global marketplace.
If the hon. member does not know, then I think he should know that the very same questions which are being posed to Canadians by the negotiations with Mexico and indeed to a substantial degree by the agreement with the United States, flawed though I think it is, are the same questions in essence that will be posed to Canadians in the years ahead by the growing economies of Asia, by the resurgence of Europe 1992.
These are the same questions of how Canadians compete. How can they compete better? How can they equip themselves to compete? These are questions which lamentably this government has not addressed. It

October 22, 1991
Supply
has not addressed them. It is a signal failure of their whole approach to free trade with the United States and now negotiations with Mexico, but which for my part, our party is committed to.
When we form the next government, I can assure the hon. member for Victoria that we shall commit ourselves to a program of assistance which will ensure that every Canadian benefits equitably and fully from the advantages of a freer global trading economy.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the motion tabled in the House this morning by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, a motion that to my mind needs considerable clarification.
I would like to start by extending my warmest congratulations to the Prime Minister on his vigorous and impressive statement on human rights during the recent Commonwealth Conference of heads of government held in' Harare. It was a splendid opportunity to announce Canada's carefully considered position on human rights issues and their impact on the process of determining Canadian channels and levels of assistance.
First of all, issues as important as human rights cannot and must not be avoided just because they are delicate matters and may lead to disagreement between governments.
Second, the profound and sustained commitment of our fellow Canadians to respect for these fundamental rights was reflected in the past few days, more clearly than ever before, in the past few days in the various media that shape and reflect public opinion. This positive reaction to the Canadian government's initiative makes it incumbent upon us to persevere in our efforts to improve our record, to strengthen our commitment and to intensify our dialogue. We have learned, from history and experience, that the advancement of respect for human rights and establishing democratic institutions based on participation by the people went hand in hand with economic development. We are also aware that in many countries, the tradition of respect for the law is a fragile one.
However, that is where we must start, either to discourage corruption, to ensure a harmonious change of government, to safeguard the yield on production and investment, or for a host of other reasons.
It was the fragile nature of respect for these fundamental rights that inspired the government to found the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, located in Montreal. The purpose of this centre is to foster a broader understanding for the need for reforms that make respect for human rights an integral part of the day-to-day concerns of societies, their institutions or agencies and their respective governments.
It is not an easy task. We have seen a tendency among certain countries to co-operate with their neighbours in hiding from the international community the extent of human rights violations committed in their respective territories. However, such strategies, used by countries who vote as a block to cover up the real situation, are doomed.
Canada will continue to use its influence on a bilateral level and join countries that uphold the same principles, in order to exert pressure that will not be limited to mere reprimands of a moral nature.
Nevertheless, we are glad to see that national and international institutions have created a number of mechanisms that embody our respect for human rights. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, much remains to be done because we must improve these mechanisms and define new kinds of rights.
We must be aware of the various dimensions of human rights and today's and tomorrow's imperatives, because world peace and security are based on respect for these rights, and economic and social development will not be viable without that respect.
For instance, in many societies, women have traditionally been disadvantaged. That is why the defence of women's rights has always been an urgent priority for Canada. Our country is generally recognized in the international community as a leader in this important field. Thus integrating women in development is a priority of the Canadian official development assistance strategy.
October 22, 1991

On another level, Canada was one of the first donor countries to be concerned about the fate of the most vulnerable groups in the application of structural adjustment policies by developing countries.
CIDA is now busy working with its partners in developing countries on economic reform and structural adjustment policies that will considerably improve rather than worsen the condition of the weakest social groups, especially women and children.
This work is even more important since the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We know the leading role that Canada played at the World Summit for Children in New York last year, under the co-chairmanship of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Our country is an ardent defender of children in the international community.
We committed about $350 million through CIDA last year to initiatives that directly or indirectly benefit children in developing countries, in such fields as health, education, the environment, improving the role of women in development or in other key areas like food aid or AIDS prevention.
Support for child vaccination programs is a large part of Canada's aid for health in developing countries. You will recall that in 1985, the Prime Minister of Canada launched the first phase of the Canadian international immunization program. Nineteen national organizations and six international agencies took part in it.
Under this program, Canada committed a total of $43 million over five years. This international effort helped save the lives of over 8 million children in the world. We recently began the second phase of this worldwide immunization program which will extend vaccination coverage for the most dangerous childhood diseases. These major commitments will contribute significantly to the improvement of opportunity and living conditions for the world's children. Is the right to life, Madam Speaker, not the first human right?
In these times of profound and rapid changes, in this world where peoples freed from the colonial yoke found their most legitimate aspirations reflected in the precepts of the United Nations Charter, we must think
Supply
collectively on what must be done to prevent a setback in hopes for progress in respect for human dignity.
In 1987, when we published the Canadian official development assistance strategy in Sharing Our Future, the Government of Canada undertook to tie its international development policies to respect for human rights. We set up a system on which to base our assessments and judgments. These appraisals are essential because every situation is difficult and comparisons are quite misleading.
In countries where human rights are systematically violated and where there is no guarantee that Canadian aid reaches its destination, the channels and levels of government-to-govemment assistance are reconsidered. Aid is then concentrated on our development partners who work directly at the grass roots, like non-governmental organizations that can transmit this aid directly to the poor in needy regions.
In the case of Zaire, Madam Speaker, mentioned in the motion by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, CIDA's aid program is targeted mainly at rural areas. It is delivered on the basis of partnership, thus meeting constraints and operational difficulties. Much of the cooperation program is now inoperative since many cooperants were evacuated from Kinshasa, Butembo and Goma.
Of the 71 Canadians, including dependants, in Zaire as part of the bilateral cooperation program, 61 were evacuated, Madam Speaker. The ten remaining provide a minimum essential service.
For the time being, we aim to provide the essential in emergency humanitarian assistance through the Red Cross or other religious or charitable organizations represented in Kinshasa.
It must be understood, Madam Speaker, that any money sent by CIDA never goes to the government itself. Only discussions are held between governments to establish the country's needs and the money is then paid to the agencies that do the work.
The people of Zaire, already among the poorest in the world, were hard hit by the events of September, which will lead to more misery with the destruction of many businesses and factories that provided employment and with the havoc in the food supply system.

October 22, 1991
Supply
Madam Speaker, withdrawing aid would amount to penalizing these disadvantaged groups twice for a political situation for which they are not responsible. Although it wishes to ensure that Canadian development aid does not contribute to the legitimacy of repressive regimes, the government must also ensure that victims of human rights violations are not doubly penalized by being deprived of the aid they need, in addition to being deprived of their most fundamental rights.
If a constructive instead of a punitive approach is taken to the issue of human rights, development assistance, if granted with discernment, can contribute very substantially not only to development but also to the cause of human rights. In fact, that is one of the points the Prime Minister made in his statement at the Commonwealth Conference.
Incidentally, Madam Speaker, perhaps I may remind honourable members that the next Sommet de la Franco-phonie will be held in Paris instead of Zaire, because Canada wanted to protest against the abuses committed by the present regime. In fact, at the Chaillot Summit, our Prime Minister intends to suggest setting up a unit for human rights and democracy within the Francophonie, whose mission would be to prepare elections, observe the electoral process and train staff. Five elections of this kind will take place next year, and Canada is determined to support the process.
Developing an appropriate Canadian response is the most difficult and delicate aspect of promoting human rights as part of our foreign policy. In our relations with other countries, we use the mechanisms at our disposal to encourage or persuade these countries to apply internationally accepted standards.
We must understand, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister, that our aid program complements other mechanisms used by the government to implement its foreign policy, such as the expression of criticism through multilateral agencies for the protection of human rights, and putting restrictions on official relations, trade and sales of military and other equipment.
Promoting human rights and democracy can be supported in a host of ways. CIDA is actively involved in developing ways to support this process through NGOs,
involved in education, health, technical assistance and other areas. We also support the activities of regional and multilateral agencies such as the Organization of American States, the Commonwealth and the Franco-phonie.
There are a variety of positive approaches and it is the duty of us all to support as best we can the worthy efforts of the grass-roots in developing countries. It is also our responsibility to support the government in its efforts to convince the international community to consolidate the economic development and human rights agendas. This way, not only do we promote justice, but at the same time we give human societies a greater chance of enjoying real economic and social development.
The Canadian foreign policy continues to be based upon the promotion and protection of human rights and basic freedoms. Both at the bilateral and multilateral level, Canada has worked very hard and with dedication to promote the implementation of international standards regarding these rights.
It was clear from the Prime Minister's statements in Harare that this government is firmly determined to see these factors fully integrated in Canadian foreign relations and that development assistance programs reaffirm human dignity.
Madam Speaker, I fully support this approach and, in closing, I would like to remind you that on December 1st we will be celebrating the 43d anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, and I quote:
Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments and I know of her deep concern for humanitarian aid, whether it is in our own country or internationally, and so I welcomed her comments. But she ended by referring to the remarks made by our Prime Minister in Harare. Of course, every time our Prime Minister speaks when he is out of the country he just adds to the confusion.
Canadians, especially the NGOs and the receiving countries, do not know where they stand as far as aid and trade with Canada.
October 22, 1991

I was pleased that yesterday the Prime Minister, in response to questions from the opposition, did at least clarify the difference between providing, as he called it, aid versus commercial transactions, aid giving and granting capacity of Canada in regard to the international community. That is what it is limited to. He tried to clarify his remarks by referring to aid versus commercial transactions and trade.
I would like to ask the member what her interpretation would be of the Prime Minister's remarks in regard to the plight of the children in Iraq.
Last week we had a delegation make representations to members of Parliament about the plight of the children in Iraq who had to be operated on literally in the streets during the war. They showed us videos of a child's hand being cut off, of other children being affected by the bombs and the shrapnel still in their bodies. Because of the sanctions, they do not have the hospital equipment, the bandages and the medicine to operate on these children. One hospital was shown as not having any windows. They cannot operate on these children because the dust will blow through the windows and there will be infection and these children will die.
There is an international appeal right now to help the children of Iraq. The Speaker received an invitation from a committee of the European Parliament to send a Canadian parliamentary delegation to see for ourselves what these children are facing and how we as Canadians can help.
Taking into account the Prime Minister's remarks when he was out of the country and yesterday during Question Period, what is her interpretation? Would her party be in full support to help the children of Iraq or, because of the human rights violations in Iraq, we would not help these children in Iraq?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, I would like to return the favour to the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, who is also very concerned by development and anything that goes on in this world.
Supply
His question concerning those children suffering in Irak touches me very deeply, as a mother and as a former teacher. One cannot be insensitive when one hears about children suffering in some part of the world. On the other hand, madam Speaker, if Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq wants to make amend, if he shows good faith-and we will soon know the outcome of the mission that went to Iraq-and if he does not continue to build an arsenal of nuclear, bacteriological and chemical weapons, I imagine that the countries of the world will show compassion and might lift the embargo if, in the first place, good will is shown on the part of Saddam Hussein.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, it is interesting. I think the House has indicated its support of the Prime Minister's statement in tying, aid, trade and human rights together.
This party is asking that it take concrete action so that it is not hollow rhetoric, that in fact it gives meaning to the government's program. That is what our resolution tried to do today. It lists a number of actions that would be supportable by many sides of the House.
It also points out that Mexico is a major violator of human rights. In addition to that, we are being asked by this government and the United States to join in a negotiation to a treaty in which Canadian sovereignty would be reduced in this treaty and which our standards for social programs, health care and labour rights would be reduced, and generally our economy would be reduced. We are being asked to join in this.
Our motion today asks that that negotiation be discontinued because of Mexico's human rights violations. More than 100 members of the opposition party have been killed; hundreds of trade unionists killed.
The Liberal Party today opted out of that and said: "No, we support that and we want to continue those negotiations".
Through you, Madam Speaker, may I ask the previous member if she supports that initiative of the Liberal Party to continue those negotiations with Mexico in light of the human rights violations there. Does she support the fact that the Liberal Party wants to continue those

