1991-01-21

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a very short point of order, because we are anxious to get on to the private member's debate on an important issue.
Last week, the House was going to consider having television coverage of the special meeting of the external affairs standing committee with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That committee is meeting this afternoon, I think, at 3.30.1 am just seeking clarification, particularly from my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, that it is still appropriate that television cameras cover that important committee meeting.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member from the NDP knows, there are some discussions going on. I have been waiting for one of my confreres to come in and give us a chance to have a quick discussion. I would be prepared to return to the House at that time, but I do want to have those discussions before proceeding with the motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   AGRICULTURE ESTABLISHMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the creation of a co-operative extension service, financed by Agriculture Canada, universities and provincial governments, for research and for the continuing education of farmers and extension personnel.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I make some comments on this motion before the House in Private Members' Hour today, I would like to say, not that this is not an important subject, but I think there are other things that perhaps we could be discussing today. I want to point out to those who are watching the proceedings of the House today that this is part of the order of business of the House of Commons and so we will proceed with it.
It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the motion that I have before the House today. I will just read the motion again:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should support the creation of a co-operative extension service, financed by Agriculture Canada, universities and provincial governments, for research and for the continuing education of farmers and extension personnel.
I want to speak for a just few minutes on this and to plead with the government to recognize the importance of the agriculture and the agrifood business in Canada. Since the election of this Parliament a little over two years ago, the Mulroney government has seemed to be going full speed ahead on deboning agricultural programs and taking away from primary producers and the agrifood industry many of the management tools and many of the programs that have been available to them in the past.

January 21, 1991
Private Members' Business
I recognize that agriculture is a joint jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial governments, but I want to point out to them-and hopefully they will listen and recognize to a greater extent than they have indicated so far-the importance of the agrifood industry in this country. It is a $43 billion dollar industry. It employs one out of every five Canadians and, unless we take greater steps to replace or to change the programs that we have had taken away from the industry in the recent past, we are not going to be what we have to be; that is, competitive. That is the name of the game, whether in the agrifood industry or whatever other industry or business we are in. We must be competitive.
It is a false economy, a false view, and a false thinking if we do not give more emphasis to research and development in all industries, not only agriculture, and to continuing education for those not only at the primary producer level, but, as the motion reads, for extension service personnel level who work with primary producers and with agrifood industry people, on through the system.
The agricultural industry in this country, in the last couple of years more than ever, has come under a tremendous amount of pressure. It is not only the pressure that has been created by the free trade agreement. I maintained throughout that debate that the agrifood industry was going to be hit the hardest and the earliest of all industries that were going to be affected by the free trade agreement.
We can see what is happening there. We can see the rationalization taking place in our food processing industry. The cost to this country is that it is not making us as competitive as we should be because of the change in the rules that the free trade agreement put in place against the wishes and the advice of many of us who have a pretty good knowledge of how that industry operates, can operate, and should operate. In spite of all those recommendations, those rules were put in place and now we are paying the fiddler for the tune that was called and dictated to them.
I will cite an example that is very close. It is in my own riding. Just 10 days ago, another food processor announced that it was going to cease the growing and processing of vegetables. That is going to affect the farm-gate return of 25 producers in my riding to the tune
of $1.3 million per year. As well, it is going to eliminate over 150 seasonal jobs from the early part of February until the early part of November.
We cannot blame the people who are doing it. The bottom righthand comer in their balance sheet obviously dictates that they have to do that, but it is a rationalization. Now that the rules are changed, they are having to play with different rules, to deal with different tariff levels, et cetera.
This has been dictated by not only the free trade agreement, but other changes, as well. The rate of interest. The government will stand up and say: "The interest rate is not as high as it was a few years ago." I admit it is not as high as it was a few years ago, but the spread in the real interest rate between Canada and the United States is much higher than it was a few years ago.
In the last round of high interest rates, we were looking at around 2 per cent spread between Canada and the United States. Our businesses were far more competitive in that line than they are now. Now, as we all know, it is 4 or 5 per cent. It matters, yes, what the interest rate is, but what matters even more is the difference between Canada and the United States.
The high dollar. The dollar is being held up, and that puts it at an unreasonably high level. It makes the export capabilities of the whole agrifood industry much more difficult. We know what that is doing.
The other uncertainty that our industry is faced with at the present time is the uncertainty of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT talks which to date have not been successful.
As I have stated many times, I have very grave concerns that because of the way the GATT situation is going, not enough will be done in the agrifood industry and in trade and agricultural commodities throughout the world to do the job. If we are not able to get a successful conclusion there, I will feel very sorry for many, if not all, of our primary producers in the agrifood industry. That will certainly filter all the way up. What we have to remember and what the government has to remember is that if we do not have a healthy primary producer level, we will not have the production for the rest of the agrifood industry to work from and to work with.
It is very easy to say, as some people say, yes it is cheaper to buy food some place else in the world at the
January 21, 1991

present time, and I agree. In the short run, it would be. But what we have to consider and what I plead with the government to consider is to put those programs in place, put the dollars in place, and put the assistance in place in co-operation to a greater extent with the provinces. This will enable us to provide in the long run the food requirements and a sound agricultural and agrifood industry for Canadians.
In the short run, with many things in our lives we might gain, but we have to think further down the road than the present government is apparently thinking.
Not only does the agrifood industry supply to Canadians a source of food, it also supplies to Canadians the safest source of food of any population in the world. The agrifood industry not only provides that food source but reaches a lot of other goals and purposes in Canada. I do not feel that the present government has recognized that and is recognizing that to the extent that it should. Not only as I say does it provide a source of food, it provides a source of quality food. How better can we provide to Canadians and guarantee to Canadians that we are going to have a safe source of food for our children and our grandchildren down the road than to have that food produced under our own eyes in Canada as much as possible? We cannot produce all the commodities we wish, we know that. We do not have the climate. But we have to produce that under our own eyes, with our own rules, in our own yard, in our own country. It has to take place.
That will not take place unless there is economic sustainability. We talk about sustainable agriculture, we talk about the sustainable environment and I agree 100 per cent with all of those. What we have to realize is that unless financially the bottom right-hand comer of the balance sheet of an individual operation, an agrifood operation, or a processing operation, whatever it is, is in the black it cannot happen, and it will not happen as much as we all may believe within our hearts that it should happen and it is the right thing to do. It has to make financial sense.
If that is the case, I think that the priority of the importance of the agrifood industry should be higher than it is and should be realized by Canadians. Not only does it provide a safe, sound source of quality food, it
Private Members' Business
also provides and plays a role in the environment. Agriculture producers know better than anyone else, especially the primary producers, the role that they can play in the production of different crops, in soil conservation, water conservation, and wind erosion. That is another important role that we must realize the agrifood business plays.
It also plays a very major role in the balance of trade of this nation. It also plays a very major role in employment. One in five Canadians is employed in the agrifood industry. We do not need those people any place else. If we needed them some place else, I guess one could flippantly say: "Well, we'll take one out of those or we will take 20 per cent of them because we need them some place else in our economy. We do not need them." Heaven knows this government has created a situation and we have enough unemployment now.
There is another role that one might say is an intangible role that the agrifood industry plays and that is in the social fabric or fibre of this country. I had an opportunity this summer to take a couple of trips through the prairies. My 20-year old son was with me and he could not believe it. He said: "Dad, look what is happening to these towns". We have all seen the movies where they are boarding up the windows. And they were, Mr. Speaker. There are towns in western Canada where 4 four by eight sheets of plywood are put over 40 per cent, 50 per cent, or 60 per cent of the businesses in the town.
I do not really think the direction that we want to send the rural people in this country is to the bigger urban centres. Yes, the big urban centres can play a role, and do play a role, but I do not think that we need to chase people there any further.
They are being forced to go there in order to find another source of income so that they can continue to farm and in their view, and in the view of many of us, to provide Canadians with cheap food. I have nothing against cheap food, but we cannot produce cheap food on the backs of a big percentage of our population. It just cannot be done that way.
I am just warning Canadians and this government that if they continue along this line they are going to create a bad situation down the road. We have rightfully become

January 21, 1991
Private Members' Business
concerned about our environment for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We want them to have clean air and clean water.
What I am saying is we are going to have to put more programs in place in order to provide for our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. We must provide safe, quality, wholesome food that is produced here by a big sector of our economy.
We must remember that there are only four creators of wealth in the world, no matter what we look at, see, touch or use. Those four are fishing, mining, forestry and agriculture. This government is allowing many of these to falter.
We do not have to take time here to talk about the condition of our mining, lumbering and fishing. We know that they are in a deplorable economic situation. As well, it is creating social situations in Canada that are far from what we would like to have and have grown accustomed to. Agriculture is one of those.
As I have said, and many others have said, as goes agriculture, so goes the economy of any country. We could use as an example what has happened to Mr. Gorbachev. For a number of years he thought the war machine would fuel his economy. He has found out recently that the war machine does not fuel the economy because he has now has many millions of people who have empty stomachs, no food on the shelves and no place to get it.
What fuels a healthy, productive, efficient economy is full stomachs. Then people will be able to work and be able to produce for the good of all. We know that in the U.S.S.R. right now many people do not know how they are going to get through to the spring and through the next year. There is just not any food in the pantry, shelves or in the stomachs.
I want to remind the government of some of its own figures. The total receipts at the primary producer level for farm income in Canada is predicted in 1991 to be 4 per cent less than it was in 1990. That is 7 per cent less than it was in 1989.1 remind this House, Canadians and the government that no industry can continue when the receipts are going down.
We all know what it costs to do business and what it costs to live on an individual or business basis. The expenses are going up. The receipts are going down in an industry that has never been all that healthy. We just
cannot allow that to go on. If we allow that to go on in the short run, we are going to pay very dearly as Canadians in the long run.
There is a lot of stress and a lot of uncertainty in the agriculture community today because of some of the things that are happening, as I have said.
What I am encouraging the government to do is to work with some groups that are out there that are asking through the provincial governments and directly to the federal government for some financial assistance and, in some cases, the continuation of financial assistance.
The government has not assured these organizations that it will provide for yet another year, in order to put the extension personnel in the field to deal with the management and production stress that is there. In many farm families where the husband and wife are having to work off the farm, or at least one of them has to work off the farm, in a rural community it is not easy to get babysitters or whatever for child care.
I remind the government of a couple of programs that I would recommend it consider highly. There are two examples from Ontario. I feel that these examples throughout the country can serve a very useful purpose. One is the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program that I am proud to say I was a part of getting established in Ontario a number of years ago. This program was one where farm, agrifood and extension people worked together on a two-year program in order to train people to meet the challenge for future leaders in dealing with provincial, national and international affairs, and to familiarize themselves of the needs of society and able to change rural Canada-and most of these are from Ontario-with a broad perspective. I recommend that the federal government do something through some department There have been applications to different ones and they have been turned down every time.
The other program is the Ontario Agricultural Training Institute. That is a program that is carried out by non-profit sectors. It is funded by 25 per cent of the individuals who participate in it and it is has helped put in place self-help training initiatives devoted to farmers and managing change. The major funding from this has been from employment and immigration. Unless it has happened in the last day or two, the federal government has refused, to this day, to approve funding for that program for another year.
January 21, 1991

I hope when my hon. colleagues reply today that they can give this House some good news in that they will announce that that funding is going to be put in place for next year because those are the types of co-operative programs that we need to continue.
In closing, I would like to remind the government of the importance and necessity of these types of programs so that we can strengthen our agrifood industry in this country so that we do not go behind at the rate we are going behind right now. I encourage and plead with the government to do so.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate.
As a former researcher who was heavily involved in extension and technology transfer, I know first-hand the importance of this issue to the agricultural industry. I am going to take a completely different approach in addressing this motion than the previous speaker has taken.
It is true that we are in a recession. It is true that it is having a significant effect on the agricultural industry. Apart from the approach taken by the previous speaker where he was wringing his hands about the future of the whole agricultural industry in Canada, certainly the future here looks as bright as in any country around the world.
He said that the government was de-boning agricultural policy and funding here in Canada. Any quick analysis of the expansion of funding since 1984 will clearly indicate that that simply is not true. With the recent announcements of the two new programs, GRIP and NISA, the government has committed itself to long-term programs in Canada which are certainly the most significant ever created in this country and are being very favourably received in the agricultural community.
When we look around the agricultural industry and the effects that current rationalization is having in that industry, it does cause some immediate concern.
When we look at what is happening on a world-wide scale, we see the world moving rapidly to freer trade everywhere, and very clearly consumers want that. The Canadian industry cannot survive with inefficient plants.
Private Members' Business
Instead of listening to and reading the negative headlines in the media and the newspapers every day, if we look at the business plans of Canadian industry in agriculture, particularly in agrifood processing, we will find that the number of new investments, expansions, and new plants in the food processing area in Canada are increasing very significantly. At last count, from January 1, 1989 to November 30, 1990 there were 30 new investments, 17 mergers, 39 plant closures, 50 new plants created, and 54 plant expansions. Every time there is a closure there are big headlines. Any time there is a new investment we have to look on page 43 of the business section to find it. Very clearly, the trend is to a much stronger and expanded food processing sector in Canada.
Everyone who happened to watch Venture on CBC a week ago Sunday night will have heard a number of food processing executives talking about the rationalization of Canada and the very positive future that particular industry has here.
Looking into the future and not wringing our hands about the immediate situation, although I do not want to minimize that because it is quite important and the agricultural sector needs help to get past it, how do we position farmers and the whole agricultural sector, which is so important to our economy? How do we position that to take advantage of the opportunities that will clearly exist in the next few years?
The government set up as part of the agrifood policy review last year the farm finance and management task force. All facets of the agrifood industry, including producers, worked with both levels of government to determine a long-term path to an economically stable farm community. The importance of improving farm profitability and performance through improved management research and extension efforts was central to the focus of that task force.
In its June report to the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture, the task force recommended the development of a national program in farm management training services and information. This would involve industry, both levels of government, and post-secondary schools of all types.
At their August meeting in Moncton, the ministers accepted the recommendation for the development of a national program. Going one step further, they set up a govemment/industry working group to draft proposals

Private Members' Business
for implementing such a program. A final report is expected at the end of April.
In an increasingly competitive global market, it is important that farmers have access to the up-to-date technology information they need to manage their farms effectively. The task force pointed out that governments alone were not capable of ensuring a complete flow of information to producers. That is why it is strongly suggested co-operation between members involved in the whole food chain, to make this whole approach quite efficient, wide-ranging, and to get all the information services out there to all parts of the agrifood industry.
The task force suggested the establishment of a long-term program for farm management. Federal and provincial governments and industry would co-operate and co-ordinate the program on a national basis so it could be delivered regionally to ensure individual needs are met. Regional delivery is quite important because of the various crops, climates, soil types, and so on across this country.
Specifically the task force proposed that the farm management program offer three levels of service to producers, the first being training and development services. This would include the development of modular training packages, curriculum, and so on. The second is to offer management services, which of course are very important to producers. Third, the program would offer information services and improvement over what is already offered among the extension services in existence already in Canada, which by the way are quite good.
This is a wide-ranging program involving both levels of government, colleges, universities, farm organizations, private sector lenders, and consultants all working together to co-operate and finance this organization.
We believe that changes in existing structures will handle the challenges in the future, that we do not need a completely new extension service. We just need to adapt the old one, which has developed as the needs of Canada have affected its development. We need just a bit more fine tuning and co-operation so that we can get the information out to our industry and position it very favourably to meet the challenges of the future.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today, although, like the mover of the motion, the member for Prince Edward-Hastings said, it is perhaps unusual for us to be debating a motion like this in times of national crisis. It is true also that life continues and other issues are still there for us to deal with.
Certainly one of those issues is the crisis which faces rural Canada today, in particular the agricultural community. It would be a mistake to let that focus be forgotten. Therefore, I am happy that this private member's motion is before us today.
There is no question that we are at a turning point when it comes to the future of agriculture and rural communities in our country. The process of centralization, the process of decline, has gone on for long enough. It has become incremental, in that it is operating at an accelerating pace. The percentage of farmers leaving is rapidly increasing. The percentage of farmers in trouble and that impact on the rural community is increasing at an incremental rate.
Therefore it becomes more and more urgent that action be taken. We can no longer feel that we have the time to deal with this matters on a gradual basis or on a long-term basis. Many of these issues need to be addressed now.
Certainly I accept the fact, as the member pointed out, that we are dealing with a primary industry in this country which employs 20 per cent of Canadians. One in five is dependent on the agricultural industry. We are dealing with food, the most basic of human needs which the world cannot do without. We also have to consider that one-third of Canadians, in spite of what has happened to rural Canada, still lives in rural Canada. Their future, the future of their children, and the future of their community depend very much on the direction in which we head.
The pressures we are under are quite self-evident. We have pressures that flow from the free trade deal. It opens up our way of handling our agricultural industry and our processing industry to harmonization with the approach of Americans. The American market is much larger. There are much larger economies of scale. I think there is much less emphasis on farm based institutions

and much less emphasis on support for the family farm. This is placing our agricultural industry, our farmers, under increasing pressure as this process becomes more advanced.
There is the whole international situation which was clearly focused in the GATT where there are real international differences on how we should approach this matter. On the one hand, the Europeans feel, because of their history and their geography and the fact that they starved during the war and because they have a very small area and do not want their cities any more crowded, that it is worth their while to keep as many farmers on the land as possible. They are prepared to pay the price to do so.
On the other hand, the United States feels, with its treasury and with its huge economies of scale, that it can blast anybody it wants to out of the market and is prepared to do so, using public moneys. Often forgotten is the fact that throughout the Third World the majority of people are still engaged in agriculture. While this whole trade war is affecting us in many dire ways, it is even more devastating to the farmers in the Third World who already live very marginal lives and have very marginal enterprises. They are being devastated by the whole situation.
A third pressure comes from the evolving awareness of what we are doing to our environment and the whole movement toward sustainable agriculture. This is going to force upon the farm community, if the farm community does not itself willingly adopt some of these perspectives, a whole new way of looking at agriculture, a whole new way of managing its affairs, with things like what kind of chemicals we use, how we handle our livestock, pesticides, herbicides, and so on. These matters will all be affected very much by the way this environmental debate unfolds in this country. It is going to create another whole set of factors to which the farm community will have to adapt in the years to come. If the rural community is not itself actively engaged in this debate, that debate is going to be forced upon it.
We have the' centralizing forces, which are perhaps part of the larger scheme of things and very much either a conscious or a subconscious part of government policy. I think this is outlined very well in the recent book by the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast wherein he
Private Members' Business
outlines very convincingly that both Liberal and Conservative governments in this country over the last 20 to 25 years have poured immense resources and developmental energies into the urban centres, very much to the neglect of the outlying regions or outer Canada, as he describes it. Inner Canada has had all the attention, all the resources, and all the investment, while outer Canada where one-third of Canadians live has been very much on the short end of the stick. Historical trends have been exacerbated even more by deliberate policy decisions of government through the years.
This has certainly led us to our current crisis. As the member for Prince Edward-Hastings said in his remarks, national cash income is expected to fall 4 per cent in Canada. It is 9 per cent in Saskatchewan this year. This means a 37 per cent drop in net income in Canada and a 60 per cent drop in net income in Saskatchewan. If we look at Saskatchewan's net income, there was already only a $5,000 a year income from farming sources for Saskatchewan farm families. If we take away 60 per cent of $5,000, we are left with a $2,000 income per farm family from farming operations. Surely that is a total disaster. It needs to be dealt with, not at some time in the future, not even as soon as our new safety net programs are expected to kick in, but on a very immediate basis.
It is also incumbent on us to present some alternatives.
That is why I am happy the proposal has been made. I was at Michigan State University, which is a land grant university in the United States, where the whole concept of co-operative education was pioneered. There it is understood that the partnership is among industry, the state, the local levels of government and the university. The universities essentially run the program.
I was very intrigued by that, because in Canada it is quite different. Here it is government which runs extension services. Originally, when I observed it, I felt that it was perhaps more appropriate to keep it running out of government agencies. Since then, I have noted a few things. One is the politicization of agriculture services in my home province of Saskatchewan by the Devine government where his support very much depends on his rural base. He uses the agriculture extension services to underpin that base.
Second, the massive need for change which has come upon the farm community over the last 10 years tells me

Private Members' Business
it is very important that we develop the kind of co-operative model which the member is talking about.
I support the proposal. As well, I support a movement toward safety net programs which are geared to the cost of production formulas. These should be the centrepiece of farm support programs.
We also have to deal with the question of farm debt. We cannot leave that to the free market. We need to deal with farm debt on an urgent basis. The way we are doing it now is leaving this generation, future generations and in fact past generations of farmers sinking under the weight of their debt load.
We need to deal with the infrastructure and rural development on a wider basis. We have to support farmer institutions which have allowed Canada to develop a unique role in agriculture that supports family farmers and their institutions like the Wheat Board, the wheat pools and marketing boards.
In closing, I might also refer to the platform of another party that only has one member in this House and therefore little opportunity to put views on the record. The Reform Party of Canada, by contrast, calls for a shift from government domination to an industry shaped by market forces. It pushes for an extension of free trade agreements with the United States to include common internal export subsidy arrangements.
It calls for the removal of the Crow rate through a one-time non-taxable bridge payment. It calls for the anti-eastern feed freight assistance and a re-orientation of the Farm Credit Corporation on a commercial basis, for future privatization and for the reduction of farm marketing boards as a cost-saving measure.
I am pleased to be able to put my views on the record to support the proposal of the hon. member. Rural Canada has been in retreat long enough. It is time to move forward. I would urge all members of Parliament to look for every way they can to assist the farm community in facing the challenges of the future.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address this motion that has been put forward by the hon. member opposite from Prince Edward-Hastings. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support
the creation of a co-operative extension service, financed by
Agriculture Canada, universities and provincial governments, for
research and for the continuing education of farmers and extension
personnel.
This certainly sounds all very correct, something that everyone should be supporting.
I would like to put on the record some of the things that are taking place. There can be no doubt as to the need for continuing research and education in our rapidly changing world. Farmers are not immune to changes, and their information needs continue to grow as well. The critical step is the efficient delivery of information to those who need it, and in a manner which can be readily put to use.
The motion before us today appears to imply that we need to completely overhaul an already existing structure, the authority for which lies within provincial jurisdiction. Before we jump into this unknown area, perhaps we should review our current situation.
If the member is implying that we should duplicate the system in place in the United States, there are several factors that need to be clarified. As hon. members may know, the U.S. system is a joint federal-state-university service.
First, what will be the cost? No doubt it would be rather substantial, particularly during the transition period to a new system.
Second, what would be the impact on Canadians who are currently involved in research and extension service delivery?
Third, is such a system relevant to today's reality? While it has been successful in the past, many of the more educated American farmers are questioning whether such a system best serves their needs.
This government favours an alternate approach that would encourage a more co-operative, responsible and effective extensive service which builds upon the institutional structures already in place across Canada.
As hon. members know, under our federal system, responsibility and authority for various aspects of Canadian agriculture are shared between the federal and provincial levels of government. This sharing of responsibility and authority is based not just on the Constitution Act but also on historical and traditional practices that have evolved over time.

Today, the federal government carries the principal responsibility for agrifood related research. Some provinces also support active research programs which have helped broaden our knowledge base. In my own riding, at the research station at Agassiz, which has been there for over 100 years, there is co-operation between industry and the research station. The industries put several thousands of dollars every year into the agriculture base so that research can take place next door to where the industry is operating. That is mainly concerning some of the supply managed commodities. This also applies to the horticulture areas. They are experimenting with various crops that can be grown in the Fraser Valley. These things are ongoing and in place at present.
In recent years, there has been a move toward greater private sector involvement in agriculture food research. The result has been an increase in federal-provincial-private sector co-operation and in research activities. This is ongoing and I applaud it.
The provincial governments have the primary responsibility for extension services but the federal government has been involved in a limited and measured way. Examples of this involvement include federal-provincial development agreements, direct technology transfers through Agriculture Canada's research branch and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration-which was better known when I grew up as the PFRA-and farm finance and management services through the Farm Credit Corporation and farm management specialists and agricultural economists.
Universities and colleges in Canada undertake a variety of agricultural research and extension activities. The level of effort varies substantially across institutions and provinces depending most often on the importance of agriculture to the regional and local economy.
This is one of the fundamental strengths of the current separation of responsibility as exists in Canada. While a national program may, at first glance, seem like the best way to go, more often than not, it is the local and regional interests that are in the best position to determine local needs.
Recognizing this regional diversity and growing importance of a more self-reliant, market responsive and environmentally sustainable agrifood industry in Canada, the Minister of Agriculture launched a comprehen-
Private Members' Business
sive review of Canada's agrifood policy in December of 1989.
Since that time, 11 task forces and committees have been examining a range of agrifood issues and have provided advice on possible future actions. The minister and his provincial colleagues have met to discuss these recommendations on two occasions, and a third meeting is anticipated soon.
One of the 11 committees has been examining research and technology transfer issues. In fact, in conjunction with the Canadian Agriculture Research Council, a national conference on research and technology transfer priorities will be held in June of this year. Stakeholders from across the whole spectrum of the agrifood sector will be involved.
To highlight the co-operation that is being reinforced by the policy review, the provinces have agreed that Agriculture Canada will focus on the delivery of technology and information to provincial specialists who, in turn, will pass it along to producers.
Agriculture Canada, through the recently established Industry Relations Office, is also working closing with the private sector on the commercialization of technologies developed by the department. The task force on competitiveness confirmed the importance of effective technology transfer for a healthy and competitive agrifood industry. At their meeting in Winnipeg last November, agriculture ministers agreed to participate in the creation of an industry-led agrifood competitiveness council that will serve as a catalyst in turning task force recommendations into action.
Another task force has looked at farm finance and farm management issues. This past August in Moncton, federal and provincial agriculture ministers accepted the four recommendations of the task force. Those recommendations include the need to develop a national farm policy; to establish a clearly defined role for the Farm Credit Corporation; to extend the mandate of the farm debt review boards; and to establish a national program for farm management training services and information.
Now that the task force reports are in, the next few months will be dedicated to putting concrete measures into place that will meet the policy needs of Canadian farmers.

January 21, 1991
So you see, Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the need to provide effective extension services to Canadian farmers, whether it be in the research technology transfer or farm management training.
As has been the practice of this government since 1984, we are moving forward by consulting with our provincial colleagues, industry and producers.
The intended results of our efforts is not to substantially change the existing institutions or to build new ones simply to provide an illusion of action. The intended result is a more co-operative, responsive and effective extension service for Canadian farmers.
In closing, I would like to say that the various programs that I see first hand at the Agassiz Research Station and the field days that they conduct and the involvement of the farm community is just another example of the co-operation that goes on between the industry and the research stations in agriculture in Canada.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity, if only for a couple of moments, to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings this afternoon because it deals with the whole range of government support programs, extension, research and so on.
I had the opportunity in 1987 or 1988 to visit most of the research facilities across Canada and to see how important they are to Canadian farm producers and in many cases how the co-operation between the federal and provincial governments provides these services, especially in Kentville, Nova Scotia, Lethbridge, Alberta and many other places across the country.
In the couple of moments that we have available to us, I would like to point out how devastating the figures are which the government released just last week. They show that in 1991 net farm income will be reduced by some 54.5 per cent from 1990, and 1990 was not a particularly good year in itself. Obviously, net farm income was twice as high as it will be in 1991.
Much of this reduction in net farm income-we hear that the Manitoba farm income will plummet by 51 per cent and other provinces likewise is due to the government's incessant reduction in government support programs since the 1988 general election. From 1988 to 1989 the reduction was over $100 million; in 1989 to 1990 some $1.3 billion; and in 1991 it is projected to be
reduced another $400 million. We face a dramatic and plummeting reduction in government support programs which likewise is reducing net farm income, as I said, in 1991 by some 54 per cent, from $4.3 billion to $1.9 billion.
This motion deals with the matter of research and development. In the government's support programs for agriculture research in 1986 to 1990 in constant dollars there is a reduction of some $4 million in operating budgets. Capital budgets have been slashed by $15 million, transfer payments by some $500 million, and the total reduction is almost $20 million.
Thus, in the budget of 1989, the government really started to lower the boom on Canadian agriculture producers and has been doing so ever since. This is a time when world grain prices are the lowest in history. The demand and marketing is at the lowest in history. It is simply unconscionable.


Mr. Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday night during the debate on the war against Iraq, over 200 people phoned the opposition lobby to talk to members of Parliament involved in that debate.
Only three of these callers supported the government position of using Canadian fighter aircraft against Iraq. The other 200 callers completely and vigorously opposed the government's position in this war. Many of the callers said they could not sleep. In fact, they had not been able to sleep since the war began.
I would like to place some of the comments on the record and share them with you. One of the callers said: "This war is a tremendous error." Another said: "It is totally reckless." Another caller said: "Bring our forces back. They have no business in that war." Another caller
January 21, 1991

said: "We are ashamed of our government in terms of what it has done."
One of the most poignant calls was from Will Williams, a 100 per cent disabled Vietnam veteran from DeForest, Wisconsin. He was sickened by what George Bush has done and by the Congress for supporting him. He urged us to continue fighting against this war, a war created by George Bush.
Other colleagues will place more of these comments on the record today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BALTIC STATES
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, while the world's concern has been focused on the war in the gulf, attention has been diverted from the tragic events in the Baltic states. The recent attacks by the Soviet army on the people of the Baltic republics of Lithuania and Latvia are clearly as unacceptable as the aggressive acts of Saddam Hussein.
The unfolding of events in the Baltics and the gulf are frighteningly similar to those in 1956, when the Soviet army invaded Hungary while the world was occupied with the Suez crisis. With that in mind, the Soviet Union must immediately take concrete steps to ensure that aggression such as we have seen in Lithuania last week and Latvia on the weekend is not repeated.
Canada must condemn the actions of the Soviet army by petitioning the United Nations to address these obvious violations of basic human rights and to support the right to self-determination. Canada should also seriously reconsider its aid to the Soviet Union in light of recent events.
It is tragically ironic that, as a signatory of the UN resolutions condemning Iraq, the Soviet Union must now seek to repair its own violations of the UN charter.