October 22, 1991
Supply
negotiations in light of those human rights violations toward a Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to remind the hon. member for the New Democratic Party that the government's approach to human rights is intended to be positive and constructive, not punitive. Canadian aid must not aid and abet repressive regimes.
I happen to know that the New Democratic Party objected to free trade with the United States, and now that we are discussing free trade with Mexico, it is objecting again.
The hon. member claims that Canada's sovereignty will be diminished by free trade with Canada and Mexico. I don't think Canada's sovereignty is affected by the Free Trade Agreement.
Regarding the intent of our policies at External Affairs on human rights violations, the government has made it clear it does not want to be punitive. Madam Speaker, if we isolate ourselves and refuse to talk to other countries, how can we exert a positive influence and be able to change things?
I want to make it clear to my colleague in the New Democratic Party that I support the Free Trade Agreement with Canada, United States and Mexico, as I did when this extremely important issue was before the House. Today, Madam Speaker, the economies of our various countries are so intertwined that we suffer the consequences of a decision made halfway around the world.
Madam Speaker, it is important for Canadian businesses to have a big market, to be able to invest and to have access to markets that are much larger and more substantial that our own.
Today, our industries seem to be adjusting to the situation, and we will see that the agreement will be a very beneficial one for Canada. Personally, I was not aware there were human rights violations in Mexico or that they were as substantial as the hon. member claimed. I will be glad to check this, but I think that if we maintain economic ties, it is a way to be able subsequently to exert some kind of influence and be in a position to protect the people of these countries, since they suffer most as a result of these human rights violations.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I have to say just by way of opening that the hypocrisy of the government on this issue is absolutely breathtaking.
We have just listened to the minister go on with this long explanation about how devoted the government is to human rights in other countries and to progressive policies in official development assistance when this minister has presided over the persistent dismantling of the programs that this country has supported for years and years and years, the increasing commercialization for Canadian benefit of official development assistance and the complete ignoring of reports from this House of Commons committees on the issue of human rights development.
In 1987 the Standing Committee on External Affairs produced a report "For Whose Benefit". That was the name of the report. It recommended a human rights unit be established in the Policy Branch of CIDA to co-ordinate human rights policy with External Affairs, that CIDA develop an appropriate human rights country classifications system and that an annual ODA human rights review be tabled in Parliament.
What has happened over the last four years? Zilch. Nothing has happened. The minister has been completely negligent in the way in which he has responded to the report of the standing committee with respect to human rights.
She has presided equally over a change of programs to favour business; the merging of the Special Programs Branch with the Business Co-operations Branch, severe cutbacks of assistance and aid to reputable NGOs, non-governmental organizations such as CUSO, Crossroads and Canada World Youth.
The minister has no business standing up in this House and proclaiming the government's virtue with respect to human rights. This government has set this country's reputation back over the last eight years.
The Prime Minister said in his remarks in Harare that Canada will not subsidize repression and the stifling of freedom. He said: "We shall increasingly be channelling our development assistance to those countries which so respect the fundamental rights and freedoms". Yet in Mexico, 5 million to 10 million children under the age of 14 are working in Middle Ages conditions.
October 22, 1991

This government sits down at the table with that government and negotiates a free trade agreement, the result of which will be that Canadian workers will be asked to compete with those who are working under primitive working conditions with no rights whatsoever. The ultimate long-term effect will be to take from Canadian workers the rights that they presently enjoy. That will be the equalization effect of a free trade agreement with Mexico that is permitted to continue to violate the basic rights of human beings under the UN charter.
There is only one approach to trade agreements with Mexico and with other countries in the world. It is to say as a precondition there must be an agreement to have a social charter with that country ensuring that employment rights, human rights, environmental rights are maintained and developed in those countries to a standard that meets international standards, standards to which Canada can adhere. Only at that point can Canada consider free trade agreements with those countries. Only then will Canadian workers be protected from the impact of an attempt to compete with those who suffer as they do in Mexico.
The motion before the House calls on the House to take note of the Prime Minister's recent statements and calls on the government to discontinue immediately the current negotiations with Mexico and to review all international support programs to ensure they meet the eight criteria announced by the Prime Minister.
Any discussion of this motion has to begin with an analysis of the extent of the problem involving human rights violations around the world. First of all, it should be seen that generally there is a rise in violations around the world.
Second, eveiy country on the globe, including Canada, is guilty at one level or another of significant human rights violations. In our case, we see the condition on reserves across Canada and the treatment of our native people. We had the example even in this House a couple of weeks ago of a government driving through legislation forcing its employees back to work, counter to the provisions in my respectful submission of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which requires all Canadians to have equality and respect of the law, including, I submit, the law giving employees in Canada the right to free
Supply
collective bargaining and the right to strike, except in exceptional circumstances.
Third, it is necessary to note that problems with human rights violations do not simply involve people languishing in far-flung jails. The violations occur in a myriad of ways, and the violations of human rights that are occurring around the world are not merely the product of foreign feuds or tinpot dictators in local countries with which we have no connection. The reality is that we in the west are co-conspirators in the violation of human rights that is occurring increasingly in every comer of the globe. We export the means of repression and violation. Now the methodology of torture, as documented by Amnesty International, has taken on even more horrific tones in the latter part of this century.
There is documentation suggesting that the U.S. government, for example, has trained those who use the most modern methods of torture against their own citizens, torture which is becoming more deadly and more efficient.
The violations of human rights that are occurring around the globe are often generally in the interests of the countries of the west, including Canada, and we along with the United States, which has been particularly active and aggressive in this, have in fact encouraged regimes which are repressive, maintained regimes which are oppressive and actively supported them.
We have often given indirect assistance through our propping up of multinational corporations and our use of the products of multinational corporations, our integration in the international economic system, while we stand by and watch those same corporations locally sustain repressive regimes.
We see the expansion of the U.S. military all around the world. We see it from our part of the world particularly in the Pacific, and the dumping of toxic wastes in other countries, the use of other countries essentially as U.S. military bases.
Finally, we have supported consistently policies which bring Third World countries into environmental, economic and social degradation, all of which is as significant a violation of human rights as a violation of the individual right to security of person. The UN human rights charter itself has sustained the proposition that

Supply
social, economic and environmental rights are equally a matter of concern as are other human rights. Our government, as demonstrated by its persistent refusal to respond to every urging to change its policies in respect of development assistance, is a co-conspirator in the deprivation of human rights around the world. We see the practical effect on Canadians of these policies because as human rights sink around the world, as people are deprived of their employment rights, the rights to organize, the rights to bargain, the right to reasonable working conditions, the right to strike around the world, as these rights are deprived of people they put other countries in an intense competitive position vis-a-vis Canada.
How are we going to change it? First, we must change the international economic social environmental policies and structures. Second, we have to change Canadian official development assistance policies as outlined, for example, by Canadian churches in a submission today, as outlined in the resolution before the House and as outlined by the Standing Committee on External Affairs. We have to deal with the worst cases and those worst cases have been outlined: Iraq and Iran, China over Tibet, Indonesia over East Timor, Kenya and South Africa over its violations through the use of RENAMO in Mozambique. We have to support the agencies of the United Nations and the Commonwealth that are seeking to deal with human rights violations.
We must support Amnesty International and other similar organizations, and we must not participate in free trade negotiations with Mexico which will lead to the violation of rights of the people in those countries and the violation of rights of Canadians.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, once again I want to say what a positive thing it is that we have had this debate here today, but I want to go back to the member for Halifax about his comments this morning when we have to separate, and understand the difference between rhetoric and reality.
Earlier today I asked the member from Spadina, if he realized that about 70 per cent of our manufacturing jobs in this country were related to exports that involve countries that in some way, shape or form were involved in human rights violations, and the member for Spadina was quite direct. He would just say: "Listen, we would cut off all of those contracts".
Does the member for Victoria share that view? Everyone in this House is supportive of the fact that we develop plans and approaches to eliminate human rights violations. Even the New Democratic Party earlier today complimented the Prime Minister on his initiative of recent days. I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt that his words are absolutely sincere and he will back them up with action.
I want to ask the member what he will say to the Canadian Labour Congress, Premier Rae, Premier Har-court and Premier Romanow who are involved in the national economy of this country and who are concerned about jobs and agricultural exports. I just do not see it as black and white as the member for Spadina. I would like to hear what the member for Victoria says.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I, too, agree that of course it is not a matter of black and white. As I said in my speech, all countries including Canada violate human rights in one fashion or another and no one is perfect and no country is perfect.
It should be understood that there are choices that we make as a country. Our official development assistance for example is limited. We would like to see more of it, but it is limited and we are forced to make choices. For example, we had before the external affairs committee people from Mozambique who are pleading for money. The government just recently agreed to give $1 million extra aid, but that country needs far more if it is going to stand on its feet and it is going to survive and the people in that country are going to survive. We are providing assistance to South Africa, to Namibia, countries which have the potential for doing the right thing, programs which are very good.
With those potentials, why then is the government providing Export Development Corporation assistance to Mexico with the human rights record that it has? How come Petro-Canada is entering into agreements with Burma? How come Canada is giving a $500 million line of credit to Kuwait after the treatment that that country metes out to Palestinians? How come Canada is entering into agreements to provide military equipment to Saudi Arabia, given the record of that country in respect of the rights of women? How come Canada is giving $30 million of foreign aid to Kenya when Kenya is financing RENAMO in Mozambique? How come Canada is supporting Iran, Rwanda, China, Zaire, Indonesia? We have choices
October 22, 1991

and we should make those choices, as the Prime Minister says.
The Prime Minister was quite correct and the Prime Minister I am sure if he comes to the vote on this, if it should get to a vote, will have to vote in favour of this motion because this motion puts into words the sentiment that the Prime Minister offered in Harare. What we would like to see is the government put action behind the words of the Prime Minister in southern Africa.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Has the period for questions and comments elapsed?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There was only, as the hon. member knows, five minutes of questions and comments as the hon. member's colleagues are sharing their 20 minute period. There was only five minutes and that five minute period had expired, so we are resuming debate.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in this debate and perhaps attempt to move from the general that has exercised the attention of the House for some considerable time today and bring it down to one specific. Before doing so I would like to briefly review the terms of the motion which urges the House to "take note of the Prime Minister's recently stated commitment to the principle of linking government aid to respect for human rights" and then urges the government "to review immediately all international support programs to ensure that they meet the aid criteria as announced by the Prime Minister".
An excellent suggestion. The one instance I would like to offer where justice cries that this be done, one of many as my hon. colleague noted, but a very important one, is in the sad country of Burma, now subject to renaming by its despotic military rulers as Myanmar. Consistency demands that the fine words of the Prime Minister be matched with equitable actions by the government.
In this instance those equitable actions require that the government vote its 80.5 per cent share in Petro-Canada to compel the company to cease its commercial
Supply
activities in Burma. The reason for this is simple. The outlaw regime currently governing Burma has committed among the worst human rights atrocities to be found in that unhappy corner of the world and cannot any longer be permitted to escape the censure of enlightened world opinion.
This is not a debatable point. Amnesty International in its 1991 report notes and I quote: "More than 350 prisoners of conscience and possible prisoners of conscience were known to be among thousands of people believed held for political reasons. Many were detained without charge or trial but others were sentenced after unfair trials by military tribunals. Torture and ill treatment of prisoners were reportedly common".
The same report continues elsewhere: "By the end of 1990 the actual number of people held for political reasons was thought to be in the thousands".
This is to say nothing of the routine torture that some of those prisoners undergo.
It is, for example, for her brave resistance to the despotic regime that Madam Aung San Suu Kyi has been awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize for her, as the citation says, non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights within Burma against the military government now ruling.
The Canadian government, to its credit, acknowledges its concerns for human rights in Burma. The then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the right hon. member for Yellowhead, issued a news release on October 5, 1990 expressing the government's grave concern that members of the National League for Democracy continued to be detained by the interim government. That is a direct quote from his news release, which went on to call for the release of all political prisoners.
The Canadian government acknowledged the seriousness of the situation as well when it instructed the Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation, the international development arm of the Petro-Canada Crown corporation, to withdraw from its oil exploration assistance activities in Burma. This withdrawal took place even before at least some of the PCIAC activities