NATIVE PROGRAMS FUNDING
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, once again the government has violated international law in its treatment of Canada's aboriginal people.
The Canadian Centre of International Pen, in co-operation with the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto, undertook a study of Canada's obligations to native people under international law in response to the 1990-1991 federal budget cuts to native communication programs.
The government's treatment of aboriginal people will now be discussed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
I commend the Pen organization and the University of Toronto for their initiative and their interest. As the PEN president, John Ralston Saul, stated this morning: "This budget cut isn't a large one, just a small surgically-precise incision, enough to cut out the voice box of the native people."
The federal government wants to deny native people the very fundamental right of the freedom of speech.


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I read for the first time Amnesty International's detailed report of human rights violations committed in Kuwait before the war.
Amnesty International asked the Iraqi government, after it had released several hundred western nationals, to end the imprisonment, torture and killings of several thousand people in Kuwait. We were shocked and horrified by the torture methods used by the Iraqi forces.
The team of investigators listed the names of about
1,000	people who had been arrested but believes the exact number is much higher. Thousands of people, including 13 year olds, are still being held in Iraqi and Kuwaiti prisons, detention centres and private homes. Others were killed shortly after their arrest at police stations or at their homes, or were gunned down.
Mr. Speaker, we all join Amnesty International in asking for a stop to the torture and killing in Kuwait by the Iraqis.

January 21, 1991


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, in his comments on the Persian Gulf war, the Prime Minister has enjoyed quoting past Prime Ministers in similar situations. I would like to take this opportunity to quote some of the comments of average Canadians who called the House of Commons during the all-night debate early Saturday morning, January 19, 1991.
A Burnaby caller asked: "How do we change our role from peacekeepers to war-makers?"
A Newfoundland caller stated that "innocent women, children, and old people in Kuwait and Iraq did not cause this war, yet they are going to get hurt and killed".
Another caller told us that "people think this is one big Nintendo game. These are live players. It is not an artificial thing that gets eradicated. It is live flesh and blood."
From New Brunswick came: "Please continue to oppose this resolution. No one with 14 per cent public support has the mandate to take a country to war."
A Toronto caller said: "I came to Canada because I thought it was a safe haven. The actions of this government have destroyed that."
Another caller told us: "It is never too late to make a change to Canada's policy and turn Canada into a peacekeeper."
The Prime Minister should be more concerned with the opinions of ordinary Canadians, rather than quoting past politicians.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the total failure of federal fisheries policies in southwest Nova Scotia.
The minister has made much of the Hache task force as a basis of his groundfish management program. But I attended those meetings and hearings and none of the inshore fishermen I met there backed the department's new ideas. In fact, there has been a lack of agreement.
We now have the individual transferable quota system which gives experienced fishermen ridiculously low quotas. Some fishermen are so angry at the new system that they are taking the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to court to solve it.
Because of the enterprise allocation to the offshore, National Sea Products is now renting these inshore boats to fish quota that used to go to these inshore communities.
Since December 18, 1990, I have been asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for a meeting to discuss the situation, with no reply. I call on the minister to meet with me and, if not me, at least local fishermen to seek a reasonable solution quickly before things get out of hand.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, on August 2 the world watched with dismay as Iraq declared war and invaded Kuwait. The United Nations was quick to state its opposition to dictator Saddam Hussein's aggression. Canada actively participated in UN sanctions against Iraq. While months went by, many diplomatic solutions were sought. Saddam Hussein continued to say no to all peace initiatives.
On January 15, the allied forces, some 30 nations strong, moved to free Kuwait.
I call on all political parties to support Canada and the United Nations war effort, and on all Canadians to unite in our support of the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. We pray for their safety.
The nations of the world must find a lasting peace in the Middle East and throughout the world.



Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of Canadians phoned the House of Commons opposition lobby early Saturday morning to let NDP MPs know how they feel about Canada's participation in the gulf war. Here are some of their comments.
A World War II veteran sarcastically complimented the Prime Minister for getting us into this mess. Another, a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War and a member of my father's regiment-the Queen's
January 21, 1991

Own Cameron Highlanders of Winnipeg-said that the only common sense being heard in the House of Commons is from those who oppose the war.
A current member of the Canadian forces called to say that Canada's forces are ill-equipped to do what they are attempting to do, but that Canada is perfectly equipped for a peacekeeping role.
A woman from Nanaimo pointed out that she had lived in Britain through World War II and is against this war. "We should not bomb other people," she said.
Finally, a comment that sums up the feelings of many who called: "Please continue to oppose the resolution. No one with 14 per cent public support has the mandate to take the country to war."
At least one party is prepared to listen to the voices of reason from one end of this country to the other. I am proud to be a New Democrat.


Some hon, members:: Hear, hear.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, Iraq has not only rejected outright countless peace initiatives, but used the pause for peace to consolidate its grip over a sovereign nation taken by force and held under terror.
It is evident to all the world that the aggressor has no interest in discussion, negotiation or diplomacy. History has shown that appeasement does not work. Regrettably the world community had no alternative but to take the steps necessary to preserve world order and to safeguard the effectiveness and indeed the very future of the United Nations. Peace has a price. Canada now, as in the past, is prepared to meet that price.
I pay tribute to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces on duty in the gulf. They serve Canada in furtherance of UN resolution 678, not in a world as we would wish it to be, but in the real world. They are facing the grim reality of war and doing so with honour and
courage. These brave Canadians are defending the values and interests of Canada.
Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. They have our respect and gratitude.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, regardless of our views on the decision to engage our forces in battle, we must unite as Canadians in support of the men and women of our Armed Forces. They are bravely putting their lives at risk in the hope that this conflict will be resolved quickly and peace restored.
Nobody wants to see Canadian forces engaged in battle. We would have preferred a peaceful solution to this conflict. However, we are now in a state of war and we must be careful to ensure that the actions we take and the speeches that we make in the House do not in any way adversely affect the morale of our Armed Forces.
War is always a time of pain, trauma, and hardship. It is also a time for our country to pull together. In speaking with my constituents on this matter, I recognize that there exists some diverse views as to what our role in the Persian Gulf should be. But most would agree that our thoughts, prayers, and support must go out to the men and women of our Armed Forces.
Let us hope that their efforts are accomplished with a minimal loss of life and that they are soon on their way back home.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, no Canadian seeks war, but we have a responsibility to protect the peace. The United Nations was founded to protect the world from unprovoked aggression. Canadians are willing to accept their responsibility to uphold the principles and mandate of the United Nations.
The son of the late Prime Minister Pearson, Geoffrey Pearson, was quoted this weekend as having said: "My father was no pacifist. His policy was based above all on the United Nations' importance as a peacekeeper. But

Oral Questions
once war broke out, he felt that UN member countries should use military intervention to oppose the aggressor."
He went on to say: "So, aside from a few slight differences, I think Mr. Clark is following Canada's diplomatic tradition."
Our nation is not a nation of pacifists. We are a nation of peacemakers. Today our forces are helping to establish peace in the Persian Gulf. Canadians did not want this war, but we are willing to accept our responsibility to uphold the principles and mandate of the United Nations.


SADDAM HUSSEIN
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon all of us to raise the morale any way possible for our troops in the multinational force.
It has long been a tradition to paint names and messages on the fronts of missiles to be launched, but I would like to suggest that our multinational forces no longer print Saddam on any missiles. No, Mr. Speaker, I would rather have them print Saddam in reverse, because Saddam spelled backwards is M-A-D-D A-S.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, despite intensive diplomatic effort prior to January 15, war has broken out and Canadians are trying to come to grips with it.
Violence is not an effective means of resolving disputes and we all wish it had not come to this.
We know it is difficult to imagine an end to this war but it will end one day and the issue will not be who wins or who loses, because, clearly, we all lose in situations like this. One of my constituents said: "Our world, poised on the brink of environmental collapse, crying out for the most basic reforms to bring some justice, food, and hope to the Third World, just cannot afford this waste of resources and lives."
Once this crisis is over, Canada and the United Nations will face a very important challenge and that is to find a long-lasting solution to the problems in the
Middle East. To this end, it is my hope that the day will come when words like "war", "violence", and "destruction" will be removed from the dictionary of humanity and replaced by "dialogue", "diplomacy", and "peace".



Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, war is one of the least acceptable human behaviours but even less acceptable is not standing up for your beliefs when all possible diplomatic alternatives have been attempted and rejected.
On Friday, some 200 students gathered at the University of Calgary to express their support for the United Nations forces, including the Canadian Armed Forces, seeking lasting peace in the Persian Gulf region. In a statement that speaks for many in southern Alberta, a home-made sign was hung over Memorial Drive in Calgary. It said simply, and I quote: "Canadians with life experience support you, Brian. The peace we enjoy costs something".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we would like the Prime Minister to inform the House about the international situation.
This weekend, the press reported a statement by the Prime Minister that the conflict in the Persian Gulf would be a long and difficult war. I therefore want to ask him, since he expects a long and difficult war, whether he still stands by his commitment never to send land based troops to the Persian Gulf, as he said last week.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, from the outset, the government has always believed that this was a war that might last for an extended period.
We never thought this was a conflict that could be settled on a weekend. That being said, I think the government remains very confident with respect to the war being done by our armed forces and the forces of our
January 21, 1991

allies which will deal with the problem definitively on the battle field.
As far as our commitment is concerned, this is something I mentioned before, which was also mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it is an integral part of our Canadian policy.


BALTIC STATES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on another very serious international situation. As the Prime Minister knows, this past weekend, Soviet troops attacked the Latvian Department of the Interior, and at least five people were killed, some of whom were civilians and some of whom were press people. This crackdown came just one week after Soviet troops moved into Lithuania, killing 14 people. Will the government call in the ambassador of the U.S.S.R. and express to him the outrage of the people of Canada at this use of force?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have already called in the Soviet ambassador again today to make precisely that point, that Canada strongly condemns the brutal and unwarranted military force used against the people in the democratically-elected government of Latvia. I will have the opportunity later today to meet in my parliamentary capacity with Vice-President Ivans of Latvia who is coming to Ottawa to communicate directly the concerns and preoccupations of his people and his government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, after the crackdown in Lithuania last week, the Prime Minister issued a press release in which he said: "Further escalation will have serious consequences for Canada-U.S.S.R. relations."
I would like to ask the Prime Minister: Given that we have seen "further escalation", what will the government do to pressure the Soviet Union into abandoning the use of deadly force in dealing with the people of the Baltic republics?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at action in three broad areas.
One, of course, is in our bilateral relations with the Soviet Union. We have indicated to them already that the line of credit and other emergency assistance that had been discussed by our government is under review.
The Leader of the Opposition will know that, even within the Canadian community of Baltic origins, there is some question as to whether or not we should be involved in actions that have to do with the delivery of foodstuffs to the Soviet Union. That is a matter that is being considered.
We are also looking at other actions on a bilateral basis that made it abundantly clear that this action by the Soviet Union will adversely affect relations between our two countries.
Second, we are looking at actions that can be taken internationally. There was a question raised by my colleague from Winnipeg and again by the member for Calgary the other day, and we are examining whether it is possible to raise these matters through the CSCE or through the United Nations. There is a problem of a Soviet de facto veto in both cases.
Finally, Canada is looking at concrete ways in which we can support the Baltic states through increased contacts and direct assistance. I hope to have the opportunity to discuss some of those in detail in my meeting later today.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the same minister.
As we know, one week ago, the world witnessed the bloody crackdown against Lithuania. Today, the Canadian Latvian community is outraged by the senseless tragedy of the Soviet black berets killing and maiming innocent civilians and journalists in Riga over the weekend.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs: In light of the critical events happening in the Baltic states, would he, which he can do pursuant to Standing Order 53, call for an emergency debate on this very critical issue?

Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly favour an emergency debate by this House on that matter.
I believe that there may be the opportunity for that issue to be discussed among House leaders. Indeed, it may already be under consideration by House leaders, and I would not want to intrude upon their decisions.
I think it would be helpful following the unanimous resolution that was passed here if there were a short, clear debate by this Parliament allowing representative members of Parliament of all parts of the House to express their views clearly and unequivocally to the Soviet people and, indeed, to the people of the Baltic republics.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister.
This Saturday, January 19, my colleague from Scarborough Centre and I attended a meeting with close to 500 Canadians of Baltic descent to discuss this current crisis in the Baltic states.
Among other demands, Baltic Canadians want the Government of Canada to call on the United Nations to send observers to the region and to recognize the councils of the republics in Canada. I want to ask the minister: Will he consider these two requests from the Baltic Canadians? Can we expect some action on these two recommendations as soon as possible?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Scarborough Centre, as is her custom on these matters, brought the contents of this discussion immediately to my attention this morning.
We had an opportunity to discuss it in detail. I am not yet in a position to respond to the question put in the House by my hon. friend and put to me earlier by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, but we hope to be able to respond in-excuse me?


Coline M. Campbell: What is the U.S. doing?


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member speaking from her seat asks what the United States is doing.
She would be interested to know that, among the communications to the Soviet Union by western leaders, no one spoke more strongly, no position was more
emphatically stated than that by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, indeed, without commenting upon her question or upon the reaction of other countries, I can say without any fear of contradiction that the statement by the Prime Minister of Canada was the strongest issued by any leader of a western government and we intend to follow in that course.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on July 25 of last year, one week before Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait, the U.S. ambassador told him that she had been instructed by James Baker to say: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. The issue is not associated with America."
Given this history and given western and U.S.S.R. arms sales to Iraq, can the Prime Minister indicate whether Canada agreed with these early U.S. signals and with these arms sales to Iraq, and what concrete diplomatic efforts Canada is making, both at the United Nations and in direct dialogue, hopefully with Iraq and through the Arab league, to bring this mad war to an immediate end?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have had extensive conversations with foreign ministers in the region and with Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar with regard to means by which this matter can be ended peacefully. I believe the hon. member knows that.
He will also know that Mr. Perez de Cuellar has expressed his view that there has to be a response by Saddam Hussein to the actions of the United Nations before there can be serious talk of a pause, a withdrawal or other actions of this kind. We agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on that matter.
I certainly did not know at the time what conversations ensued between the ambassador of another country and Iraqi authorities in July. Certainly it is our view that the questions raised by the invasion of Kuwait, that direct challenge to international law, and the refusal by Saddam Hussein to respect or respond to the wishes of the
January 21, 1991

world united, is a matter which raises direct Canadian interests and requires a Canadian response.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, of course, the minister has not dealt with the very important question of arms sales into that region in the period leading up to the invasion.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that with the massive carpet bombing now under way in Iraq the objectives of this war are not, if they ever were, to solely remove Iraq from Kuwait in compliance with UN resolutions, but clearly to destroy Iraq militarily, economically and socially. In short, this is not a UN authorized war but a U.S. led war.
Will the Prime Minister now tell Canadians how many men, women and children have died in this war, both civilian and military, including the republican guard, since censorship denies us this fundamental information? Will the Prime Minister now recognize that Canadian troops should not be involved in this tragic war but instead, Canada should be playing a humanitarian, medical role and ultimately, a peacekeeping role, to help reduce the terrible toll that this war will take in human, economic and ecological terms?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think most of us in this House believe that the most humanitarian action that can be taken is to end this conflict quickly, to end it finally and to end it in a way that respects not only the integrity of Kuwait, but also the effectiveness of the United Nations. That is what we are trying to do. I have no idea what the hon. member is trying to do.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will know that an all-party delegation has just returned from the Horn of Africa which currently faces a famine of biblical portions. The gulf war is likely to seriously complicate the delivery of emergency relief through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden to the Sudan and Eritrean ports.
Oral Questions
Would the Prime Minister therefore undertake to inform the United Nations and other relief agencies that Canada, if asked to do so, is prepared to redeploy our air and naval forces already in the gulf to provide escort services for the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, all the implications of that question will of course have to be looked at with some care.
My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, will be meeting with the all-party delegation which has just returned from the Horn of Africa. We are very concerned about the situation there and want to take practical steps to be of help to it.
The hon. member, inadvertently perhaps, underlines that when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait, when he started this war, he had effects not only upon the people of Kuwait, but he had effects upon suffering people everywhere in the world: in the Horn of Africa, in Zimbabwe, in Senegal, and in Bangladesh.
That is why this has to be stopped, and that is why it has to be stopped within the authority of the United Nations.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Today and tomorrow in Ottawa, the Department of External Affairs is meeting with various NGOs in the preparation of the upcoming 47th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The cruel and unwarranted human rights violation against the people of the Baltic states should be a top priority at this session.
Would the minister outline what steps Canada will take at this session on human rights to help bring an end to these atrocities in the Baltic states?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the consultations with non-governmental organizations interested in hu-

January 21, 1991
Oral Questions
man rights is precisely to ensure that we have the best advice from the non-governmental sector as to how we can advance legitimate Canadian interests most effectively through United Nations agencies.
There are people who are speaking on behalf of the Baltic peoples participating in those meetings. We will certainly take their advice seriously. If there are ways in which those interests can be advanced through the United Nations, we will advance them.
I make the point that we must also act on other fronts. That is why we are looking, in addition to the United Nations, to the CSCE; why the Prime Minister sent a very strong letter to Mr. Gorbachev; and why we are looking at other ways in which we can offer symbolic and substantial help to the Baltic peoples.


Beryl Gaffney: My supplementary question is directed to the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
These outrageous atrocities are happening today. They happened yesterday and they happened last week. Still I hear that we plan to keep moving at a slow pace.
Would the minister please assure me and the people on this side of the House that he has instructed these people who are meeting with the NGOs to try to attempt to bring an end to these gross violations of human rights? Would the minister please assure me that he has asked these people to make that representation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that this House be heard. It is very important that individual members, like the hon. member who has spoken, stand and express their concerns as evocatively as they can. But, at the end of the day, these kinds of expressions of opinion by parliamentarians in Canada will be effective only if we can find resolute ways that persuade Soviet authorities.
That is why the Prime Minister of Canada deliberately sent the strongest message sent by any western leader to Mr. Gorbachev insisting that he desist. That is why we have made it clear that the nature of relations between Canada and the Soviet Union will be very much affected by his response to that position. That is why we are looking at ways that have not been developed before and that may not be acceptable to other countries by which we can establish symbolic and substantial help to the Baltic peoples.
The members words are welcome. If she has suggestions as to particular actions that will work, that will be effective, that will have a resonance beyond this House, I would welcome hearing from her.


BALTIC STATES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Considering the tragic events in the Baltic states and the involvement of the Soviet army, will the minister stop the deportation of refugees from those countries, especially those who do not want to be drafted into the Soviet army?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have a deportation policy that is very sensitive to the situation in countries that are part of the Soviet Union. Similarly, people from the Soviet Union who are in this country may apply for a visa extension in Canada.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have been informed this weekend that some refugees from the Baltic states presently in Canada are being deported. They believe that once they are in the Soviet Union they will be drafted by the army.
Will the minister make sure there is no deportation into the Baltic states?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have been very sensitive to the situation in the Baltic states. Of course the people from these states carry Soviet passports, so it is up to them to identify themselves as being from a Baltic state.
However, our practices will continue to be very sensitive to the situation there.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It also pertains to the situation in Latvia and Lithuania and, for all we know, any day now in Estonia with respect to the use of violence against civilians and the imposition of Soviet control over the democratically elected governments of these Baltic republics.

I am asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs, not quarrelling with his analysis of the strength of the Prime Minister's statement but recognizing the urgency of the situation there that some action be taken: What can Canada do today at the United Nations to bring this issue into the international arena where it belongs?
I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he not let the Soviet veto get in the way. If the Soviets want to veto some suggestion by Canada, so be it, but Canada should be making concrete suggestions as to how this can be dealt with at the UN.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I accept that and I agree with that. There is of course an extension between making a case and having a direct effect. I accept the hon. member's case that despite the veto there may well be things we should be doing at the UN and indeed in the CSCE.
I think the most practical thing I could do today is to accept the opportunity as a parliamentarian to meet the vice-president of Latvia who is here, and I have changed my schedule to do that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone welcomes the willingness of the minister to meet with these groups, but in the end he will have to act on behalf of the government and not as a parliamentarian. What we are trying to suggest are ways and things that the government can do.
Therefore, I have a supplementary question having to do with the direct assistance option of which the minister spoke. I am in receipt of information which the government may already have of the various medical needs of the republic of Lithuania and certainly now of the republic of Latvia as a result of the actions taken by the Soviet troops.
I wonder whether the government is now making plans to deliver that kind of medical aid, equipment, et cetera, drugs and various other things that are needed in those republics as a result of Soviet action.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is yes.
Indeed we have had discussions with some provincial governments which have indicated a willingness to make
Oral Questions
some contributions to medical aid. We are looking at other ways in which we can both assemble the aid and ensure that it reaches its destination. The latter problem may prove more difficult than the former, but I have some confidence that that can be accomplished. I would appreciate, naturally, the help of members of the House in identifying sources of medical aid that may be helpful to Canada and helpful to the people of the Baltic republics in this circumstance.


PRISONERS OF WAR
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-IHnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the treatment of prisoners of war.
In light of the parading of the coalition prisoners of war on Iraqi television over the weekend which gives cause for concern for their treatment, I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could tell the House what assurances Canada has sought to ensure that prisoners of war are treated by the Iraqis according to the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have today called in the ambassador of Iraq to Canada to demand precisely those undertakings. That is Iraq's clear obligation under international law, and Canada expects it to adhere absolutely to those obligations.


Fred J. Mifflin: I thank the minister for his direct answer. I am sure he is doing all within his power to talk with Iraq.
Those of us in the House who have looked at some of the things they have done, even before the war, would have great cause and indeed wonder if they would honour these commitments.
I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to give us perhaps his assurance or response to the proposal that we may have to go outside the Iraqi ambassador and indeed seek assurances from international organizations directly, like, for example, the International Red Cross.

January 21, 1991
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to do that.
I would remind the hon. member that when there was an agreement by the world, indeed an agreement that had been initiated by Canada with regard to trying to get food and medical supplies to people in particular need in Iraq by way of the International Red Cross, it was Saddam Hussein who said no, just as he has said no throughout this piece.
It would be extremely unwise for anyone to assume that, until he is forced to, Saddam Hussein is going to change a position which has consistently, day after day, using all the time that we have given him, put the world more and more at risk.


FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the government continues to state that Canadian forces in the gulf are under Canadian command.
Can the Prime Minister reassure Canadian journalists that our traditional freedom of the press will co-exist with security in a war zone for the duration of this conflict?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Canadian forces are under Canadian command. Any journalists who are there will obviously be given full freedom of the press, subject of course to all necessary requirements stipulated by military authorities in a war zone.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the question is: Whose authority? The Canadian Association of Journalists complains that our reporters are subject to U.S. censorship.
Can the Minister of National Defence assure this House that Canadian reporters will be able to tell the full story of our forces and the job they are doing to the Canadian people?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as of last Friday, I signed a letter to the president of Canadian Press, which represents the media located in the Persian Gulf area. I outlined exactly the attitude and the opportunities available for the Canadian media to be briefed and to be brought up to date without
harming the operational capability of the Canadian forces.
I cannot guarantee for other nations or I cannot guarantee that Canadian media located in other countries where Canadian military authorities are not functioning can have the same access. I am sure people will recognize the consistency with which we have dealt with the media, and that will continue.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
One of the factors which has made the public skeptical of the war in the gulf, in particular the motives of western governments, has been the role of western governments over the past 10 years in the sale of arms to Iraq, against which this government is sending our forces. I raised this issue in the House last November. Has the government investigated the role of Canadian government departments and Canadian companies in the sale of arms to Iraq and if so, what can the government report to the House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at that. The hon. member will know that there were some unsubstantiated allegations by a Canadian journalist with regard to a particular transaction. We have asked for any evidence that journalist might have. He has provided us with none. All of the evidence we have indicates that his alleged facts are wrong.
The hon. member will also know that I have tightened the export control restrictions generally with respect to export of goods to that region which might be used as arms. I believe there have been no Canadian shipments. Again, if the hon. member has any hard evidence, not unsubstantiated allegations, not allegations in the air, I would like to look at them.
Finally, it is going to be very important for the world to seize the opportunity when this war is over to have a more effective regime. I have spoken about that. Among the steps that our diplomats are taking now, as we look to what Canada might do, what initiative we might take after the crisis is over, is an identification of the practical measures that might be taken to stop the trade of arms, not only into Iraq but into that volatile region.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have information that Iraq now has in place artillery capable of firing shells with high explosive or chemical warheads at extended ranges, shells which were tested by a private Belgian company in 1987-88 at the Department of National Defence Research Centre at Suffield, Alberta.
If the Department of National Defence did not know this, and I am advised that it could have known it by simple inquiries, that the shells were destined for Iraq, can the minister tell us whether the government was aware of this? Will the minister agree that an immediate, independent, public investigation be launched into Canadian involvement in all arms sales to Iraq?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am still not aware of anything other than the allegation which has just been made by the hon. member. If he is serious, he will provide us right now-lay it upon the table of the House, or deliver it to me directly-all of the information that he has that we should be pursuing.
On the basis of the information I have, there has been no Canadian involvement in that trade. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased that the hon. member now understands that Saddam Hussein does possess this deadly capacity and if we had given him the time, which the hon. member and his party asked us to give him, he would have made more deadly use of that potential.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the very serious human rights violations in Latvia and the other Baltic countries.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is aware that the third round of the CSCE conference on the human dimension, the human rights conference, is being held in Moscow later this summer with the U.S.S.R as host. Surely we should be thinking about bringing some pressure to perhaps relocate that meeting to another country or withdrawing from it.
Oral Questions
I think it would be a tragedy, if the U.S.S.R. does not change their approach, for us to attend a human rights conference in Moscow.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when the decision was taken to have the conference of the CSCE in Moscow, I believe Canada was the last country of the CSCE to agree to that location. We did so with some reluctance, precisely because we wanted to have some guarantees as to the commitment of the Soviet Union to human rights matters.
It was the judgment of the Government of Canada at that time that it was very important to have a conference on that topic in the atmosphere of perestroika and glasnost within the Soviet Union. We have secured guarantees with respect to access of journalists, the position of non-governmental organizations and the like.
I agree with the hon. member that the events in the Baltic republics raise questions that must be considered with regard to that meeting. I think he would agree with me that it would be well for the Government of Canada and others to respond, prudently and carefully, to that proposal, so what I will do is note a proposal that has been made by a member of the House.


INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGREEMENT
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Under the free trade agreement, Canada is required to proportionately share its oil and gas with the United States. Is the minister preparing to honour this agreement when the U.S. suffers a shortage as a result of what the Prime Minister has predicted to be a long and difficult war in the Persian Gulf?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, with respect to the free trade agreement, I point out to the hon. member that chapter 9, the energy chapter, commits both signatories to all the obligations that they had taken before that, principally, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
As well, I remind the hon. member that in 1974 the then Liberal government joined Canada-and I agree

Oral Questions
with that-in the International Energy Agency, whereby Canada obligated itself for sharing of any shortfalls. It is that obligations which Canada is following and not the free trade agreement.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. Could he confirm that the government has prepared a gas rationing plan for consumers and that ration coupons are about to be printed, in fact, are being printed at this very moment in Cornwall?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, along with the provinces and the industry, has developed an oil and gas industry in which our reserves have, in fact, increased since the days of the latter seventies and the early eighties.
Second, I point out to her that we are in a position where we are a net exporter of oil and gas.
Third, it is for these reasons that this government has spent a lot of money in encouraging new projects, both in the west and off the east coast, so that we can increase our supply.
Last, under the International Energy Agreement, there are three stages, one of public information, the second a co-ordinated emergency response mechanism which we triggered after the invasion and, third, if there should be rationing, as part of the IEA- which we do not believe will happen-we have not printed coupons. If we were to ever come to that point, it was the Liberal government of 1974 that committed Canada to that approach.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On Friday, the Leader of the Opposition asked the government if it would provide humanitarian aid to the people of Israel, in light of the unprovoked attack upon it by Saddam Hussein and in light of our sympathy and solidarity with that country and the Prime Minister said that such aid had been offered. I ask the Prime Minister if he can provide the
House with the details of this humanitarian aid at this time.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague and I pointed out in the House, not on Friday but on Tuesday, we believed that the ultimate ambition of Saddam Hussein was to launch an attack against Israel. This is one of the reasons why Canada has taken such a firm stand in defending the United Nations and its principles because that was consistent with the avoidance of the kind of attacks we have seen against Israel.
When the attacks took place, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I immediately conveyed to the Prime Minister of Israel and his government our expressions of solidarity and support, together with our intention to be of assistance in respect of any humanitarian requirements that might arise.
We have been keeping in touch both with the government of Israel and with leaders of the Jewish community across Canada. We have not yet received a specific demand, but the Government of Israel has expressed great appreciation for the understanding, support and solidarity manifested by the government and the people of Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in light of all these contacts, I again ask the Prime Minister if he can tell us more about this aid which will be welcomed by all concerned, and in particular if he can tell us exactly what this aid will consist of.
When will it be sent? Will it help repair the damage caused by the missiles? Also, will it help provide housing for the hundreds of thousands of refugees crowding into Israel because of conditions in the Soviet Union?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member at the end of his question raises another matter which has to do with housing and refugees.
When I was in Israel in November, there were discussions with regard to Canadian assistance for housing. We said that we would be prepared to have Canada involved in that kind of assistance provided it did not have to do with housing in the occupied territories.
With regard to the humanitarian assistance, it would come from CIDA. Sources have been identified. The government of Israel has, very recently, not only indicated its appreciation of the help that was offered but
January 21, 1991

suggested that at this stage it was an offer which, while appreciated, would not be taken up at this stage.
We have also made a similar offer to the government of Jordan. The Jordanians also indicated that because the reports had been exaggerated of the impact of missiles falling on their territory they would not respond at this stage.
I should take the opportunity, since it relates to humanitarian assistance to Jordan, to say that I have discussed with Jordanian officials help that Canada might provide to Jordan in dealing with refugees who might come into that country as a result of their decision, taken at the urging of the world, to open their border to refugees from Iraq or elsewhere.