October 22, 1991
Supply
were taken over by CIDA after the February 1991 budget.
However, and this is the situation that compels me to speak today, Petro-Canada, which has been Canada's flagship energy company now subject to privatization and now being sold to private investors, is still active in Burma and the Canadian government is doing nothing about it.
Let me quote from the June 18, 1991 Petro-Canada prospectus. Page 19 states: "Since 1988 Petro-Canada has substantially increased its international exploration activities, particularly in areas such as Myanmar", that is Burma. "In Myanmar Petro-Canada operates one offshore block in which it has a 70 per cent interest and participates in another in which it has a 30 per cent interest. In 1990 more than 620 miles, which is to say
1,000	kilometres, of seismic data were gathered and drilling is planned for both blocks in 1991".
Page 36 of the same prospectus reads: "In each of the countries in which Petro-Canada is active the petroleum exploration and production rights held by the company are issued by the central government in that country either directly or through its national oil company. After according Petro-Canada a percentage of production to cover its exploration, development and operating costs, the agreements generally provide for sharing the balance of production between Petro-Canada and the government or national oil company".
What that means is that Petro-Canada, our company, is aiding the military dictatorship of Burma in the development of those resources.
There is more. I quote from the Edmonton Journal of May 25, 1990, an article from the Canadian Press date-lined Calgary: "'Petro-Canada paid $6 million in cash to the military dictatorship of Burma for the right to mount a drilling program there', the Crown corporation said Wednesday. Petro-Canada spokesman Sheilah O'Brien said Wednesday the national oil corporation turned its cash over to Burmese authorities as a 'signing bonus.' The payment, which goes to Burma's military regime was required to close a deal for rights to prospect for oil and natural gas on a concession or land area".
That is blood money. That is blood money being paid by what was our national oil company. More recently it has been revealed that Petro-Canada is training in its
Calgary office the son of the managing director of the state owned Myanmar Oil Corporation as part of its technology transfer program.
We cannot stress enough that Canada's involvement through Petro-Canada brings great comfort to the Burmese military regime. I quote from the Bangkok Post of November 9, 1989: "At a time when many donors have adopted a wait and see attitude, Canada has continued its assistance to the economic and social development of Myanmar. Rear Admiral Wong Worn Kym said in Rangoon, 'A friend in need is a friend indeed'".
Is it not delightful to have Canada known as a friend indeed of the military dictators of Burma? There was a time before the government's privatization move when it would have been easy to instruct the Crown corporation to get out of Burma. As section 89(1) of the Financial Administration Act had it, and I quote: "The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the appropriate minister, give a directive to any parent Crown corporation if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so".
The thing to bear in mind is that it is still possible to do so even after privatization for, as is noted in the prospectus again of June 18, 1991: "The Government of Canada has stated that it will deal with its common shares as an investor and not as a manager, and that it does not intend to exercise the right to vote at meetings of shareholders although it reserves the right to do so".
The Crown has reserved the right to vote those shares. Therefore in the interest of making real the policy about which the Prime Minister has spoken it must vote those shares. It must vote those shares to cause Petro-Canada to cease its activity in Burma until such time as the legitimate democratic governance of that country is restored.
In pursuit of such a policy almost a year ago on November 22, 1990, I wrote to William Hopper, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Petro-Canada. I quote from my letter: "I urge you to take the admittedly difficult step of winding down and thereafter suspending all of Petro-Canada's activities in Burma", now known by some as Myanmar, "as quickly as possibly. I further urge you to ensure the suspension of activity
October 22, 1991

prevails until such time as democracy is restored to that unhappy land".
Mr. Hopper kindly replied on December 6, stating in part that were the company to follow that advice "we would, however, have sacrificed a long-term investment opportunity in response to what we hope will be a short-term political problem". It is more than a shortterm political problem. It is a tragedy and a crime.
Also on that same day I wrote to the energy minister, the hon. member for Provencher, and to the then minister of external affairs, the right hon. member for Yellowhead, urging them to "convince your cabinet colleagues to vote the government's shares in Petro-Canada in such a way as to effect the company's withdrawal from all operations in Burma". Although I did not receive a reply from the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, I did receive a reply from the minister of energy in which he noted: "It would be contrary to the policy we have been following since 1984 and to the present course of privatization for the government to vote its shares in this point".
We have a new policy enunciated by the Prime Minister. I must conclude I would do so by urging them to follow that policy and forget the previous one.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to underscore that the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister is not a new policy. It has been in existence as long as this government has been in office and, in part, when the previous government was in office. I note that the New Democratic Party has been playing a giant game of human rights hopscotch around the world, picking and choosing those regimes it wants to talk about and, among other things, the member for Victoria said that Mozambique ought to be getting more aid.
I would ask him: Does he know clearly what the human rights record is of Mozambique? Has Mozambique now passed the test for human rights in order to get more aid? If he knows, if he really knows, does he approve of the human rights record of Mozambique? While I am asking questions like that, since it changed the motion and crossed out the word "Gabon" in the
Supply
motion and added "Zaire", why rather than adding Zaire did it not add Cuba?
Cuba is not the most stellar example of democratic institutions. The caucus of the New Democratic Party ought to understand it very well. Enough of its members take their Christmas vacations in Cuba. They should come back informed. Why would they not talk about Cuba as being a country that ought to have its aid cut back because of its human rights abuses?
To take the point that the member for Edmonton East has just made regarding Burma, he would have the public understand that there has been no change in aid allocations regardless of regime. I want to outline for him that countries that saw Canadian assistance increase or resume for good human rights performance, improved democratic practices, or better governments are Benin in 1991 following democratic elections, Haiti in 1990 following President Aristide's election, the Philippines in 1986 following President Aquino's democratic election, and Uruguay in 1985 following President Sanguinetti's democratic election.
Some countries saw Canadian assistance decrease or cut off entirely because of human rights abuses or non-democratic practices: Haiti in 1991 in response to the coup-I hope members from the NDP caucus can remember that far back-China in 1989 as a result of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Myanmar in 1988 in response to the forceful repression and I will have more to add to that, and in 1987 in response to a coup bilateral aid was suspended as a result of the apartheid policy of the government in Fiji now. Assistance was suspended after an execution in Berchina Faso and resumed in 1991.
Members of the New Democratic Party would believe that once aid is in place it stays regardless of the regime. That is not true. The aid has been cut off, suspended in Burma. They should not mislead the Canadian public by letting it believe that aid has gone on in unrelenting consistency during this regime.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, very briefly, the reason I did not deal with any of the instances raised by the hon. member is that I had but 10 minutes to speak and it took 10 minutes to go through and deal reasonably with the matter of Petro-Canada's activities in Burma. It is a fact that the federal government could

October 22, 1991
Supply
vote its shares in Petro-Canada and cause Petro-Canada to withdraw from Burma.
It is a fact that as long as the federal government does not do that Petro-Canada remains active in Burma and that gives direct aid and comfort to the military dictatorship in Burma. That is the matter I chose to deal with.
Just very briefly dealing with the question of Mozambique, if the hon. member wishes to imply that the human rights record of the Government of Mozambique is not spotless, I will agree with him. Compared to the abuses of the South Africa financed, so-called Renamo movement operating in Mozambique routinely, for example, decapitating people at whim, I would say that the real human rights abuses, the most dangerous and persistent human rights abuses in Mozambique, come not from its government but from the puppets of South Africa.


Bill Attewell: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate today on the motion brought before us by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
In this motion the hon. member makes the remarkable contention that the human rights situation in Mexico is so deplorable that we must suspend our trade negotiations with that country and the United States. By making this claim, he has clearly decided to overlook the substantial progress Mexico has made in the human rights field. Beyond that, he has chosen to scorn the potential contained within a North American free trade agreement to build a better society in Mexico, a society better able to provide and protect the freedoms of its citizens.
I will return shortly to the important improvements that Mexico has made in its human rights record, but I would like to begin by talking briefly about the ways in which a closer economic association between Mexico and its two northern neighbours will contribute to the strengthening of political, legal and human rights.
Like governments everywhere in the last decade, Mexico has been part of the movement to throw off the shackles of government control and create a new economy in which market signals play a much more important role. The government of President Carlos Salinas has embarked on a major program of privatization and
deregulation that will create a more flexible economy better able to meet the needs of its citizens.
One of the inevitable results of this process is the removal from the close, continuous and suffocating control by government of so many aspects of daily economic life. Economic power in Mexico is being wrested from the hands of bureaucrats and is being returned to the marketplace where it belongs. As economic power is being distributed to more hands, so is political power.
It is no coincidence that in all the world's most advanced economies, in all the G-7 countries including our own, democratic institutions hold sway.
When free economic actors with diverse interests pursue their various objectives, a free political dialogue is the inevitable result. The ambitious program of the Salinas government to return power to the market is a force for pluralism, a force for greater political freedom.
This trend in Mexico will be reinforced by the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement. The agreement will help release at all levels of Mexican society even more entrepreneurial energies than those already put into play by domestic reforms. That will solidify the foundation of political reform but, beyond that, the trilateral agreement will also bring about a closer association among the people of the three countries.
There is no better way to strengthen human values than through the close and continuous exchange of ideas. Ideas are transmitted in many ways, and they are often transmitted through the marketplace.
As the three countries learn more and more about each other, their people will increasingly make comparisons among themselves and draw conclusions about their way of life. There is no greater force for political freedom and respect for human rights than in the power of example.
In a North America where the people have come to know each other better, few will care to be seen as lacking the appropriate regard for human rights. Looking ahead, it seems inevitable that a closer economic

association with Canada and the U.S. would have positive effects on Mexico's social and political institutions.
Free trade will generate a multiplicity of connections, institutional linkages, contacts and influences that will have a considerable impact on all levels of society, both theirs and ours. No doubt this will be a long-term process, but Mexico is moving in the right direction, away from the elitist and economic disparity toward a more open, fairer system.
Human rights regarding social, labour and environmental matters stand particularly to benefit. Historically Canada has encouraged all countries to be more open economically and politically in their relations with the international system.
Looking at Mexico in particular, free trade could offer the material incentives for achieving this goal. A prosperous Mexico joined with North American markets and technology would act as a positive element in the geopolitical dynamic of North American and the hemisphere at large.
Although the view from outside a country's borders is frequently incomplete or misinformed, no government is comfortable with international criticism of its domestic policies. In this regard, Mexican President Carlos Salinas has been deeply concerned about his own country's reputation of the political and human rights front since the inauguration of his administration in 1988.
He has realized that the trilateral negotiations have focused extraordinary attention on political developments in Mexico and he has been energetic in pursuing political reform.
I would like to remind the hon. members that President Salinas has publicly recognized on successive occasions that human rights violations in Mexico do pose a problem. To address the problem, however, President Salinas appointed a human rights commission in early June 1990 mandated to investigate and report on alleged human rights abuses.
The commission is headed by a Supreme Court judge with 11 prominent Mexicans. Since its establishment the commission has issued two reports, both demonstrating the commission's independence through the criticism of long-standing government practices.
Canada is encouraged by these developments which mark clear progress toward improving the promotion and
Supply
protection of human rights in Mexico. Other initiatives undertaken by the Mexican government include a major reform of the civil code in 1990 to prohibit admission in court of evidence obtained through torture.
These initiatives of the Mexican government point to an improvement in Mexico's human rights record. In the estimation of Canadian observers and Mexican activists, Mexico continues to move in the right direction. However, much remains to be done and Canada will continue to maintain close interest in this important question.
I can assure that Canada will continue to maintain our very constructive dialogue with Mexico on the human rights issue. I am pleased to inform my colleagues in the House that the deputy minister to the Mexican attorney general will visit Ottawa and Quebec next week for discussions on these very questions. Over-all then, Mexico's record is improving, albeit not overnight. As these positive trends continue there is no justification whatsoever for not continuing participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade negotiations, as the motion before the House states. As Canadians observe the increasing globalization of issues, we are reminded once again that acting alone we can contribute only marginally to resolving the problems confronting us in the Americas and elsewhere. We must work together. That is why Canada became a member of the Organization of American States where we can work together with our hemispheric colleagues to address such pressing issues as human rights, democratic development, the environment, drugs and arms control.
As a full and active member of OAS, Canada is committed to the promotion and defence of human rights in the hemisphere, consistent with provisions of the OAS charter. To cite one example, the OAS unit for promotion of democracy, a Canadian initiative supported by Mexico and all other OAS members, has contributed to democratic development and political rights in the hemisphere through election monitoring missions. The current difficult situation in Haiti will further test the unit's capacity to protect human rights in the hemisphere.
I have spoken about the benefits of closer economic association generally and the progress Mexico has made on the human rights front. Let me focus now on the North American free trade negotiations specifically. We cannot overlook the importance of Canadian participation in these negotiations. Canada decided to participate

October 22, 1991
Supply
in the North American free trade negotiations because it is in the national interest to do so. Only by being at the negotiating table can we improve and secure greater access for Canadian goods and services and ensure that Canadian interests and concerns are properly and fully addressed. Moreover, only by participating in the negotiations can we ensure that Canadian companies share the same access as U.S. companies to all North American markets, thereby promoting job-creating investment at home here in Canada.
Madam Speaker, Canada's broad objectives in the NAFTA negotiations are; first, a barrier-free access to Mexico for Canadian goods and services, while developing tariff phase-out provisions and safeguard mechanisms which reflect Canadian import sensitivities; second, improved access to the U.S. market in such areas as financial services and government procurement; third, improved conditions under which Canadian businesses can make strategic alliances within North America to better compete with the Pacific Rim and the European communities; fourth, ensuring that Canada remains an attractive site for foreign and domestic investment; and fifth, the establishment of a fair and expeditious dispute settlement mechanism such as that which has served Canadian interests so well in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Mexico is prepared to work with Canada to achieve a balanced comprehensive agreement in the interests of all three countries. This openness to substantial change is remarkable. It augers well for a positive change more generally throughout Mexican society. After decades of running a closed economy, Mexico saw the economic well-being that other countries had benefited from as a result of lower tariff and non-tariff barriers.
Since 1986 the average Mexican customs tariff has decreased from over 25 per cent to around 10 per cent and maximum rates have reduced from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. Import licences and border restrictions have also been radically reduced; moreover, the government of President Salinas has instituted sweeping tax reforms, thereby eliminating tax loopholes, promoting a regime of better enforcement and a broader tax base, and as a consequence increasing tax revenues dramatically. Mexico has also significantly liberalized its treatment of
foreign and private investment capital, especially as a result of new regulations approved in 1989.
A dynamic and determined Mexican administration is transforming the country into a modem, prosperous and globally competitive player in world markets. Indeed, the president of the World Bank has described Mexico's reforms as "one of the most ambitious, courageous and determined programs of economic reform and institutional change recently undertaken in any country".
Mexico is a country that is rejuvenating itself in creating the kind of vigorous economy that will benefit itself and its trading partners. There is no doubt that Mexico's reforms are working. The indicators of newfound economic buoyancy are numerous. Mexico's gross national product for example is expected to rise by 4.5 per cent to 5 per cent this year, up from 3.9 per cent in each year of 1990 and 1989 and much lower figures during the height of the debt crisis. These are remarkable figures when much of the world economy was experiencing slow down or recession.
It is also important to stress that Mexico has successfully dealt with its debt load. Its indebtedness is no longer an obstacle to business looking for new opportunities. Mexico's economic reform minded leadership has firmly taken matters in hand and is creating an economy with which Canadians can most certainly do business.
Canadian companies have the chance to market not only goods but needed services as well and very important in Mexico's push for productivity is the development of human resources. Canadian firms that offer products and services that help in the development of human resources are well received in Mexico. The fuller integration of Mexico into the North American economy should also provide greater stability for Mexico's economic, trade, monetary and fiscal reforms already undertaken to date.
Throughout increased trade and economic expansion Mexico hopes to continue to improve working conditions and living standards. Trade and economic growth will also generate more resources for the Mexican government to enforce existing laws. What many people do not realize is that Mexico's extensive labour legislation is protective of workers' rights. The problem lies in the fact

that the government simply does not have the resources necessary to properly enforce these regulations.
With the prosperity that increased trade will bring that will change for the better. A successful NAFTA will be of benefit for workers and business. In all three countries the primary purpose of negotiating such a deal is to increase trade. One-third of Canadian workers have jobs that are dependent on trade.
Increased trade creates jobs, increased trade creates prosperity for the country and for its workers, the same as is true in Mexico.
Free trade improves the economic and social conditions of our trading partners, but in the process of doing so, our partners become better customers and we become more competitive suppliers. This is the power of liberalized trade. By bringing down barriers in the North American economy, we can create more opportunities for still more Canadian business.
It is this promise of helping to build a more competitive Canadian economy that sustains us in our determination to win a balanced North American free trade agreement that will be beneficial to all three countries. It is precisely for this purpose that Canada is pursuing NAFTA negotiations. The NAFTA will make all three countries more prosperous through free trade. Prosperity in turn brings greater business openness and freedom for the whole population which can only encourage greater social change.
It is not by turning our backs on Mexico that Mexican society can continue to evolve positively. An inward looking closed society in Mexico is in no one's interest. We must work with Mexico actively seeking closer co-operation. This will encourage greater familiarity with the social attitudes and norms of fully democratic societies in its own way. This is what the North American free trade agreement is all about.
In closing, I say change and growth through co-operation. Only narrow minded isolationists want us to proceed otherwise.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, as quoted in The Ottawa Citizen on September 18 of this year Amnesty International basically said it takes a strong stomach to read the report entitled "Mexico torture with impunity". It documents one horrendous case of abuse after another, most involving
Supply
Mexico's federal judicial police. People are kicked, beaten, pushed into water tanks, given electric shocks, burned with cigarettes, subject to mock executions. Some are nearly asphyxiated by tying plastic bags over their heads. Others are forced into bowls of excrement. Toe nails are ripped out. Mineral waters are forced into them. It just goes on and on and on. Children are subjected to this, as are women and teenagers. It is very difficult, in the face of about 100 members of the political opposition killed, hundreds of trade unionists killed, to suggest that Mexico has any commitment to a reform program and that any success even to that is small.
But that is not what concerns me about the debate today. I listened with care to the presentation by the speaker. The one thing that you can count on is the Conservative government. It will tell you what it believes. The previous speaker said: "I believe the Mexi-can-Canadian-American free trade agreement is a good deal and we will go ahead in spite of this documented information and hopefully it will get better."
The party on my other side, the Liberal Party, moves around this country saying: "This is no good and we should not support this kind of trade agreement until conditions are laid down." This motion is the statement of the NDP and it is one you can count on. I am so critically disappointed with the Liberal Party for amending the motion before us to eliminate stopping the negotiation of a trade agreement with Mexico, that in fact it matches their other presentation. I am sure the speaker from the Conservative Party will agree because he watched, with me, in this House as the Liberal Party said: "We do not accept an attack or a war by Canada on Iraq", and then turned around and voted in absolutely the opposite direction.
The Liberal Party stands up and says that it supports choice on the abortion issue for women in Canada and yet turns around and half the party votes the other way.
We have a critical situation here today. The Prime Minister's statement was correct, absolutely correct and supportable. We are asking for some action. A reasonable action is to discontinue these negotiations until Mexico gives us a firm commitment that they will turn it around and then, by all means. What we get is a situation today where the Liberals back right away from that and take the opposite tack where they are prepared to

October 22, 1991
Supply
involve themselves without condition of human rights and without protection for Canada in-
I know they are upset-and I am sure the previous speaker would agree-but the absolute contradiction in their position is just untenable. The Liberals now come out in support of that Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement in spite of its shortcomings and harm to Canada, in spite of the human rights violations in that country.
I would like to reiterate once again that the Prime Minister's statement on human rights is supportable. It needs action to confirm and give meaning to that statement. I admire the party of the previous speaker in that they stand up and at least say exactly what they mean. I think we say exactly what we mean, but I am just sorely disappointed that the Liberals will not give a solid indication to the Canadian people. They have turned around and basically supported the approach of the Conservative government and are saying another thing to the electorate.


Bill Attewell: Madam Speaker, again we have just witnessed what has been referred to as the black and white policy of the NDP.
I was quite impressed with my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley who made two or three good points awhile ago, one of them being that the policy the Prime Minister talked about is not brand new. It has been going on for many years, indeed by the former Liberal government as well.
My colleague cited several very specific examples that our government certainly has been helping to monitor, where specific decisions were made to either cut off aid or reduce it and, in other cases, increase it. However, to think that we should turn our backs on a country like Mexico which under Salinas has veiy definitely made some progress and is moving in the right direction is wrong. There are so many examples around the world, as the hon. member knows, in these situations where improvement was achieved did not happen in a day or a month or a year.
I have been chairman of the Soviet Jury Committee for Canada for almost five years now. When I think back
to my first trip to the Soviet Union in 1986, only 914 Jews were allowed to leave that year. The world, including countries like Canada, had been criticizing the Soviet Union, as you know, directly and through the United Nations.
Thanks to Mr. Gorbachev and his leadership there are tremendous changes. I am just highlighting one specific example, but starting in 1987-88, the number of Jews allowed to leave jumped to 18,000. No one knows what last year's figures are. We think it is 250,000 people. There are many movements. Sometimes there are as many leaving in one day as had previously been allowed to leave in a whole year.
It is now on the road to a freer type society. It has decades to go before we could compare it to Canada. I subscribe to an incremental theory that leadership of the country is honestly trying to move in a democratic way and honestly trying to improve the human rights situation to drastically reduce the violations.
I think it is going to be encouraged to do more things like that if we are supportive of them. We should not back off totally but give credit where credit is due on these improvements.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I do not want to question what the hon. member says. We are all astounded and amazed by what has happened in this short period.
I would point out that the government under the Prime Minister in the G-7 meetings was unprepared to support the Soviet Union and said "it had a way to go even with aid to survive the winter". That is beginning to change because of the coup and other things, so it has moved forward.
I would point out that the Prime Minister was even unprepared at that point to give aid. Yet with what is a serious problem in Mexico, the Prime Minister is willing to integrate the economy of Canada with that country without any preconditions. I think the preconditions to negotiating an integration of our economy, with the result in changes in standards in this country and foregoing some of the sovereignty in this country, is a condition that makes profound commitments to the changes in human rights.
October 22, 1991