Mr. Dan Heap (IHnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
We are hearing reports in generalization of carpet bombing of Iraq day after day and night after night, but because of military censorship we are not getting any of the facts about casualties which, judging by World War II experience, potentially can be very devastating.
Will the minister give us some estimate from his sources of how many people-men, women and children-military or civilian, have been killed in this carpet bombing?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the only estimate I can give him is that which Saddam Hussein put forward from Iraq. The fatalities are less than 100.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
King Hussein of Jordan recently called for a temporary ceasefire to give dialogue and diplomacy a chance to avert a tragic disaster. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs comment as to what is Canada's response to King Hussein's call?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Government of Canada
Routine Proceedings
has maintained the most active possible contact with King Hussein and with his government.
We thought that was particularly necessary because other governments involved in the coalition were not maintaining that contact. That is the reason I visited Jordan in November, and that is the reason why the Prime Minister has been in regular communication with the King. That is why I phoned Mr. Masri, the foreign minister two days ago. We are maintaining close contact with him.
Our ambassador, Percy Sherwood, was called in by King Hussein two nights ago. King Hussein expressed to him his deep appreciation of the leadership that Canada has shown in keeping lines open between members of the coalition and Jordan.
With respect to the particular proposal that King Hussein has put forward, that is one with which we disagree. We think it would be inappropriate for there to be a pause or a cease-fire until Saddam Hussein has used the channels that are open to him to indicate clearly that he is prepared to accept Security Council resolutions that were duly passed, and that he had an opportunity to accept in conditions of peace and they now are being enforced by the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) moved: that Bill S-119, an act to amend the Penitentiary Act to reinstate the statutory visitation privileges of members of Parliament, be now read a first time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

January 21, 1991
Routine Proceedings


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions on all sides of the House and I believe that you will find the necessary consent for the following motion:
That this House authorize the broadcasting, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons, by the electronic media as represented through the House of Commons Press Gallery, of the meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International 'Bade, Monday, January 21 at 3.30 p.m.;
That such broadcasting be at the discretion of the chairman of the committee; and
That the decorum of the meeting be preserved.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of Ontario who are concerned about the Young Offenders Act.
The petitioners are asking for more severe penalties for those convicted of violent offences, mandatory psychiatric treatment for young offenders ordered by the courts to receive it, the release of names of young offenders convicted of murder and sex crimes and violent assaults, and the automatic transfer to adult court of those young offenders charged with sex crimes and murder.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I present this petition from concerned citizens of Canada who presented me with this petition this weekend which is in response to the crisis in the Baltic states.
The House knows that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have been on the forefront of economic reform and real democratization.
The petitioners state that President Gorbachev has begun to use force to impose his rule in place of the democratically elected government of Lithuania. They also state that the Soviet Union is not adhering to its obligations under the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and is refusing to negotiate solutions based on the principles of the Helsinki Final Act.
The petitioners are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize immediately the legitimate democratically elected government of the Republic of Lithuania. They demand that the Soviet Union withdraw all military forces from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and that unconditional international aid to the Soviet Union in the form of credits and feed grains be conditional upon the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the Baltic states and resolution of the Baltic crisis.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several hundred constituents in the community of Algoma Mills.
The petitioners point out in their petition that a federally operated post office has been an integral part of that village since 1882 and ask that it not be replaced by a privatized postal outlet.
The petitioners point out that it is important to the community and call upon Parliament to urge the government to cancel any plans to close or privatize the said post office.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by 113 people in communities across Canada, which calls for reinstatement of funding to the native communications program and the aboriginal broadcasting programs.
As the House will know, International Pen, a writers' organization which draws world attention to violations of the right of freedom of speech, has criticized cutbacks in the funding of aboriginal broadcasting and communications because it was motivated, not by budgetary reasons, but by an attempt on the part of the Secretary of State to silence aboriginal communities and to suppress their

cultural and political rights which are guaranteed by international conventions to which Canada is a signatory.
The petitioners ask the government to respect its obligations under international law, stop suppressing freedom of speech for aboriginal organizations, and restore funding to the aboriginal communications program.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, with yet another petition of almost 100 names from residents of Mission- Coquitlam who have called on the government to consider their petition and their position that Canada, which has a solid reputation as a dependable advocate and supporter of the United Nations and is recognized world-wide as a peacekeeping nation, would have found that economic sanctions were a non-violent and effective means of applying pressure and influencing countries and their leaders.
The petitioners urge the government to resist war in the Middle East and to allow time to put pressure on Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table 78 pages of petitions, which have been certified correct as to form and content pursuant to Standing Order 36, from Prince Rupert.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to request that the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation instruct Canada Post to keep full wicket service open at the Prince Rupert post office; that further wicket positions be opened at the Prince Rupert post office; and that Canada Post Corporation be instructed to operate longer hours, expand revenue-generating services, expand letter carrier delivery, and stop privatizing.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to introduce a petition from 108 people living in Innisfail, Calgary, Lethbridge, Monarch, Edmonton, and Bassano, members of the Anglican Church of the Diocese of
Routine Proceedings
Calgary, who point to the health threats of the low-level flight tests at Nitassinan, Labrador-Quebec against the Innu and Inuit people, and also the position of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada calling on the federal government to stop the NATO low-level flight testing there.
The petitioners, therefore, request the government to halt all low-level flight testing and related training over lands inhabited and claimed by the Innu and Inuit people, to withdraw Canada's invitation to NATO to establish a permanent NATO tactical weapons base there, and to take steps to protect the livelihood of Canadians who would be adversely affected economically by the cessation of fighter bomber training.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36, certified correct as to form and content, from a number of people all over my riding showing that Canada's role as a peacekeeping nation with the UN has been effective and that role should be maintained in the present gulf crisis and that negotiations should be allowed to continue in the search for a peaceful solution in the Persian Gulf.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to keep the reputation of Canada as a peacekeeping nation to act in the best interests of all Canadians.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the honour to table two different petitions on the subject of postal services. The government has a habit of taking away mailboxes and cutting services without consulting the constituents.
In the first petition, the petitioners call upon the government to relocate the mailbox which was located at 223 Roncesvale Avenue in Tbronto, so that the people can use that box and not have to go long distances to post a letter.
The second one is with regard to Postal Station M which has been moved. The petitioners request that the government provide Priority Post, registered mail, the

January 21, 1991
Government Orders
sale of stamps and related items, lock boxes, et cetera, in the new location, as was provided in Postal Station M.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 52, seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, for leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the turmoil in the Baltic states.
Although the House of Commons recently passed a resolution on the situation, I strongly feel that events over the weekend in Latvia and the increase in military activity in all three states warrant serious discussion on the future of Canada's relations with the Soviet Union.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the motion of the House of January 15 condemning the Soviet Union on its policy in the Baltic states, I request under Standing Order 52 leave to have an emergency debate on the aggression against the Baltic nations by uncontrolled special forces of the Soviet Union.
A genuine emergency has arisen due to the fact that the duly elected governments of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are under siege by an aggressor. We cannot reward aggression, that precedent being established by the coalition against Iraq.
I am calling for an immediate debate, as well, because international law has been broken by a foreign power, the U.S.S.R., as Canada has never recognized the forceful annexation of those Baltic states.
As Your Honour is aware of the new developments in the Baltic states since the motion of the House on January 15, the debate being of urgency should take priority over the day-to-day business of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same issue?


Guy St-Julien: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member did not give the Chair notice as required under Standing Order 52.

I have received two applications under Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate with respect to the issue in the Baltic states. The first is from the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, and the second from the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
The House of course is aware, as has been mentioned by both hon. members, that a joint resolution of the House was passed a few days ago and since then there has been continual discussion, at least in Question Period, on the subject.
However, I am conscious, as I must be as your Speaker, of comments made during exchanges today in Question Period. It has been made very clear to the House, through the right hon. Secretary of State of External Affairs, that some discussion is going on at the moment among House Leaders and others in the House with respect to a possible debate. Until I have heard further in that regard, I am going to reserve my decision. I thank the hon. members for raising the matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 19, 1990, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, be read the third time and passed.
January 21, 1991
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in third reading of this bill. We can view with some gratification, indeed some anticipation, the likely outcome of the initiative which is embodied in this piece of legislation.
No one in this House or indeed anyone in the western world can do other than welcome the extraordinary events in eastern Europe over the past year or 18 months which have led to the proposal now before us to create a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It is not very many years ago when the concept of a bank embracing both the countries of eastern and western Europe, and indeed countries outside Europe, in a common effort to bring about the more rapid economic development of the now united continent of Europe would have been virtually unthinkable.
Yet here we are today with a bill before the House for third reading which will bring about Canada's participation in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It will enable Canada to contribute to the resources of the bank and make Canada one of its founding members.
We on this side of the House welcome the development of the idea first broached by President Mitterrand in the summer of 1989. We welcome Canada's participation and we look forward to the early date when the bank will play a major role in giving further substance to the unification that we have seen in Europe.
This is primarily a bank with the purpose of channelling funds into the now market-oriented economies of central and eastern Europe. It is a bank which will be committed to providing funds for those nations in central and eastern Europe which demonstrate the principles of multi-party democracy, of pluralism, and market economics.
Canada's participation in the bank will be substantial. We shall hold 3.4 per cent of the shares in the bank. We shall over a period of five years contribute some $150 million toward the capital of the bank. That is a contribution and a participation that ranks Canada among the more active members of the bank.
In passing I would ask of the government whether in terms of participation in the bank what has become of the fact that the original terms under which the bank was proposed envisaged a role for the German Democratic
Government Orders
Republic. Should we now assume that those shares will be picked up by the Federal Republic of Germany, the now united Germany, and, if so, will that make Germany the largest single participant in the bank?
If one assumes that the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic shares are to be merged into the shares of the now united Germany, it would indeed make Germany the largest participant in the bank, with a few shares more than that of the United States, which in the original planning was to have been the largest single participant.
I would ask the government, before we finish our brief discussion of this bill, whether it might respond to that particular question.
As I have noted, the legislation before us makes it clear, as does the bank's articles of constitution, that the principal purpose of the new bank will be to channel funds to private enterprise, the market-oriented economies of central and eastern Europe. Throughout eastern Europe, there is a great need to promote private and individual initiatives.
All of us, I am sure, on every side of this House, look toward such an initiative as a major way of underpinning the developments of the last 18 months in eastern Europe. It can help to give substance to the desire on the part of the eastern European countries to move away from the communist regimes which have marked their post-war history to the open market economies that have contributed so substantially to the contrasting prosperity in western Europe.
In addition, we on this side of the House, and I am sure all members, welcome the fact that some major part of the funds of the bank will be directed toward the necessary restructuring of the public goods and services of eastern Europe. I speak principally of questions pertaining to the environment which have been sadly neglected in eastern Europe in the post-war years. In addition, funds will be directed to the public works which are in most eastern European countries in need of refurbishment or of replacement.
We shall see, I think, a major demand on the bank's resources in the time ahead will be to contribute to the environmental clean-up, the infrastructure and perhaps, most important, the reform of state-owned corporations. But the principal purpose, and I think we should not lose sight of that, is that the bank will promote the development of market-oriented economies through eastern Europe, a type of economy to which the countries of

January 21, 1991
Government Orders
eastern Europe have clearly and consistently in the past months committed themselves.
In conclusion, one comment that has been raised in regard to the creation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is to be situated in London, is that somehow it conflicts with the machinery and the potential of the World Bank, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to channel funds to eastern Europe. For my part, I would not accept that the existence of the IBRD is a valid argument against the creation of the European Bank. Of course, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund will have a continuing role to play in the growth and renewal of the economies of eastern Europe. The fact remains, however, that within the United Nations system, the regional banks have been recognized as playing a substantial role in providing capital for the particular needs of the major regions of the world. Obviously, the Asian Development Bank has had considerable success in channelling funds into development projects in Asia, as has the Inter-American Development Bank in Latin America and the African Development Bank in that continent.
It is both consistent and natural that in the particular circumstances facing the countries of eastern Europe today, a special regional bank for Europe should also be created. Such a bank will be the best place to identify and to develop the projects that this common effort on the part of countries, not only in Europe but outside Europe, can hope to offer. It is for that reason and indeed for a variety of other reasons that we welcome this legislation pledging Canadian participation in the creation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his remarks with regard to this bill that we are discussing, Bill C-88.
He did ask a question with regard to the unity of the two Germanys and the amount of control that they may have. There was a document circulated I believe, last October, that referred to this. Germany, as a G-7 member, will have approximately 8 per cent. This leaves the United States still taking the lead role with 10 per
cent and Canada with 3.4 per cent. I hope that this may answer my colleague's question that he put forth.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is a little unusual in the House for one question to beget another question to beget another question. In fact, the hon. member's information does not meet the point I was attempting to raise. That is, does the allocation to the then-German Democratic Republic, which was 15,500 shares, disappear on the occasion of the merger of the German Democratic Republic with the Federal Republic or is it being absorbed by the Federal Republic? If it has been absorbed, that would bring the total shareholding of the Federal Republic of Germany to slightly over
100,000	shares which is marginally ahead of those of the United States.
However, it is not my intention to take more time of the House on this point. I am sure the hon. member could provide me with that information in another way if she so wishes.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will begin my comments on this bill by saying that there is a certain irony in the fact that we are debating this bill today at the same time that we are contemplating an emergency debate this evening on the situation in the Baltic republics.
One of the things that people have been discussing is what actions might be taken with respect to our relationship with the Soviet Union because of events in the Baltic.
Yet, here we are this afternoon sort of uncritically debating the establishment of a bank. I am not saying this in a critical way. I am just pointing out the irony of it. This bank is designed to relate not only to the countries of eastern and central Europe but also the Soviet Union.
Certainly this is part of the new relationship with the Soviet Union that has come about as a result of glasnost and perestroika. If in fact those movements within the Soviet Union are now being called into question as a result of the violence against civilians in Lithuania and just the other day in Riga, Latvia, then it is difficult to talk about this new bank being set up to further that new relationship, when we are in some doubt about the
January 21, 1991