I certainly agree totally with what the previous speaker has said about the massive changes that have occurred. I would say that before we integrate with Mexico, it would be useful to get those commitments.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the hon. member is giving us a misleading comparison. The doubt that the Prime Minister and other leaders had about further aid to the Soviet Union at that time, in my understanding, had absolutely nothing to do with human rights.
We had just been party as many countries had to the CSCE, the human rights conference in Moscow. It was the first time ever, so I think he is linking two separate things together. It is perhaps a little misleading.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address this very important issue today that was raised by the Canadian delegation at the recent Commonwealth Conference.
Let me first congratulate my members on the left who have met with some recent successes. Let me caution also that this debate-I will come back to it-shows what has been happening in the west of Canada.
It shows that the Canadian voters and the Canadian citizens are no longer happy with the status quo. They want their governments to start to act with some purpose. I suggest that what has been happening on the Canadian landscape which ties into this debate is that Canadians do not want to see the members of Parliament or the Government of Canada discuss issues like this.
They certainly want to see their elected members of government come up with some concrete productive ways to alleviate this terrible problem that confronts everyone on the world scene. Having talked about their successes, I also have some difficulty with their motion. "Linkage" seems to be the prevalent word. In our discussions we heard about linkage in the gulf war and linkage in other areas. What we see here in the motion that is before this House is a principle of linkage. That means that in this debate today we are discussing the principles of aid connected with those of human rights.
If we go further into the motion, we see that economic issues are tied with those affecting human rights in different countries in the world.
Supply
I think there was a quote made by the Prime Minister recently that Canadians will not subsidize repression and the stifling of democracies in the world.
I am going to come back to that if I can in my closing remarks. I am having a problem with the concept of linkage that is causing me some concern.
I am going to pose a question. Although I do not have the answer I hope that the members of this House will give it consideration and see what we are doing with respect to human rights in many countries in this world.
Let me say that in pressing for human rights to become a priority item on the agenda, the Canadian people can indeed be proud because they have certainly stood high among all nations in the world.
It is pleasant to be on this side of the House with the current government treading this path. I think we can find its germination in the path formerly laid down by a great Canadian, Lester B. Pearson, truly in the Liberal tradition.
It would be nice before the debate ends today if someone on the other side of the House would give that truly great Canadian the credit he deserves. I believe it was during his tenure as Prime Minister that we developed the Pearson image that made Canada a leader among nations of the world when it came to compassion, empathy and respect for those who were not quite as privileged as ourselves. To be imitated in this type of policy is the greatest form of flattery.
I would like to emphasize the high regard in which Canada is viewed by the developing countries and certainly this position must continue. Reforms such as those described at the Commonwealth Conference must not be shunted aside. The government must insist that flagrant violations of human rights not be rewarded by initiatives of trade and massive allotments of foreign aid by Canadians.
Democracies such as ours, the middle powers with no axes to grind have the opportunity and indeed the responsibility to provide a leading role in improving human rights around the world. We can do this in many ways. To this date Canada and all previous governments have done very well in regard to establishing Canada's reputation, not only as a peacekeeper in the world but as a benevolent and caring nation. But we must improve on that stance.

October 22, 1991
Supply
As an example, the decision of the present government to trade with China following the horrifying events in Tiananmen Square told the world that Canada would proceed with that regime as if nothing had happened.
We imported from China more than $1.2 billion in 1989 and that figure rose to $1.4 billion in 1990, an increase of over 18 per cent.
While this trade effort was being conducted, Amnesty International, an organization I think we all respect, said that at least 1,000 people were killed by security forces to suppress pro-democratic processes. Thousands more were beaten and tortured. Dozens of protesters have been sentenced to death after unfair trials and there were reports of secret executions. Persistent reports of torture and detainees in Tibet have also been obtained by Amnesty International.
I could go on and read descriptions of the very questionable human rights records of countries receiving bilateral aid from Canada. Bilateral aid simply means that money is given by this government or some of its agencies directly to other countries. The facilities we have available to us through the United Nations are not invoked.
Many of the countries which are the chief recipients of bilateral aid from Canada are indulging in human rights abuses of the most chilling sort.
Some of the most glaring examples of bilateral aid received by countries for the year 1989 are Bangladesh with almost $90 million in aid. We all know about the allegations of torture and criminal suspects in custody, of extrajudicial executions by incompetent villagers and government security forces. I have reiterated what happened in China at Tiananmen Square yet they were the recipients of almost $40 million in aid from Canada. I look at Jamaica receiving almost $30 million and you know the unrest that is in that country and the deprivation of its human rights. Pakistan, Indonesia and many others really deserve some scrutiny with respect to aid vis-a-vis human rights.
There is a question that has permeated my mind throughout the debate and it is a fundamental problem to which I really do not have the answer. I certainly
would like to pose a question in the hope that as we go down this road we all start to give some consideration to a very important aspect.
We all know that regardless of the form of government, whether democratic, despotic, a benevolent or true dictatorship, all people in the world are controlled and every act of every government affects the people in that country and they do not have a great deal to say about it.
As an example I do not want to debate these issues here but we do know that the government of the day in Canada brought in the free trade agreement as soon as this House sat in 1988. This had a direct effect on almost everyone in this country. The free trade agreement whether it created jobs or lost jobs, had a definite effect on almost every Canadian particularly those in the manufacturing industry.
We will not say whether the imposition of the goods and services act was a good move -we on this side think it was not -but in any event we know that the actions of the government affected every person in this country with respect to a system of taxation.
If we go across to our friends in the United States we see that their involvement in the gulf war had a direct effect on every citizen in the United States with respect to how they conducted themselves.
What I am trying to point out is that every government by its actions affects on a day to day basis the people who live within that country who usually do not have a great deal to say about how or why it will affect their lives.
I think today of the people who live in underdeveloped countries and are denied human rights as I listen with intent to all of the very good debate within this House.
I think of the children of the world who really do not have any say-the children in Canada, children in the United States-in whether or how their country is going to be operated. They are at the whim of those that have control over them.
What are we doing when we link our economic aid? As I said at the outset, I am posing a question. What are we doing to these children when we link the economic aid with the human rights of their governments? The children in these under-developed areas do not have the

right to dictate or to be involved in the system of government, yet they are the recipients of its actions.
I am appalled, and I am sure we all are in this House, when we look at the children throughout the world on television in some of the African countries, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and even in Bulgaria. We see children with distorted eyes, protruding eyes, distended stomachs, lacking the fundamental medical care that they need in order to even just sustain life. You cannot even say these children go to bed at night hungry because they most likely do not have a bed to go to.
What right do these young people have with respect to human rights and the linkage of aid. This is the question that I pose.
What I propose is something I would like this House to consider. We know that as we consider all of the problems that exist throughout the world, perhaps the worst problems are what is happening to the children of the world.
We know that poverty and debt are the enemies. We know our development policy should be designed to benefit these children. We know we should be assisting increased productivity, and we know we should be increasing the incomes of these people in order that they can provide for the necessities of life.
I would like to be the author of this thought, but I cannot take credit for it. I have been doing some reading. It really generates from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister when he was speaking about what Canada could do with respect to feeding the world. The parliamentary secretary is a very successful farmer from Saskatchewan. He is a very knowledgeable person about agriculture. I discussed this with my colleague who was a former minister of agriculture and it seems that what we should be doing, rather than linking the problems that we face with aid and the rights of people within these countries, is designing a policy within our country that would alleviate the hunger of the children of the world.
When you look at Canada and try to find a national purpose for our country, it seems we lack a national purpose. What a great thrill and what a great challenge it would be if Canada truly becomes the bread basket of the world, and we take all of these children that are so deprived. Within this country we have great assets. We
Supply
have three provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that can out-produce because of their technology, climate and the ability of its farmers to produce the best wheat in the world in great quantities., We have this facility within Canada.
We have unmatched facilities within this country to process this product, this grain, this food that we can grow in our western provinces. We have at our disposal without question through the port of Churchill, the port of Prince Rupert, the port of Vancouver, the port of Thunder Bay and the down river ports in Montreal the ability to ship this grain, this food, vital necessity of life to all countries in the world, those children of the world who are deprived of their fundamental human rights through no fault of their own. Canada has become the country that has taken on itself as its national purpose to be the bread basket of the world, feeding people in especially those areas that have no ability, no resources and no facilities to feed themselves.
How else could we extend human rights to every country in the world? How better would it be? What a feeling it would be of national purpose for Canadians to say: "We undertake this gigantic responsibility. We are going to do the very best we can".
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it may be the most basic challenge for all Canadians at this particular period of time in our lives to take this responsibility and say: "We are going to reach farther than any country has ever reached in order to provide a solution to this problem that is not going to go away unless we ourselves attempt to do it and we start by little bits and pieces".
I am satisfied in my mind we will emerge as a country that is well respected, looked upon throughout this world as not only one that had the empathy and the care to take up this important challenge, but the foremost country in the world with respect to guarding the human rights of those who could not guard themselves.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, intently, I may say even hanging on every word because of his poignant reminder to us all about the bottom line here and that is people, the plight of

October 22, 1991
Supply
people all around this earth and particularly the children of this world and the difficulties that they are having.
I think it is very important as we near the end of this debate today that we not forget the victims of poverty, of disease, of oppression. I am very grateful to the member for bringing us around to considering those factors and considering the forgotten people of the earth.
Having said that, I know that the member has a very acute legal mind. I want to ask him to tune in that legal mind, if I may, by focusing on a problem that I have with the opposition motion put forward by our friend in the New Democratic Party, specifically using the word "linkage" which the hon. member began his speech with. I ask him to consider the terms of the motion and perhaps comment on the question that I pose.
The question is this: Does the hon. member find it logical that the opposition motion begins by taking note of the Prime Minister's comments that he is committed to the principle of linking government aid, and I stress government aid, to respect for human rights and says "and in light of documented violations of human rights in countries such as Mexico, China, Zaire", et cetera?
The motion reminds us of the Prime Minister's commitment to linking government aid to human rights and reminds us of certain alleged, in fact documented, violations of human rights in certain countries and then says: "We should stop negotiating with the countries of the United States and Mexico", not stop providing aid to Mexico, but stop negotiations with respect to an agreement that is not even in place. They are not saying: "Let's link government aid to human rights". They are saying "Let's link aid to negotiations", even speaking with another government, even discussing something with another government if there are documented instances of human rights violations. That is what they are saying. They are trying to bring in the free trade debate through the back door of human rights violations, on the backs of the very people who should be protected. I am wondering if my hon. friend considers this to be logical.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Scarborough for the question with respect to my comments on the motion.
At the outset, I think I complimented my colleagues with respect to some successes and then discussed with
them the difficulty I have with the motion that is before the House today.
In answering my friend, I do not have any difficulty with the concept, nor do I have any difficulty with the intent of what we are trying to accomplish in this respect. My part of the debate contained aid and feeding the children of this world through the concept of human rights, but I had some difficulty technically with understanding what the motion meant.
I said at the outset that I had difficulty with the word "linkage". I could not see how we could equate linkage in human rights with linkage in economic aid, especially if we consider that the very people we are trying to assist in human rights may not have the opportunity to help themselves in the country in which they live. Let me explain that a little further. I am talking about the underprivileged. There are degrees of privilege and underprivilege. I am talking about the underprivileged people, the older, the elderly, the seniors, in deprived countries. I am talking about the children, those who cannot help themselves within the system of government in which they live. They are truly the underprivileged of an underprivileged class.
That is my concern. If we link the economic aid and the economic principles with helping those of the underprivileged in the underprivileged countries, what have we really done? What have we accomplished? We have just imposed more of a hardship on those who can no longer stand any more hardship.
I can appreciate the question and I am answering it to the best of my ability. I just have difficulty technically with understanding the motion that is before the House, particularly as it forms a linkage. Second, I don't know how we got from human rights to an economic issue like the free trade agreement. It does not make sense.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, "Police torture still routine", Amnesty says in Mexico in September. I certainly understand the previous speaker's sympathy and support with it. "Mexico- Torture with Impunity" is the title of a report. It talks about Mexico's federal judicial police kicking, beating, pushing into water tanks, shocking, burning with cigarettes, subject to mock execution, asphyxiating with plastic bags-and on and on and on-toe nails ripped out. It asks: "Who are these victims?" These victims are
October 22, 1991

political activists, people involved in land disputes, human rights activists, trade unionists, lawyers, and children, particularly homeless teenagers, children of poor urban families, young rural migrants from the Mexican interior. They tell of beatings, whippings, electric shocks, asphyxiations and sexual abuse.
It is not as if we were considering providing aid. We could provide aid, not bilateral aid to Mexico but we could provide it through the Red Cross and other agencies where it doesn't sanctify or in any way support that government.
What we are talking about the government doing here is involving Canada with an equal partner, somebody that we would want to partially integrate our economy with and take those kinds of chances. Quite frankly, by eliminating the phrase "that this House urge the government to discontinue immediately Canadian participation with Canada, the United States and Mexico in a free trade negotiation", you have really sanctified the kind of activities that are going on. The majority of Canadians oppose this government because they do not accept what it is doing. They tell the truth. They stand up and say what they are-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate.


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, there are only two minutes left. I have here a long speech about CIDA and its practices. Unfortunately, today we have managed not to talk very much about the aid programs of CIDA and the government because of the nature of the motion.
My hon. colleague from Scarborough puts his finger correctly on the dilemma that one faces when confronted with this motion. Let me, therefore, simply put on the record a couple of concerns about the motion itself.
It is, in my view, a shame that we do not have enough foreign policy debates. It is also my view that we did not have the debate today we should have had about how you make linkages between aid and human rights policies stick. That ought to be a subject that concerns us here. I know the members of the subcommittee of the human rights committee of the external affairs committee care about that a lot and such members as the hon. member
Supply
for Trinity and others have devoted quite a lot of time to that.
Let me therefore, since time is short, simply express my frustration with the motion this way. Before we entered into any conversations about the possibility of extending the free trade agreement to Mexico, there were long discussions within the standing committee about what we should be doing about trying to improve our aid programs, about trying to make sure the longstanding Canadian concerns about human rights linkages were brought into that debate. People talked at length about how to use NGOs more than government and people criticized, quite properly, because there were legitimate criticisms about the direction that aid policy was flowing at the time and people quite properly came to our committee to complain that maybe the government was cutting back too much.
One of the questions that was put to members of the committee at the time, well that was discussed in the committee-this is before we talked about Mexico as a trade policy-was criticisms by the New Democratic Party that one of the precise things we should be doing was increasing the amount of aid being given to Mexico through the NGOs. In other words, that was the policy of the members of the New Democratic Party before we had a trade discussion and I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, they have shown their real view today.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I wish to inform the House that the debate on the motion pursuant to Standing Order 81(7) is now over.

Before proceeding with Private Members' hour, I have this very short announcement that I would like to offer to the House.
On Friday, October 25, 1991 the House is scheduled to consider the second reading stage of Bill C-251, an act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.
The bill, which was introduced by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden on June 19, 1991 proposes to include merchant seamen as war veterans, thereby entitling them to all benefits that are presently enjoyed by armed forces veterans.

Private Members' Business

The Chair has some difficulties with this proposal, from a procedural point of view, in that it seems to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown and to attempt to accomplish indirectly what the procedure precludes from doing directly regarding disbursements of public moneys.

As a courtesy to the hon. member for Regina-Lums-den, I am giving notice now that the Chair would appreciate receiving the benefit of comments from hon. members on Friday at the start of Private Members' Business as to the procedural acceptability of proceeding with such a bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
economics and the primary reason for the widespread adoption of nuclear power by major industrialized countries around the world and its ability to produce electricity at a lower cost. I know some people would argue this. If it is taken over a 30 to 40 year period, it is one of the reasons why major countries around the world are using an alternative energy such as the nuclear power.
Canada has a mixed picture and we are very fortunate to have different forms of energy to generate our electricity. We have oil, gas, coal, water and the nuclear area, as well as some of our renewable resources.
In Ontario and New Brunswick, nuclear power is economically preferred as the alternative whereas in some of the other regions such as Quebec and western Canada, we utilize more of the hydroelectric generation or fossil fuels.
As I mentioned earlier, AECL was created in 1952, and yes, there has been quite a bit of government appropriation to the company, but that sum includes costs of establishing and operating AECLs world class R and D laboratories, such as the one in Chalk River. It includes the cost and also interest of constructing, operating and subsequently decommissioning prototype power reactors in the heavy water plants.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 2, 1991, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blaikie that Bill C-204, an act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act (ending development and exportation of prescribed items and substances) be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: As we resume debate, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest has five minutes remaining.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, during the previous debate on C-204, I had given my full support for the nuclear energy industry within this country and I outlined some of the benefits to Canada. These benefits are needed for our security and diversity of energy supplies. Also, nuclear energy is very important for environmental protection and industrial development.
Many of the areas I outlined would be in Hansard, but I did not get a chance to speak with regard to the
These investments are substantially lower than those made in other countries. Canada has extremely good economic viability within the nuclear area.
I also want to say with regard to the disposal and repository for nuclear waste that an independent export group was formed in 1977 and carried out a study on the long-term disposal. It laid down the basis for the criteria for nuclear fuel and the waste management program. It has been the responsibility of AECL and Ontario together.
With regard to storage and transportation, Ontario Hydro looks after this responsibility for waste demobilization and the disposal concept comes under the control of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
All the Canadian nuclear power plants are setting aside a portion of the mill rate, in the area of 1 per cent, to cover the costs of spent fuel disposal, which will probably come many years from now.
Having been in Sweden, West Germany and France for some time studying the disposal of low and high level nuclear waste, there is a consensus being brought forward that the deep geological disposal on land is the best

October 22, 1991

means to permanently isolate high level radioactive waste.
Countries with established nuclear power programs are at various stages of developing their disposal systems. Switzerland and Sweden have already completed extensive tests. In Canada we hope that next year some recommendations will be brought forward. These recommendations will have political discussion, input and debate. Where and when any disposal is made with regard to a certain location would come forth after political participation.
In conclusion, I just want to give my unequivocal support to the nuclear energy industry within Canada. We are not discussing nuclear weapons. We are discussing nuclear energy for the generation of electric power in Canada. It is an important investment for our country and I am just pleased that I had the opportunity to speak against Bill C-204.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the member for Winnipeg Transcona on his recent appointment on top of his other responsibilities as the New Democrat's nuclear energy critic. I know he brings to this position extensive knowledge, keen interest and a solid commitment which has already resulted in the introduction of the laudable bill we are discussing here today.
This bill, an act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act, seeks to end the development and export of nuclear substances, nuclear reactors and certain equipment and materials required to build nuclear reactors, starting on January 1, 1992 and lasting until December 31, 2041.
In the short time available today, the exceedingly short time available, I can only focus on one of the many reasons for supporting this bill to phase out nuclear energy in Canada. Madam Speaker, simply put, nuclear power is an economic failure. Canada cannot afford to keep pouring money down nuclear sinkholes, and what a lot of sinkholes there are.
For starters, nuclear power plants are extraordinarily expensive to build. Ontario's nuclear facility at Darlington, for example, was originally projected to cost under $4 billion. By last December, that projected cost had soared to $12.9 billion and, in February, 1991 that figure
Private Members' Business
stood at a whopping $13.3 billion. That is a lot of money by any standard.
It also cost a lot to protect workers' health and safety at all stages of production, starting right back at the mining of the uranium ore. Nuclear proponents cavil at these safety costs. The Canadian Nuclear Association in its October 9,1991 statement to the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources claimed that new, stricter radiation exposure limits proposed for uranium mines could, and I quote, "render underground uranium mining unviable."
Since these new safety standards reflect current scientific consensus about the risks of radiation exposure workers could, I suppose, be excused for worrying that the CNA is taking the insupportable position that the industry can only remain viable if workers are put in danger.
As for other mining costs, one need only go to Elliot Lake to see that it also costs a lot to clean up after uranium mining operations.
Nuclear reactors themselves cost more than expected to operate, and this costs consumers money directly on their power bills. Double digit rate increases are expected in Ontario for the next two years.
Canada's nuclear reactors have not lived up to promises about their efficiency. Many suffer maddening complications from so-called premature aging, ranging from damaged fuel bundles to burst pressure tubes. Recent evidence suggests that Ontario Hydro predictions that its nuclear plants will average 75 per cent efficiency in the next decade are overly optimistic. In 1989, hydro's reactors ran at only 72 per cent efficiency and in 1990 these reactors produced a dismal 62 per cent of the power they would have produced if they had run all year at full efficiency.
As Ontario Hydro chairman Mark Ellison stated, and I quote from the July 29, 1991 Financial Post "Our nuclear system is not operating the way it was supposed to operate." Sad, is it not, Madam Speaker, but unfortunately and expensively, true.
What then about accidents? Well, nuclear accidents do occur and when they occur they are catastrophic. No one can forget the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the devastating explosion at Chernobyl in 1986. Recently some Soviet scientists claimed that initially the extent of the devastation around Chernobyl was seriously under-

October 22, 1991
Private Members' Business
estimated. The most senior scientist at the Chernobyl station and the scientific director in charge of the 30 kilometre exclusion zone said in April, 1991 that the explosion killed up to 10,000 people.
He added that the government is currently providing medical care to an additional 300,000 people and that the Soviet Union has already spent nearly $20 billion trying to clean up after the accident.
Prominent Soviet scientist Yuri Koryakin estimated in the October 1990 issue of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Science publication Energy that the financial cost of the Chernobyl accident to his country alone could be over $400 billion by the year 2000. That is unforgiving, expensive technology.
Many CANDU proponents protest that such an accident could never happen here, but note: Just in case, the industry has protected itself from financial liability. In 1970, at the insistence of the industry, the federal government set a $75 million ceiling on the damage reactor operators would have to pay in the event of a serious nuclear accident.
Even if that operator were negligent, the irony is inescapable. Nuclear proponents loudly proclaim that nuclear power is safe, loiowing full well that in the event of a serious accident, thanks to the federal government and the Canadian taxpayer, the nuclear industry is virtually off the hook.
As for the long-term disposal of nuclear wastes, no one knows how much that will cost because it has never been done. We do know that simply conducting research on how to manage these wastes has been expensive. In a speech to the conference of the Canadian Energy Research Institute given on behalf of energy minister Jake Epp on June 4, 1990, Conservative member of Parliament, Marie Gibeau, estimated that in the past decade alone, government funded Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has spent $400 million. That is $40 million a year on research into long-term disposal of radioactive fuel waste.
The campaign for nuclear phase-out hit the nail on the head in a recent leaflet stating: "The cost of nuclear waste disposal, including disposal of defunct reactors themselves, are among the least certain and potentially largest of all nuclear costs". The leaflet added: "No full
size nuclear reactor anywhere in the world has yet been fully decommissioned".
Energy minister Jake Epp admitted in his September 1990 letter to my colleague, New Democratic environment critic, Jim Fulton, that: "Estimates of decommissioning costs of nuclear reactors vary widely", adding that the nine-mile point unit 1 reactor would cost: "about $100 million in 1990 dollars" to decommission.
I might be wrong, but I suspect Mr. Epp would come up with $100 million tomorrow for anyone who would guarantee the safe disposal of that reactor. Where does all this money come from, Madam Speaker? From Canadian taxpayers.
According to the April 1991 corporate plan and budget summary for Atomic Energy of Canada limited, the federal government has invested $4.5 billion in nuclear energy research and development over the past 40 years. That amounts to $110 million every year for 40 years.
The same AECL report reveals that more than half of the $303 million in expenditures in nuclear research and development planned by AECL for 1991-92 will be provided directly through parliamentary appropriation.
In 1995-96 alone, Canadian taxpayers are expected to fork over $197 million to AECL. Energy minister Jake Epp continues to champion a so-called market based energy economy even though after 40 years of generous government support, the nuclear industry still relies on tax dollars to stay afloat.
The government clearly has a responsibility to help create jobs and to spur the development of more environmentally benign energy sources in Canada. Unfortunately, the government grants large sums of money to nuclear and traditional fossil fuel sources, thereby stacking the financial deck against new cleaner options while slashing funding for these alternatives. The government then adds insult to injury by complaining that these alternatives cannot compete in the marketplace. In fact, since 1984 this government has cut its funding for energy alternatives and conservation by over 90 per cent. As a result the federal government will spend a mere $37 million this year on energy conservation and on wind, biomass, solar, all sources of alternate energy put together. That is less than the $38 million the government will
October 22, 1991