nature of that relationship as a result of the events in the Baltic.
Having said that, I think it is probably useful to go on because there is a deadline, as I understand it, to meet for the international agreement that would set up this bank, although that deadline is March 31, 1991. We are talking about some time.
I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that we make any premature judgment about whether or not this bank is still a good idea. I think it is a good idea, but the fact that the Soviet Union is included in its ambit is perhaps something that is at least ironic, given events in the last few weeks in the Baltics.
We are all concerned about what is happening there. I had the occasion on Friday to visit with the Soviet ambassador to Canada, along with the hon. member for Scarborough and the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, to express on behalf of the Canadian parliamentary group for the Baltic peoples our concern at what was happening in the Baltic states.
I may have more to say about that later this evening, if we get an emergency debate. Just in case, I wanted to say that that had happened and to say that we do not accept the official Soviet position put forward by the ambassador that all that is needed to solve the situation in the Baltic republics is for the Baltic republics to follow the newly established constitutional procedures for separation.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, these procedures call for a five-year procedure by which republics would separate themselves from the Soviet Union. This is often cited by official Soviet spokespersons as the procedure which the Baltic republics should follow.
It goes unsaid in this kind of analysis, first of all, that the governments of the Baltic republics do not want to separate by virtue of a constitutional process because they continue to maintain they were illegally annexed into the Soviet Union. Therefore, for them to seek sovereignty through the established constitutional process of the Soviet Union would be for them to admit in a way they are unprepared to admit that they are in fact a part of the Soviet Union.
They wish to have a special negotiation with the Soviet Union, which recognizes the fact that a great part of the world, including themselves, never recognized their annexation by the Soviet Union. This is a position
Government Orders
supported by the Canadian government and by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade which had opportunity to go to the Soviet Union in April to meet with a variety of people, including representatives from Lithuania, about the Baltic situation.
The committee recommended that the special case of the Baltics be recognized, as it already has been by the Canadian government, by the Soviet Union. The committee recommended that the Soviet Union recognize the special status of the Baltic republics and hoped that the Soviet government and President Gorbachev might see their way through to being able to accept this special status of the Baltics and at the same time recognize that this did not necessarily set precedents for other republics which came into the Soviet Union in a different way. It was not as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1938.
There were plenty of grounds within the thinking of the international community for the Soviet Union to seize upon the special status of the Baltics and to have entered into meaningful negotiation with the newly elected governments of the Baltic republics, all of which were elected in 1990 as a result of the first real elections in those republics since before 1940.
I had the privilege of being there for one of those elections, the election in Lithuania in February 1990, with other members of this House, and saw first hand the authenticity and the civility with which the election in Lithuania was held. It strikes me as even more tragic the violence which is being visited upon the people of Lithuania and Latvia knowing, as I do, first hand the tremendous spirit of peaceful change through which these events happened and continue to happen in Lithuania.
All that is required, it seems to me, is for the leadership in the Soviet Union to determine first of all that the democratically elected governments of these republics not be overthrown by violence, not be overthrown at all but particularly not be overthrown by violence in the way some people have suggested is imminent. If Moscow, President Gorbachev or whoever the powers that be are now in Moscow were to allow that to happen, this would certainly mean a fundamental change in our attitude toward what is going on in the Soviet Union.

Government Orders
Let those governments continue to exist. Call back the black berets and others who are involved in these military actions against police loyal to their democratically elected governments and negotiate. It is okay for Moscow to negotiate toughly. It is okay for it to take a hard line with respect to what sovereignty might mean. It is okay for it to have its own position. I think it has a lot of legitimate concerns with respect to Baltic sovereignty, from security concerns to various economic concerns, to concerns about minorities within the Baltic republics and how they might be treated by the ethnic majorities in those Baltic republics.
There are plenty of things to be worked out and worked out over a long period of time in all likelihood, but worked out; not resolved by the swinging barrel of a Soviet tank, by automatic gunfire or by the ways in which we have seen the problem approached in the last few weeks in Lithuania and in Latvia.
In this respect I want to say that I think the rebuilding of eastern and central Europe often characterized, particularly with the coming down of the Berlin wall, the end of the Second World War, the last legacy of the Second World War. We need to realize that until the status of the Baltic republics is dealt with, the Second World War really has not come to an end in the way in which many now speak of the situation in Europe.
The Berlin wall was not the last legacy of the Second World War. The fact that the Baltic states are a part of the Soviet Union and not able to assert their independence is the last legacy of the Second World War. Until that issue is wrapped up in the appropriate way, perhaps we should refrain from suggesting that all the consequences of the Second World War have come to an end. Certainly they are where they are as a result of an agreement between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. I do not think that can be separated from the history of the Second World War. That is why I say we should perhaps refrain from language which suggests that all the consequences of the Second World War have now been dealt with. They have not been.
One thing that needs to be dealt with, as a result of the democratically expressed will of all the countries of eastern and central Europe to be integrated into the
global economy in a way in which they were not previously integrated, is how that is done. This bank is one of the measures contemplated, recommended, and is now in the process of being formed to help eastern and central Europe become integrated into that world economy.
I have a lot of problems with the economy into which they are being integrated. They will find that the streets will not be paved with gold as they enter into this new globalized capitalist economy. They will be entering that globalized capitalist economy at the worst possible time. Even if they had chosen to enter-and I am sure they would have done it in a more step-by-step way-or tried to integrate themselves more into the global economy back in 1968 when Alexander Dubcek first contemplated changing the nature of communism in Czechoslovakia, they would have had an easier time. At that time the kinds of mixed economies which might have made a transition period less difficult were more tolerated by the global economy.
Now it seems to me that these eastern and central European economies will have to go full circle and become full market capitalist economies, cold turkey so to speak, without any of the instruments at their disposal by which many western economies over the years shielded themselves, and appropriately so, from some of the tougher realities that enter in when one gets into a kind of truly global dog-eat-dog economy.
I am very pessimistic about what some of the consequences might be if this transition turns out to be too difficult. If people find, in the absence of the old system, that the new system is not yet able to deliver certain basic realities and needs like food, we may yet see a considerable political instability and unrest in those countries.
It behoves the west to put its money where its mouth has been for 45 years. We ought not to find ourselves in the position where it might be said of us that we shed all these crocodile tears for 45 years about the poor suffering people of eastern and central Europe, and for that matter the Soviet Union, because they were suffering under this particular system and yet, when they finally take the decision to break out of that system and say to us that they need our assistance in doing so to ensure that the transition is a transition which preserves democracy and which does not lead to political unrest and
January 21, 1991

instability, we simply say: "Well, we have problems of our own now and you look after yourself".
If we have learned anything from recent events, it is that there is no such thing as an isolated event. If the reforms in the Soviet Union, in particular but also eastern and central Europe, were to come crashing down as a result of economic failure, it would have repercussions for everyone concerned.
It is not just a matter of saying, "Well, you know, it is a tough world out there. It is a global marketplace. Welcome to the global marketplace. The race goes to the swiftest and the strongest. If you are not able to cut the mustard, well, too bad". I am sorry. It is not going to work like that.
If certain countries are not able to integrate themselves into the globalized economy in a way that is acceptable to their populations, then we will continue to have very serious problems in Europe, not the least of which, Mr. Speaker, might be the reality of millions of economic refugees, tens of millions of people simply packing their bags and moving west.
Many people are concerned about this in Germany, France and other parts of Europe, that if the new expectations in eastern and central Europe are not met, the so-called western Europe will be faced with a flood of refugees. So there is no small measure of self-interest in making sure that the economic expectations raised by the dismantling of the command economies in formerly communist countries succeed, that those expectations are met.
In the long term, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the day when these countries of eastern and central Europe will be fully integrated into the European community. I think that is the long-term expectation of those countries. Many of those countries, and certainly member countries now in the European Community someday will be looking at a fully integrated Europe, in which sovereignty, particularly economic sovereignty, will be ceded at a certain level to a supranational body, in this case, the European Community headquartered in Brussels.
Hopefully, within that larger supranational framework, we might see a time when a lot of the national, ethnic and regional rivalries might find ways of expressing themselves, not in outmoded 19th century nationalist feelings, but in appropriate regional and ethnic autono-
Govemment Orders
mies that find their place within this larger supranational reality.
The sovereignty of the nation state is eroded in two ways, downwards in a devolving sort of way towards forms of regional and ethnic autonomy, that might, for instance, meet the needs of the Croats in Yugoslavia or for that matter the Scots in Great Britain, and eroding upwards towards a larger regional reality in which economic sovereignty has been ceded to that greater authority.
What is also happening in Europe, and what I think is hopeful, is people are realizing that if there is to be that kind of integrated market economy, there also needs to be a basic agreement about social standards, income security, pensions, welfare policy and various other things.
If you are going to have this kind of competitive level playing field integrated economy on a regional basis, you also have to have agreements about what the floor is in terms of social justice so that one country is not able to play its workers off against workers in another country. That has implications for analysis of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, all of which I do not have time to go into because I understand that my time is running out, but I hope that my comments have been helpful.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words concerning this bill before the House. The bill really puts $120 million-that is not Canadian dollars, but American dollars-forward by Canada. When we go to the schedule of the bill, we find that the agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, states:
Considering the importance of close and co-ordinated cooperation in order to promote the economic progress of Central and Eastern European countries to help their economies become more internationally competitive and assist them in their reconstruction and development and thus to reduce, where appropriate, any risks related to the financing of their economies";
When I read those words I immediately thought about the fact that the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, U.S.S.R. are more competitive, more able to compete with eastern Canada for our great fishing resource than we are.
Let me mention some of the the allocations given by the Government of Canada for this year, 1991. The allocation for Bulgaria is 750 tonnes of redfish. Next to

Government Orders
them is Cuba, but it has allocations everywhere. Then there is the German Democratic Republic, which really does not exist because everybody knows what happened to the German Democratic Republic. However, it is part of the EEC. It has a quota for 1991 in zone 3L and 3N on Canada's coast of 476 metric tons of redfish. The Government of Canada has not said it yet but I suppose the allocation to the German Democratic Republic for 1991 will be folded into the EEC because there is no other way to have it. The German Democratic Republic does not exist except under the EEC as it relates to these agreements which have been signed with the Government of Canada.
Then there is Poland. They have a new allocation for this coming year of 500 metric tons of cod in zone 3M off the east coast of Canada. That zone is known internationally as the Flemish Cap, a massive spawning area for fish off the east coast of Canada. It is a shallow area in the Atlantic Ocean about 230 nautical miles east northeast of St. John's, Newfoundland.
Traditionally there has never been any fishing there. In other words, all the countries of the world got together with their scientists and they said that the entire world should respect that area and not fish it because because it is a spawning ground for a great many of our flatfish in the world, but it is also a nursery area for some of our midwater fish.
We agreed no more fishing. But this year that area has been reopened and Poland has an allocation of 500 metric tons, and Canada has an allocation of 100 metric tonnes.
We come then to the U.S.S.R. They have an allocation of 1,270 tonnes. Canada has an allocation of 100 tonnes. That is only a tiny bit of the story. Mr. Speaker, if you want to know the entire story, you would be shocked because this is only one way that eastern European countries get quotas of fish along our coastline in Canada.
As I have just noted, one of the new zones opened now sees Canada with even less allocation than the eastern European countries. One way they get quotas is through what we call NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. There is a similar organization off Europe.
However, we have an organization here that allows foreign nations to fish inside our zone. That is one way. The second way they get allocations is when Canada says that it is going to give out part of its own allocation.
What did we have in the month of December, around Christmas? We had Poland with special licences for mackerel in 4VWX. That is along the east coast of Nova Scotia, in 4VN, which is up around Cape Breton Island, and 5ZE, which is down further off New Brunswick.
Bulgaria has mackerel and silver hake licences in 4VN. The Soviet Union had at least 40 factory ships that had licences at that time. It must be kept in mind that these vessels are there because they can compete with Canadian vessels. The reason for it is quite simple.
Today in Canada we have five large companies that actually hire vessels from eastern Europe to catch their own quotas along the coastline of Canada.
Fisheries Products International is the biggest fish company we have. On January 4, U.S.S.R. vessels were unloading turbot at their fish plants to keep their fish plants going. Imagine, the Soviet Union unloading fish at FPI. It is a new phenomenon in Canada, and it just came about this past year. Never before have we ever had foreign nations whose vessels were used to catch fish in Canadian waters on licences owned by Canadian companies.
The question asked is: why? Canadian fishermen are the best fishermen in the world. They are more competitive, one would say, than any other fishermen in the world. They know how to catch fish better than any other fishermen in the world. They are the best in the world.
Why is it that for the past year or so these Canadian companies have received permission from the Government of Canada to employ vessels from eastern Europe, from the very countries we are talking about here today under this bill that will establish a bank that will see Canadian input to help these eastern European countries? The answer is quite simple.
A lot of these companies from eastern Europe and the governments from eastern Europe do not really mind if they lose money. They do not mind if they are out for 10 months fishing on the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, and they do not catch anything. So, they are more competitive than a Canadian vessel would be.

My intervention in this debate today is to make a simple suggestion to the Government of Canada. That is, if we are truly going to follow through on the intent of this legislation, it should not be a question of subsidizing a company or a country to be more competitive. It should be a question of making everything a level playing field.
The first thing the Government of Canada should do is to cancel every licence in Canadian waters held by foreign nations for fish which are under quotas to Canadian fishermen. That is the first thing the Government of Canada should do. That is my suggestion to the Government of Canada in passing this legislation.
We are the ones who are not competitive in the fishing industry, simply because we do not have the financial muscle that some of these governments put into their fishing vessels. I suggest to the Government of Canada, cancel the licences and give Canadians a chance in the fishing industry in eastern Canada.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question, because we do not have too many members in the House who have the kind of expertise in the fishing industry as this hon. member.
I think he will agree with me that Canada would like to help some of the central east European countries, as is the purpose of this bill. Yes, we have to protect the interests of our own fishermen and our fishing economy. Would the hon. member have any suggestions as to how Canada still could help many of the east European countries with the fishing industry, but at the same time, not harm the whole fishing industry for Canadians?