give the Atomic Energy Control Board just to regulate the nuclear industry.
It is hardly surprising that many countries have decided to stop throwing money at their nuclear industries. The recent experience in Britain offers one very graphic measure of the industry's financial status. In its misguided zeal to privatize its state electric utility, the Thatcher government discovered to its chagrin that it simply could not sell its nuclear plants. Private investors judged them to be uneconomic.
As the London Observer said in an editorial on November 12, 1989: "Privatization has proved that nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic and saddled with decommissioning costs that no private company could accept without huge guarantees from the government".
The paper added a number of intriguing comments. Let me close with a quote from The Economist, a Conservative magazine, August 31, 1991: "It is hard not to believe that if the cash thrown at nuclear power had been put into almost any other technology, even hamster-powered fly-wheels, it would eventually have produced something commercially viable".
It is time we stopped pouring money down the nuclear sink hole.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has any idea of the impact this bill could have on Canadians' health. Does he know how devastating it could be for thousands of Canadians who receive treatment involving diagnostic techniques or therapies that use radio-isotopes?
What role does nuclear energy play in medicine? Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona could tell me that, technically speaking, most radio-isotopes are not prescribed substances. Therefore they are not affected by this bill under which the Atomic Energy Control Board could not issue new licences for the possession of prescribed substances, which would exclude most radio-isotopes used in medicine.
Private Members' Business
Let me show how such a statement lacks objectivity. Under the Atomic Energy Control Act, "prescribed substances" designates uranium, thorium, plutonium, neptunium, deuterium, their derivatives and compounds, and other substances that the Commission can by regulation classify as sources of atomic energy or consider necessary for the production, application and use of atomic energy.
Most radio-isotopes used in the health field do not fit this category. You may wonder what role nuclear energy plays in medicine, Madam Speaker. The fact is that it takes nuclear reactors to produce many radio-isotopes; these are the same reactors that the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona would take out of service over the next 50 years under his bill. For those requiring treatment, Madam Speaker, 50 years might as well be forever.
Cobalt-60, for example, is an artificial, man-made isotope. It is obtained by replacing stainless steel bars in a CANDU reactor with cobalt-59 bars. Irradiated in the reactor for about a year, these bars absorb neutrons and are changed into cobalt-60. Cobalt-60 is then taken out of the reactor for various medical purposes, in particular radiation therapy equipment and irradiation sterilizers.
Madam Speaker, we shall see the applications of radio-isotopes in medicine.
It is a pity that the public is seldom interested in the beneficial effects of radiation. Nevertheless, use of this technology for therapy, diagnosis and research is very widespread these days. Much use is made of irradiation to improve the quality of products and safety in various industries.
When radio-isotopes are administered in fairly small quantities to a patient for diagnostic purposes, it is possible to measure the concentration of this radioactive substance and to monitor its distribution with special detectors. Medical products that use radiation help to diagnose and treat various illnesses, especially cancer.
In fact, cancer can be detected in its early stages by bringing a sample of blood into contact with a radioactive chemical that reveals the presence and size of tumour markers, or substances that indicate the presence of cancer cells. Radiation can efficiently destroy such cells.

October 22, 1991
Private Members' Business
Irradiation techniques are also used to sterilize surgical or medical equipment, as well as blood for transfusion to patients whose immune system is very weak, especially the newborn.
Radiation can be used to study diseases and the internal workings of the body, to preserve food, to control food-borne illnesses and to disinfect waste, in particular municipal sewage and medical waste.
Let us now look at Canada's abilities in nuclear medicine. At the present time, Madam Speaker, the world's largest supplier of cobalt-60, the radio-isotope most used as a source of energy for commercial irradiation or cancer treatment, is Nordion International Inc., a Canadian company.
Most of the cobalt-60 sold by Nordion is in fact produced by Ontario Hydro under contract in CANDU nuclear reactors. Nordion is also the main supplier of other types of radio-isotopes made in reactors; these radio-isotopes are used throughout the world, especially for diagnostic purposes.
Canadian industry is in the forefront of research in nuclear medicine and has greatly contributed to improving the health of all the world's people. Madam Speaker, every year, more than 500,000 patients in over 80 countries receive treatments based on nuclear technology developed in Canada. Thanks to radiotherapy, millions of lives have been prolonged around the world.
The Canadian cobalt 60 therapy unit is used worldwide. Over 1,400 units have been installed abroad, which represents over 75 per cent of the market. In Canada alone, Madam Speaker, physicians make over 12 million diagnostics yearly using radioisotopes produced in this country. It is estimated that this figure exceeds 300 million world-wide. I would also like to talk about other health-related uses of radioisotopes.
That being said, Madam Speaker, I might add that radioisotopes have other than medical health-related applications as well. For instance, nuclear research has resulted in the development of new high-yield species of plants with greater disease resistance. Other agricultural applications include measuring of the soil moisture content in various regions to evaluate its capacity to meet water needs of specific crops.
Radioisotopes allow us to see how crops absorb nutrients and therefore to improve fertilizers. Finally, radioisotopes are used to monitor the flow of contaminated waterways and make sure that drinking water intakes are safe.
Irradiation can also be used to reduce or eliminate infestations of insects that are harmful to cultures, animals and human beings. A lot of male insects are sterilized by exposing them to radiations. Once let loose, these insects mate with females, but they cannot reproduce themselves. That technique enables us to eliminate harmful species over a period of a few seasons, in a more ordinate fashion that is also less harmful to the environment.
One must not forget the food irradiation sector. As we all know, the food we eat could be infected with bacteria and could therefore be spoiled and make us sick. In extreme cases, this could even lead to death. For these reasons, the scientists in the government and the food processing industry work relentlessly to find appropriate techniques to preserve food stocks without diminishing the nutritional value. It is now believed that irradiation techniques will enable us to better preserve food, while at the same time reducing the number of diseases linked to its consumption. Therefore, the food preservation sector could play a very important role, in Canada as well as in Third World countries. Madam Speaker, all these new applications are essential to maintaining the quality of food stocks for Canadians as well as for the populations of other countries.
One of the numerous advantages of nuclear energy lies in the fact that nuclear reactions do not produce any combustion residue that could pollute our environment and undermine our health. Madam Speaker, by going nuclear, Hydro Ontario has, in only the last 20 years, avoided the release in the atmosphere of over 7 million tons of acid gases, half a billion ton of carbon dioxide and 12 tons of ashes. Be that as it may, the present government has clearly demonstrated that it promotes the development of hydro-production techniques using renewable energies, namely solar energy, wind power or tidal dower. Unfortunately, these forms of energy will not enable-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up.
October 22, 1991



On a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


Mr. Blaikie:: Madam Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that in Private Members' Business we continue to get from government backbenchers these speeches that are prepared by the Department of Energy or some other hack in Atomic Energy of Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the time limitation does not permit us to deal specifically with the response the member for Louis-Hebert made in her intervention. She certainly spoke the language of the nuclear industry. She delivered the well-known themes that have been over the years presented to us by the proponents of nuclear industry.
Her scientific basis is very shaky. As I said, it is unfortunate that we cannot deal point by point with the points she has elaborated, as if they were final, scientifically proven and correct.
The debate today is on ending the development and exportation of prescribed items and substances that come under the Atomic Energy Control Act.
It is an important thought that the member for Winnipeg Transcona has put on paper. It is something for which he ought to be congratulated because it makes a very important contribution not only to the knowledge of this House but also in raising the awareness about the fact that in this country we do not really have an energy strategy that looks at the short, the medium and the long-term.
Therefore, the member for Winnipeg Transcona ought to be congratulated and supported. I would ask colleagues who have spoken against this bill or intend to speak against this bill not to be afraid of sending this bill to committee for a very thorough analysis and examination.
Inevitably it will raise issues that are much broader than the question of bringing to a halt the development and exportation of certain prescribed items. Obviously the member for Winnipeg Transcona had a broader thought in mind and I think he is achieving that objective.
Private Members' Business
We have in the last hours actually launched in this Chamber something that this government has unfortunately failed to do, namely a debate on a national energy strategy. This is what we are actually doing. By voting or speaking against this bill we are really saying that Canada does not need a national energy strategy, that we should just ignore it and sweep it under the carpet and hope for the best. For that reason alone, were it only for that reason, we ought to support this bill and vigorously so.
It is ironic also that two months after the member for Winnipeg Transcona tabled his bill, the minister of energy and the Minister for International Trade would announce a loan of up to $315 million to Romania for the construction of the Cernavoda power station almost as if to provoke feelings in this field.
Without going again, because of time limitation, into the merits, I think it would have been more honest and more appropriate to describe this $315 million not as a loan but as an outright grant considering the economic difficulties that Romania is likely to encounter for a long time before being able even to look at debts with Canada.
Let me make the point that what we have here today is in a mini form, an integrated debate on the economy and the ecology, an integrated debate actually that brings the economy, the ecology and the energy all into focus. It should actually not be a debate in which we become polarized between two opposed factions, the enlightened on the one hand and the regressive on the other, and not knowing exactly who is where, but a debate that really brings together as a mainstream concern the public interest.
What is the public interest? It is really to address the question of the urgent necessity of discussing a longterm, medium-term and short-term energy policy. This is what the member for Winnipeg Transcona has achieved.
Therefore, for this reason it will be good to have a study of this bill in committee, I submit, and it would be a pity to be afraid of having this kind of study in committee. The difficulty that we face, and this has already been demonstrated by a number of interventions, is that the fate of nuclear power is being discussed in a policy vacuum. Since there is no national energy strategy for the next five years or longer we cannot really do it.