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do. First, we could assist many of these countries in showing them that certain types of machinery used on a massive scale can destroy an environment. In other words, the term "sustainable development", that the Liberal Party of Canada uses quite a bit in formulating policy, should be the first and foremost thing that we should promote with these nations.
The types of gear that are used by some of these vessels is very destructive. It is unbelievable to imagine that you could be sitting in a control room on a vessel and, through computers, be able to control the nets and so on that go over the bottom of the ocean. That is what happens in many of these vessels.
Government Orders
Also, this gear makes no distinction between the age of fish, none at all. It does not make any distinction between dragging over a nursery ground or a spawning ground, or dragging up the food of the very fish of which we have so few in our country.
We could give these countries the scientific knowledge that we have in Canada today and institute the same measures that we have in Canada for our resources. That is, we have a policy in Canada that says the Speaker of the House of Commons is not allowed to go commercial fishing in Canada. A member of Parliament is not allowed to go fishing if he wants. An unemployed man down the road is not allowed to go fishing, because we have completely controlled entry in the fishery. We have strict management, heavy fines, and good environmental protection that these countries do not have. That is one contribution we can make.
Another contribution we can make is to suggest to some of these nations other ways of obtaining fish. I refer, of course, to the economy of growing fish. That is one area in which we could make a great contribution to the eastern European countries, the area of growing fish, but certainly not in the area of using massive large vessels to travel all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to catch fish that nobody over here is allowed to catch and, in the bargain, to destroy some of our resources, as resources have been destroyed right around the world.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon members on the government side are calling for the question, but I believe the bill is too important to let it go by without some further debate.
It was not long ago that the countries named in Annex A of this bill rejoiced because President Gorbachev brought in glasnost and perestroika. How the world rejoiced when finally a leader of the Soviet Union took off the shackles and yokes from the people and said: "Fine, tell us what you want. Tell us what kind of governments you want and what kind of commerce you want." The world cheered President Gorbachev. It even presented him with a Nobel Peace Price.
Thanks to the leadership of President Gorbachev and the western world, the cold war finally came to an end. I was with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade in East Berlin on May 1 when thousands upon thousands of people crossed from East Berlin to West Berlin and back without even having to show a passport or a visa.

Government Orders
Twenty years ago, I lived in an east European country for a full year. One does not get to know a country by going through the country as a tourist, but I lived in Poland for a full year. From Poland I travelled to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and all of the countries listed in Annex A-Romania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. The only countries we could not visit at that time were the Soviet Union and Albania. I mention this because I think it highlights how far we have come from 1970-71 to 1990-91. Now we are free to travel through most of the Soviet Union republics and even through Albania.
Many of these countries that I have mentioned have had free elections. We remember how many lives were lost in achieving free democratic parliaments.
Some people forget when the Solidarity movement really started. When I lived in Poland in 1970-71, there were the first food riots where 56 people were killed. From that to today, we have come a long, long way.
These countries have now shed communism and elected democratic forms of government. I was in Lithuania when it had its free elections on February 24.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that Lithuania, followed by Latvia and Estonia, did follow the secret ballot elections. Anyone who wanted to represent a party or run as an independent could run. Their names were on the ballot and people voted. Through secret ballot votes, we now have all these democratic parliaments.
But what has the West done to help these countries with their economic and political reforms? Yes, we have all sorts of programs. For example, the government has assigned $72 million to help Hungary and Poland. We have seen good evidence of farmers coming from there to learn our expertise and techniques in farming. We have had programs in management. We have had programs in teaching English to many of the people in eastern Europe. But I do not think the West has
seriously addressed the problems of how these countries can move to a private enterprise economy.
Under Bill C-88, this bank for the restructuring and the development of the central eastern Europe economies is one major way of showing the world that the West is ready to come to their aid.
I have heard even today that maybe we should reconsider passing Bill C-88. When it was at first and second reading, there was no cold war. There was excellent co-operation between the Soviet Union and Canada. That co-operation, sadly, ended a little over a week ago when the Red Army moved in to Vilnius. I was there. I recognized the streets and the buildings that are being attacked by the Black Berets and the tanks, overnight destroying what has taken so long to build.
This weekend, we saw five more innocent people, civilians and journalists, killed. Why? For what reason? The hon. member for Scarborough Centre and I met with about 500 people just this Saturday. There were Canadian representatives from the three Baltic groups and representatives from the countries. There were young people from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They gave us firsthand accounts of what is happening there. I will save that for the emergency debate that I hope we will have later this day in the House.
I do not share the view that we should not pass this bill. Let us hope that President Gorbachev will get some sense into his head and remove any trace of Soviet armies in the Baltic states so that we can get back to the kind of dialogue we have had.
Was it not nice when President Gorbachev could visit Canada, when our Prime Minister could visit the Soviet Union, and when we could sign all sorts of agreements and co-operate? How beautiful. The world rejoiced. Now, in just two weekends, we have ruined all of this.
I hope that the leaders and the people of the world know that we are all one family on this planet and that somehow we will resolve our differences, work together, and, maybe through a structure such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, we can provide much stronger help to eastern European countries who want to get on their feet again.
There are four million Canadians who are directly tied with central and eastern Europe, so we have a vested interest in helping these countries. I want to thank the
January 21, 1991

government for accepting our amendment stressing the environmental issues, that when the bank does give a loan the first thing it will look at is this project in keeping with sustainable development. All three parties agreed to that and it is now in the bill, strengthening the bill, again demonstrating to the public how if we all work together we come up with something better. With the three parties working here together, we have come up with a better bill.
We on this side will not stall. We just want to put our comments on the record and support this bill wholeheartedly with a caution to President Gorbachev if he wants this bill to work because the Soviet Union is a donor and can be as well a recipient of this bank. It will be up to him whether he really and truly believes in democracy or going back to Stalinistic types of rule.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech made by the hon. member. He touched on a lot of fundamental issues regarding this bank. I congratulate him particularly on the amendment touching on the environment.
I had the occasion to go to eastern Europe recently, particularly Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. I saw some of the devastation that has been created by pollution. I was in the city of Zenica which has a huge steel works and coal mines. It is situated about 100 kilometres north of Sarajevo. It has the highest pollution of S02 in the world. Stalin at that time built this factory for the Yugoslavians and they had no concept of what pollution could do to the environment.
I see how important it is for this new bank and new way of financing having attached a caveat respecting pollution.
I am glad the Liberal Party with the co-operation of the others brought in an amendment which was accepted.
I would like to ask the member a question. As we know, it is the Solidarity movement in Poland that started the ball rolling on a new spirit of freedom in eastern Europe. Because of that I think we have to pay tribute to the Solidarity movement in Poland.
There are still Soviet troops in Germany, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. If the hardliners in Mos-
Govemment Orders
cow take over, does the hon. member think that the forums we have been witnessing might be in danger?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the hon. member from Calgary because I know how much he has done to bring closer co-operation and relationship between Canada and some of the east European countries. I know he gets a lot of delegations from the Ukraine and other parts of eastern Europe. He is kind enough to always introduce them to me so that we can get a first-hand report on what is happening there.
Yes, the scary part is with the Soviet troops. I understand there are still 130,000 sitting in Poland and, as we have seen, they are moving into the Baltic states. Is there a hidden agenda? I hope not.
I put at least that much trust in President Gorbachev, that that is not his hidden agenda. The question that arises is whether President Gorbachev is losing control of the army. If he is losing control, and the hardliners are starting to take over and starting to dictate through the army, and the army becomes the ruler, then I have a great fear. That is why this is something we should be monitoring very closely.
On the other side of the coin we see the Soviet Union supporting the United States and the west in the war, trying to get Hussein out of Kuwait. Isn't it great that for the first time in the history of the world since the cold war ended that here is an opportunity for the United Nations to resolve a dispute. It should have been resolved without arms but as we are seeing, it will not be. The allied countries have had to resort to arms. If the United Nations can prove that it can solve problems like this, hopefully allied countries around the world would come together. Even though these Soviet forces are there, by the allied countries all working together, that will not be a threat. That is our hope and I appreciate the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the debate is still on Canada's membership in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Chair is very patient and very open, but I would appreciate it if hon. members would co-operate by keeping their remarks relevant to the subject of this debate.

January 21, 1991
Government Orders
Further questions or comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member for Willowdale.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to say a few words in this debate.


Mr. Milliken:: The pleasure is ours!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: First of all, I want to say that we as a party support the government's proposal to establish a bank for the reconstruction of Europe, of central and eastern Europe.

Let us dwell on the background that has given rise to this development. We have seen extraordinary things coming out of Europe, largely at the instigation of a new policy and a new direction from the U.S.S.R. Perestroika and glasnost have led to the breaking up of the Iron Curtain. The Soviet Union has given up its hegemony over its Iron Curtain countries.
We have seen something which I never expected would take place in my lifetime. It was East Germany being given its freedom. Within a very short time the Berlin wall came crumbling down, and Germany has now been unified. These political events, I am sure, surpassed the greatest expectations that we could have had about the liberalization of policies in eastern Europe.
We are now asked in terms of this bill, Bill C-88, to establish the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We see a bill whereby the European community has come to us, the western European community is going to the world and saying: "Do we not have an obligation to help the eastern European and central European countries make the transition from controlled economics and centrally-planned economies to market economies so that they can take their place in the new global community?"
I can unhesitatingly say yes, we do have that obligation.
For years after the Second World War, we have seen how the reconstruction took place. Bretton Woods was an example of how the world community came together and established the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund.
But that was not enough, because a devastated Europe was regarded by the Americans as a drawback to the
flourishing of the economies of all of us. It was under the generous Marshall plan and the even more generous act of the United States in establishing funding for our allies in Europe to re-establish themselves that we were able to see them start to prosper and as a result we, in North America and other parts of the world, benefited too from the expanding trade and prosperity that was won.
That was really the start of the global economic village where we realized that there is no country that can be continually prosperous unless the world is prosperous as a whole.
But we have failed miserably following the Second World War in terms of bringing along the countries of the south, the Third World countries. We did not have plans addressed to assist them in the same way we dealt with our former allies. As a result, many Third World countries, countries of the south, have gone backward in terms of their per capita income and their standards of living.
We are seeing now a devastation in terms of drought, hunger, famine and death. In the Sudan alone, up to eight million people in the south are now facing the threat of starvation. When our collective efforts have been directed, they have worked. The shame is that we have not taken these collective efforts to all people on our continually diminishing globe.
Let us return now to the situation in central Europe. As my colleague from Parkdale-High Park and as many other speakers have pointed out, we do have an obligation to work with these new economies to help them become viable. It is in their interest and it is in our long-term interest not only in terms of the politics of the moment, but in terms of building strong economies so that we all will prosper, as the Marshall plan indicated we would, by helping out our former allies.
Through Mr. Gorbachev's enlightened policies, he has made their emergence as countries possible. He does not have the economic means to ensure their prosperity. As a matter of fact, we are now seeing a falling back in the Soviet Union itself of Mr. Gorbachev's progressive policies as hardliners say to him: "Perestroika is not working. We must return to the old ways."
This is the dilemma we face, because the western world wants to see the Soviet Union and its former Iron Curtain allies turn the corner economically. We are faced with a problem, and I faced this problem-the
January 21, 1991

world did-a couple of years ago with the People's Republic of China. We wanted to see the one billion people in the PRC come out of the dark ages and develop their economy in such a way that it would be constructive, and its people could prosper and enjoy better standards of living.
Then, we were faced with the terrible political realities of Tiananmen Square which have set back western efforts to invest, to deal with and to support a regime which is so repressive.
What we have seen as well in the Baltic states gives us great cause for concern. The repression of the free expression of the people in the Baltic states of their political rights of self-expression and self-determination has been met by armed aggression. This gladdens the hearts of none of us because we had hoped that perestroika would be an ongoing process in which we could participate through an institution such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Now we find ourselves tom. We have to send a message to the Soviet Union that its actions are not acceptable to Canada, that human rights must prevail, that force is not the way to deal with the free expression of ideals by the people in the Baltic states. How do we send that message to the Soviet Union and at the same time vote for Bill C-88, which does have as part of its objects aid to and the participation of the U.S.S.R.?
That is the dilemma we face on all sides of the House. This is not a political issue. My feeling is that it would be retrogressive at this time to say we will not support the construction of this bank because, after all, it is to aid many countries: Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Bulgaria. East Germany, which is now part of Germany, will probably be looked after on a bilateral basis now by Germany itself. We have an obligation to help these countries to develop their own self-sufficiency in their new market economies.
I believe in good conscience we can do so. We can pass this bill. Let us at the same time send a veiy strong message to the leadership of the U.S.S.R. that its actions in the Baltic states are not condoned. If we were not to support this bill just because of the actions of one of the members of this bank, I believe we would be setting back
Government Orders
the cause of progress in many other countries which are so important to us.
While it is with a heavy heart we recognize that perestroika is not working in the way we had hoped, let us support this bill because it is the way of the future. Let us learn from Bill C-88, the bill to establish the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, that our efforts do not lie with central and eastern Europe alone.
Let us take from this further effort and incentive to enhance the efforts of other development banks: the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the institutions in Latin America. Let us ensure that we play our full role in the industrialization and development of the countries of this world where we must be ashamed of the level of life we accept as being normal for them.
Let us use this as an example to re-examine the fundamental hypocrisy of each of us as parliamentarians on all sides of this House and, yes, of all Canadians when we say that life is sacred, that we are aroused beyond all belief when we see people being killed by armed aggression-and we should be-but the number of people who die in this world daily from starvation, malnutrition, lack of medicine and lack of the very basics of life is far greater than those who die in a year through armed aggression.
Let us, in supporting this bill, recommit our faith to the collective obligation of all of us who are privileged to help those who are not. We are not only helping them. We are helping to build a better world order which will help us. Let us recommit our dedication to helping all people in this world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, sitting next to my colleague, I cannot help but learn about his keen, keen interest in fighting human rights violations around the world. I know the member has demonstrated that, whether those human rights violations are in the Middle East, somewhere in Asia, eastern Europe, or right at home. I was pleased that, even with this passion for fighting human rights violations, he is still supporting this bill.
Canadians are becoming concerned that we are making donations and grants to other parts of the world and maybe we should be looking after the state of our own economy at home. Knowing his expertise on the finance committee, would he mind sharing with this House how