October 22, 1991
Private Members' Business
Imagine, even the champion of deregulation, namely the United States of America, has a national energy strategy that was determined after extensive public consultations. We do not.
This debate has to take place against the background of one major concern and that is the necessity of developing integrated policies that would aim at the reduction of the global climate threats which are the object of scientific elaborations in recent years. I would like to refer to the existence of a very impeccable source, a publication entitled "Energy for a Habitable World" which is published by the Interaction Council. This council is composed of former prime ministers and heads of states and can only be accused of having one vested interest and that is the best future for the world.
I am glad to report that the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, is a member of the Interaction Council. A national energy strategy would of course consist of several elements. Very briefly, it would deal with the fact, as a premise, that the global climate change is a reality and would therefore aim at developing policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005 as already discussed and concurred in Toronto at the Climate Conference of 1988.
Second, it would have a serious commitment at least for a long-term 50 per cent reduction by the year 2025. Certainly it would have a strategy that would end in the short-term to conservation and increases in the efficiency of energy users, namely on the demand side, and conservation and increases in the efficiency of production, namely on the supply side.
In the medium-term you would want to have a shift in the fossil fuel mix from coal and oil to natural gas, taking advantage of their different carbon contents and their impact of course on CO2 emissions.
In the long term, Madam Speaker, you would want to see and I am sure we are heading in that direction a very powerful and important promotion and aggressive introduction of renewable sources of energy, renewable because they are the ones that are going to serve the purposes of humanity in the long term and that would be required on a large scale.
To do that of course we will need to make very early, now, at this stage, in this decade, a massive shift in our resources and in our research funds.
The strategy in these very sketchy aspects would have to be complemented by other initiatives. For instance you would have to bring back into the National Research Council the energy division which has been systematically dismantled since 1984 and give this division a task that would be commensurate to this particular challenge.
Finally, it is important that we also as a nation give leadership internationally to the development of certain agreements that are required for the control of emissions of all greenhouse gases and agree with other nations on a concerted action.
I would conclude by saying also that this debate allows us to raise the importance of harmonizing environmental objectives and concern with energy promises. Here you have an example where all of us I am sure have made speeches on sustainable development and have here an opportunity to practice what they have preached in their respective ridings, cities and the like.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this debate on the consequences of Bill C-204 on Canada's participation in the NPT and safeguards program.
This proposed amendment to the Atomic Energy Control Act would throw into jeopardy the long years of determined efforts and accomplishments that have established Canada as one of the world's leaders in the field of nuclear non-proliferation.
It is quite clear that Canada's international stature on this matter was achieved by our participation in a domestic nuclear power program which included the full infrastructure that is required to support the construction and operation of Candu nuclear power stations in three Canadian provinces.
Canada is the world leader in the production and export of uranium and, as a result, has been a major factor in determining the operating principles of trade in this commodity. Canada has also engaged in the export of nuclear reactors and has learned by experience of the hazards that may result from inadequate controls.
October 22, 1991

This bill would immediately curtail any further activity in these sectors and would certainly have a drastic neutralizing effect on our continued participation in the non-proliferation theatre. The reputation that Canada has attained by its steadfast and expert participation in the world's nuclear community would be thrown to the winds by this arbitrary and irresponsible severance from the continued development of nuclear power. It would preclude any meaningful international influence over the course to be followed in the peaceful application of nuclear power and its attendant immeasurable benefits to mankind.
I should like to draw to the attention of the members the great achievements in leadership that Canada has demonstrated in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, all of which would be put at a high risk by any ill-conceived, whimsical action such as this.
Canada's non-proliferation and safeguards policy has two objectives: (1) to promote the emergence of a more effective and comprehensive international non-proliferation regime; and, (2) to assure Canadians and the international community that our nuclear exports will not be used for any nuclear explosive purpose.
Canada's policy promotes attainment of the first objective by emphasizing the key role of the NPT, which is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Second, by promoting reliance upon and improvements in the international Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, by treating nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapon states alike regarding Canadian nuclear exports and, finally, by working for new approaches covering the sensitive phases of the nuclear fuel cycle.
The second objective is served through the network of bilateral nuclear agreements that Canada has put into place with its nuclear partners. Those agreements provide assurance that Canada's nuclear exports are used solely for legitimate, peaceful nuclear energy production purposes.
At the same time, Canada, having formulated its non-proliferation and safeguard policy during the years after the Second World War until 1980, has recognized that it has gone as far as it can on its own in this field and that from this point on any further changes should be made on the basis of international agreement.
The Canadian objective is to persuade the international community to devise a more effective and comprehen-
Private Members' Business
sive international non-proliferation regime in which Canada and other suppliers might subsume their national requirements.
Whatever else, the second half of the 20th century will come to be symbolized by the unlocking of power in the atom, which will be seen as one of the half dozen or so most significant developments. This power was first demonstrated close to the mid point of the century. There is no turning back the clock.
It is common knowledge that energy can be released from splitting atoms both suddenly in an explosion and gradually in a nuclear reactor that has mechanisms controlling the rate of the chain reaction.
The question that has preoccupied many governments and many individuals since nuclear energy was first shown to be viable is how to harness the energy in the atom while preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
A great deal has been written about nuclear proliferation and nuclear non-proliferation since the first detonation of a nuclear explosive device in 1945. The high point in the history of non-proliferation is, of course, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which was written in 1968 to 1970. The establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1957 is also highly significant, especially since it is that international body that is responsible for onsite inspection and safeguard measures that assist the member states of the agency to demonstrate that no nuclear material is diverted to non-peaceful purposes from safeguarded nuclear facilities.
Besides these international efforts, many countries that supplied nuclear related materials have developed national policies of their own which apply to the export of such nuclear items.
The essential determinant of a proliferation is the degree of political incentive or disincentive which countries face. Thus, while diversion of nuclear items from the civilian nuclear fuel cycle is one possible technical route to the development of nuclear explosive devices, it is not the only nor the most efficient route.
A political decision to proliferate would be better served by installing facilities dedicated solely to that objective. Controls on the diversion of nuclear items from civilian facilities are necessary but it is clear that if a country has sufficient political incentive, such controls by

Private Members' Business
themselves would not stop that country. Any industrialized country and many developing countries could develop a nuclear explosive capability if they so decided. A general political commitment by a country not to proliferate is therefore as important as the specific controls that prevent diversion.
Canada was one of three states that participated in the November 1945 agreed declaration on atomic energy. Throughout the years that followed Canada has played an active and significant role in efforts to define an international regime which would serve the twin principles set forth in the declaration. Canada participated both in the drafting of the International Atomic Energy Agency statute between April of 1955 and October of 1956 and in the preparatory commission appointed to make arrangements for the first sessions of the International Atomic Energy Agency's general conference and of its board of governors.
Canada has had continuous representation on the board of governors since the founding of the IAEA and has strongly supported the agency's efforts on nuclear safeguards. Canadian representatives were also involved in the negotiations of the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Canada's uranium exports from 1945 until 1974 were carried out under a nuclear co-operation agreement which made the export subject to peaceful uses commitment and to acceptance by the importing country of bilateral verification measures by Canada, or increasingly through the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards that they had put in place.
From 1945 through until 1965, Canada also exported uranium to the United States and to the United Kingdom for use in their nuclear weapons program. These export sales were carried out as part of Canada's defence relations with those two countries. That policy was ended in June, 1965 when former Prime Minister Pearson announced in the House of Commons that "as one part of its policy to promote the use of Canadian uranium for peaceful purposes, the government has decided that export permits will be granted or commitments to issue export permits will be given with respect to the sale of
uranium covered by contracts entered into from now on, but only if the uranium is to be used for peaceful purposes. Before such sales to any destination are authorized, the Government of Canada will require an agreement with the government of the importing coun-tiy to ensure with appropriate verification and control that uranium is to be used for peaceful purposes only".
So with the announcement of this policy all Canadian uranium exports became subject to the "peaceful uses" provision.
I can see that the Speaker is indicating that my time is almost up. I would conclude by saying that in the riding of Cambridge the firm of Babcock and Wilcox has been quite active in this particular industry and I know that the company and the workers at that particular company and the community of Cambridge would certainly want me to stand here today and oppose this legislation.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this very worthy bill. I want to first commend the member for Winnipeg Transcona for bringing the bill forward.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the distinguished member for Davenport who spoke earlier. Had there been more time available tonight, we would have had another contribution in support of the bill namely from the member for Broadview-Greenwood who would like to see the bill go to second reading so that we could have a thorough examination of the nuclear industry.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: How about Winnipeg North?


John Harvard: Yes, and I could say that the member for Winnipeg North also supports the bill.
This is an important debate for this is a very major issue and this is the place, the Parliament of Canada, where major issues of this kind should be debated.
I joined the debate for many reasons, one of which is out of respect for the many concerned citizens. The people who support a bill like this and who are concerned about the nuclear industry are not odd-balls. These are good people and responsible people. They have studied the issue very thoroughly. Their questions are pertinent and their concerns are valid.
October 22, 1991

At last count, about 170 organizations support nuclear phase-out. In my province there are six well-known organizations: the Concerned Citizens' Committee of Manitoba, Manitoba Uranium Action Coalition, Project Peacemakers, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, Winnipeg Co-Ordinating Committee for Disarmament, and World Federalists, the Winnipeg chapter.
The words in the bill are quite sweeping. They call for a nuclear-free Canada, the cessation of all nuclear development and the phase-out of existing nuclear facilities at the end of their current life.
I would suggest that let us not focus entirely on the wording of the bill. Let us focus on the necessity of having a debate and a thorough examination of the nuclear industry in Canada. That is what I want from this particular exercise in Parliament.
To hear opponents of the bill tell it, any debate of this kind will bring the nuclear industry crashing down. Moreover, they would like us to believe that speaking in favour of a bill like this is akin to something unpatriotic. I say we should get serious because there is nothing further from the truth.
The nuclear industry is a huge industry in this country with thousands of employees. It has friends in very high places, starting with the federal government in Ottawa. It is anything but feeble and it can take care of itself. Let us have a debate because there is concern and that concern is growing.
In the 10 years ending in 1988 support for nuclear expansion dropped from 46 per cent of Canadians to only 16 per cent. A similar poll carried out by Decima in 1989 came up with a similar finding.
You might ask yourself the question: Is nuclear phaseout something far-fetched? I do not think it is. For example, there has been no new nuclear reactor in North America in the past 10 years. After Chernobyl, the Philippines closed its only plant. Several European countries-Sweden, Austria and Italy-have agreed to a nuclear phase-out and three plants have closed in Britain. Nuclear phase-out is something that is not far-fetched.
Relating to other concerns, things can go and have gone wrong with nuclear power plants around the world. We all know about Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. There, thousands of people died in the immediate area
Private Members' Business
around the plant which was transformed for a long, long time; perhaps forever.
We all remember Three Mile Island right on this North American continent. We thank God that there has not been something even worse than Chernobyl. We always think about a horrible, horrible meltdown, something that does not happen. Let us hope it never does.
Nothing as serious as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island has occurred in Canada. Our Candu reactor has according to world standards a pretty good record so far, but it is not perfect. There was a rupture of a pressure tube at Pickering, Ontario about eight years ago, in 1983.
The fear of accidents is one thing, but there are other concerns as well. There is radioactive pollution. Some countries, not Canada, have reduced permissible levels of radiation exposure for both workers and the general public. Nuclear power is dirty. It is dirty. The problems relating to waste, how to get rid of bad waste, are nightmarish.
Let me point out that over 17,000 tonnes of nuclear fuel bundles are currently in storage at reactor sites in New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, 17,000 tonnes of nuclear fuel bundles.
Radioactive substances from nuclear reactors are among the most toxic materials known to mankind. Spent nuclear fuel cannot be handled by human hands. It remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.
These are real problems and we cannot wish them away. That is why I believe that a thorough examination by this House would be very much in order.
While we are at it, we could look at the whole question of economics as it relates to the nuclear industry. The question of economics has been touched on in previous speeches, but just let me raise the question.
Are taxpayers getting a good return on their dollars which have been sunk into the nuclear industry? Billions of dollars have been sunk by the public into the nuclear industry.
I think a review is in order. It has been promised in the past. It was promised, I believe, by a former Prime Minister in 1979. It was again promised in about 1984 and it was promised somewhat later, in the late 1980s. Those promises have not materialized in any review of the nuclear industry.

October 22, 1991
Private Members' Business
I say we should take this bill and send it to committee. Let us have a thorough review and let us address the concerns of very concerned Canadians.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, this item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being seven o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 23,1991