Government Orders
he sees the investment that Canada is going to make to this bank? Does he see it as a hand out, as a grant, or does he see it as an investment which might benefit Canadians in the future?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague from Parkdale-High Park.
This bank is being capitalized with $12 billion. Some 51 per cent of the contribution and the control is going to the European Community itself. This was the creation of the government of Francois Mitterrand. Then the European Community put it on its agenda at Brussels a year ago last December. Canada's contribution could be up to a total of $460 million. I do not think we will ever be called upon to put in that amount of money, as our initial commitment is $5 million.
The bank is going to use its equity base, contributed by all of its member countries, to go out and borrow on the market. It is going to try to enhance free enterprise in central and eastern Europe by making loans available to private enterprise. Its primary objective is to devote 60 per cent of its funds, the equity that is contributed, and, on top of that, the funds it is able to borrow in world financial markets to promote industries that have a chance of making it.
We have seen a vast enhancement of the ability of these formerly communistic centrally controlled economies to absorb foreign investments. In 1988 there were only 165 industrial joint ventures in these countries. Within one year, under glasnost and perestroika, the interest in investing had increased so that there were 2,100 joint ventures.
I think a joint venture is an ideal way to go into a newly emerging economy where they do not have the history of a free market and private enterprise which may exist in other areas, but where they do have a strong record of state control and co-ordination. Then there is the transition of the state working with private entrepreneurs, to bring to change what has always been 100 per cent state control toward what in other parts of the world has been 100 per cent free enterprise. One can bring together the best ingredients of both to create the transition and to make these enterprises work. This is why I feel, in terms of the 60 per cent that is to go to
investments in the private sector, we have a good chance of using joint ventures to help make the transition.
It is expected as well, in response to my hon. friend from Parkdale-High Park, that 40 per cent of these funds will have to go to build up state infrastructure. After all, we cannot have viable enterprises and industries in the global economic community unless we have an infrastructure: communications, transportation, et cetera. We have to build up the institutions that service industries, financial institutions as well.
I believe they have set what is probably a realistic target in terms of what we will have to invest in the basic infrastructure of these countries in order to produce the economic viability necessary to develop in these new economies.
As I see these investments going ahead, I see Canadians with their expertise in construction, communications, and transportation playing a major role in going in there, in investing, in providing expertise, and in creating jobs in Canada to build the necessary products to help them develop.
This is not just a giveaway. This is an investment in other countries, but this is also an investment in Canadian entrepreneurs. Over the long term it is truly an investment in a more prosperous global economy from which we will all be the ultimate beneficiaries.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I have listened with interest to the comments of my hon. colleague from Willowdale and others, including the hon. member from Winnipeg Transcona. I must say the tone of the debate, the points being raised, indicates a considerable amount of enlightenment on behalf of members of all caucuses in terms of the potential role Canada can play. I want to congratulate my hon. friend on a number of proposals and suggestions he has just made. I must say, if I heard correctly, I pretty well agree with everything he said. I would like to take it a little further than that, but again my compliments go out to all previous speakers.
We first heard of this proposal back in 1989 by Francois Mitterrand, the President of France. He said, at a session of the European Parliament, that something had to be done in terms of industrial nations to assist countries which were being dramatically changed in central and
eastern Europe as a result of perestroika in the Soviet Union and the spin-off into the eastern European countries.
I can remember-and I remember you too, Mr. Speaker, sharing that delight-the coming down of the Berlin wall, the announcements flowing daily from President Gorbachev in terms of his view of the changing world, the move to democratization, the movement from some state enterprises toward a free market system, the recognition of the value of a mixed economy, and that the reception that received in the western world, particularly in western industrialized nations, was most positive.
Immediately we thought: How can we help? I remember thoughtful discussions with my colleagues as to ways and means that Canada could participate in assisting the countries of central Europe as they changed their economies and moved through this very difficult transition period, not only economically but, as someone like yourself would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the social, cultural, and political implications of these dramatic changes. We are pleased.
We are not so pleased with the lack of progress in terms of economic reforms, particularly in the Soviet Union. But recognizing that there are conservative forces in the system there rallying against these dramatic changes and trying to cling to the old ways, the status quo in the Soviet Union, we abhor that position and look for more liberal approaches in terms of liberalizing the economy and the life of the average Soviet citizen. This whole debate on Bill C-88 is put in a peculiar context with the developments in the last number of hours in the Baltic states. We have witnessed the oppressive initiatives taken by Soviet troops, both in Lithuania and Latvia and recognize the growing democracy and the call for self-determination of the Baltic states. It was with heavy hearts that we watched on television the activities of the Soviet troops against the citizens of those two Baltic states.
I must say that it brings up this question: are we enthusiastic now about using Canadian taxpayers' dollars as a result of our participation in this European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, knowing that these funds will go to the Soviet Union at the same time when this abuse of human rights is occurring, not only in these two states, but elsewhere. But I am referring particularly to the coverage that we have received in the last number
Government Orders
of hours of very sad activities going on in the Baltic states.
I suppose they pale in comparison to the brutality and the unbelievable horrors of war that are unfolding in the Persian Gulf, but I will let that stand aside for now. It will be an ongoing debate, of course, the next little while. We all hope and pray that that horror show will be short and peace will come soon.
The bank, as I indicated, comes from the initiative proposed by the French President, Frangois Mitterrand, during the 1989 November session of the European Parliament. Its headquarters will be located in London, and the first president of the bank will be Jacques Attali from France. This agreement that we are discussing today from a Canadian perspective will be ratified by the end of this fiscal year, meaning March 31. We should also recognize that Canada is, I would not say a relatively small player, as we will be contributing $479 million of the bank's capital-which of course, Mr. Speaker as you know, will ensure us a seat on the board of directors, which is appropriate-in a total bank fund of $15 billion Canadian. That will come to, as the statistics indicate, something like 3.4 per cent of the bank's capital.
Again, Canada will not be a major player but an important player. Speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we feel that, yes, we ought to be involved; yes, Canada has much to offer. That is not to say we do not have some concerns.
We registered our concerns in committee, particularly about Article 11 which sets out the methods of operation. I think because of this important aspect I want to read a few of the points from the legislation into the record. Before I do that, let me indicate my concern that this tremendous shift from an economy based on Stalinist bureaucracies into something that more closely resembles the reality found in other social democratic countries, other socialist countries, other capitalist countries, is something that I think we all support enthusiastically. We recognize that the transition is long overdue and we want to be behind it. However, let us not get caught up so enthusiastically that we end up hindering the transition towards a mixed economy in the eastern European countries and in the Soviet Union.
When we look at the methods of operation we wonder if in fact we are not tying one arm behind the back, so to speak, of these countries as they move through this difficult economic and social transition period. I have noticed with considerable interest the various reports

January 21, 1991
Government Orders
coming out of some of the descriptions of the IMF and World Bank funding of certain projects throughout the world and how that may in fact be almost ideologically restrictive and putting ideological blinders in terms of how those funds may be invested. I certainly do not want to see us being part of that restricting of funding. I want to read a couple of points. Article 11, under Methods of Operation, of Bill C-88 reads:
That the Bank shall carry out its operations in furtherance of its purpose and functions as set out in Articles 1 and 2 of this Agreement in any or all of the following ways:
I am sure I do not have to go through Articles 1 and 2; all of us are more than familiar with those aspects of the legislation. Article 11 goes on to state:
(i) by making, or cofinancing together with multilateral institutions, commercial banks or other interested sources, or participating in, loans to private sector enterprises, loans to any state-owned enterprise operating competitively and moving to participation in the market-oriented economy, and loans to any state-owned enterprise to facilitate its transition to private ownership and control; in particular to facilitate or enhance the participation of private and/or foreign capital in such enterprises;
It is perfectly clear, in terms of what we are asking of this legislation. I look with interest at my hon. friend, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who is nodding that if there is one thing that is clear, it is obviously this particular paragraph.
However, I have a concern, Mr. Speaker. When the bill indicates that by making, or cofinancing together with multilateral institutions, commercial banks or other interested sources, or participating in loans to private sector enterprises, loans to any state-owned enterprise operating competitively, the question is that we have an appreciation of the operation, competitively, when it comes to determining whether a firm is able to apply and be a recipient of financing. Our view of operating competitively during this transition period, in terms of state owned enterprises, may be somewhat different from their own.
I submit that we ought to be as open as possible during this time to encourage, yes, a move to profitability when it makes sense, in terms of some of the state-owned enterprises but, again, to also recognize that the period
may be somewhat lengthy, that the transition may be somewhat longer than what we would tolerate in our own market-oriented economy and, that we must be willing to be flexible in terms of providing that kind of support.
Article 11 goes on, and I quote:
(iiXa) by investment in the equity capital of private sector enterprises;
(b)	by investment in the equity capital of any state-owned enterprise operating competitively-
And, again, Mr. Speaker, just in parenthesis, I want to add, once again, let us be open to the definition of competitiveness, particularly during this very difficult transition period in the central and eastern European countries and, particularly, the Soviet Union. I see, Mr. Speaker, you have a puzzled look on your face.
During this time when Mikhail Gorbachev is under a great deal of pressure, in terms of the successes or lack of successes of his initiative to perestroika, I think that anything we can do to facilitate the successful development of the Soviet economy, to provide assistance and to encourage power not to shift into the more conservative, military-aligned power base in the Soviet Union, would be not only an investment in our future as a western country but, indeed, in terms of the world itself, to do whatever we can to stand behind those progressive initiatives that, in very difficult times, he is attempting to introduce. I simply set that aside again from the comments on competitiveness of state-owned enterprises.
I want to go on because I believe it is important. We are talking about investment in the equity capital of any state-owned enterprise operating competitively and moving to participation in the market-oriented economy, the investment in the equity capital of any state-owned enterprise to facilitate its transition to private ownership and control, in particular, to facilitate or enhance the participation of private and/or foreign capital in such enterprises. And to go on, Mr. Speaker, the bill reads:
(c)	by underwriting, where other means of financing are not appropriate, the equity issue of securities by both private sector enterprises and such state-owned enterprises referred to above.
It is referring particularly to the state-owned enterprises operating competitively. This obviously is a critical part of Bill C-88.1 was going to refer to other sections of
January 21, 1991

the legislation. The continuation of Article 2, when it talks again of the purposes of this article, that state-owned enterprise shall not be regarded as operating competitively unless it operates autonomously in a competitive market environment, and unless it is subject to bankruptcy laws.
Again, it makes the point that during this difficult transition period when state-owned enterprises must operate competitively by operating autonomously and in a competitive market environment, that transition is not going to be an easy one. Therefore, it is in our best interest to assume these definitions very loosely.
I see this as an excellent opportunity for Canada to play a role in supporting and developing the eastern economies during this difficult transitional period.
There is much more, of course, that Canada could be doing. I do not have to tell members of Parliament that our aid and our support is required, not only in this part of the globe but, of course, in many other parts. I refer particularly to places such as Ethiopia, Sudan and areas of that part of Africa that are experiencing famine conditions where we ought to be doing, in my estimation, significantly more in not only alleviating the immediate concern in terms of hunger, but, of course, in terms of aid that will really assist those countries which would have to have us move away from some of the tied aid that we are involved with presently in not only that part of the world, but almost all parts.
In conclusion, I want to say that we support the general thrust of this bill with a number of very serious reservations. I do hope that the reservations of those who spoke before me, both in committee as well as in this debate, are considered by the government as we move to play our role in the hope of making it a most meaningful role in the economic reconstruction of eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union.
I would be remiss if I did not say that there are so many other ways that we can also be helpful, other than simply participating in this reconstruction bank. I look forward in the future to participating in those debates and in those committee discussions where in fact there will be wide ranging discussion of the future role of Canada in developing the economies of these countries.
Government Orders BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been what can only be described as extensive discussions on all sides of the House. I believe you will find consent for the following motion.
I should indicate to the Chair that I have another motion to follow this one. This is the first motion:
That, upon disposition of Government Business No. 27 respecting the Persian Gulf Crisis on Ihesday, January 22, 1991, at 6.00 p.m., the House shall stand adjourned to the call of the Chair;
That, during such adjournment, combined meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International 'Bade may be held five days per week to provide briefings on the latest situation in the Persian Gulf. These meetings being open to all Members of Parliament, accredited members of the press gallery and the general public, subject to House of Commons security requirements; and that at any time this said committees request the Speaker to recall the House, it shall be called back into session as soon as practicable; and
That the usual provisions of Standing Order 28(3) shall also apply during such adjournment, except that the House may be called back into session with at least a 12 hour notice and the usual requirement for a 48 hour for motions shall be waived to allow the House to begin debate on any government motion pertaining to external affairs and defence, provided that at any time the Speaker may recall the House for the sole purpose of granting Royal Assent to any Bill or Bills, after which the House shall stand adjourned in accordance with this Order.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been negotiations among the parties. I have two questions I want to put to the parliamentary secretary to clarify the proposal.
First, I take it that when the motion says that these meetings would be open to all members of Parliament, accredited members of the Press Gallery-and I want that assurance-that means television could be part of those deliberations and that the availability of that signal to broadcast those proceedings will be available to those wanting to pick it up, but under the usual rules of the House of Commons.

Government Orders
My second question to him is this. I know the nuance between calling back the House in 12 hours and Standing Order 28(3), which gives us 48 hours' notice. I want to make it clear that the only reason for the 12 hours' notice provision is to give the government a chance to call back the House to discuss any issue dealing with defence and external affairs, but nothing else. On any other occasion, the government would have to use the regular Standing Order 28(3) which would require 48 hours' notice. Can he confirm that for me?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I indicate to my hon. friend that, yes, by accredited we do mean that to include the television or electronic media people and the television cameras. Our goal, I might add, is that all members of the House- independents, and members of the Official Opposition, the opposition and the government side-have an opportunity to participate in this committee and to satisfy themselves that they are fully briefed.
Of course, the 12-hour provision is because of the situation with which all of us are faced. We, as parliamentarians, are watching very closely. We want to make sure that that 12 hours means that we can call the House back quickly in the event that there is some sort of an emergency or crisis arise. It just allows us to come back very rapidly, rather than the usual 24 hours.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader has indicated that full media coverage will be available on a daily basis, that all members of Parliament will have an opportunity to sit in on those meetings, and that the parties will have an opportunity to ask the appropriate questions.
It seems to me that the 12-hour recall in a sense puts us on an almost immediate recall, that is, if anything happens of significance in terms of the Persian Gulf war that the House would be recalled. I am sure that means at the request of the committee, as well.
With regard to the question of the eventual recall of the House, I am assuming that the government still plans to introduce its budget and throne speech before the end of February. I also understand that the leaders will have an opportunity to make some comments prior to the six
o'clock vote tomorrow. Could the parliamentary secretary confirm that, please?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, yes. First, the televising of the committees should be under the usual rules of the House of Commons. All of us understand that.
Second, in terms of the budget, the throne speech, and that sort of thing, the last I heard was that the Minister of Finance still intended to have a budget this year. I am sure that will be the case. Obviously, I cannot give the hon. member the dates, but our intention would probably be sometime in the latter part of February. Of course, I have to have confirmation of that from the Minister of Finance. I would not want to pre-empt him in any way.
In terms of the hon. member's question regarding the participation of representatives of the three parties, that would be the second motion that I am prepared to deal with in a matter of moments, as soon as we have agreed to this one.
[Translation\


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast, on a point of order.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that the parliamentary secretary has consulted the independent members. We are prepared to co-operate, and this motion has our consent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think the provision that the standing joint committee sits is an appropriate one.
I simply want to get some assurance from my hon. colleague that, for the daily sessions, whenever possible-we recognize the limitations on the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence-either of these two individuals, or at least some senior cabinet minister, would make every effort at least to be in attendance during the committee sessions.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, the intention that we, as a House, have with this committee is to make sure that all members of the House and the public in general have every opportunity to be fully briefed.

It is our intention-I use the words "whenever possible"-to have senior cabinet people and senior officials available. I think the House will understand that, from time to time, with the situation in which we find ourselves, it is difficult to predict ministers' schedules or particular officials' schedules.
I want a signal in the strongest possible terms that it is our intention to make sure at every opportunity that we can provide the best and fullest briefings possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, just before proceeding with this second motion, I want to indicate that there have been discussions among the various representatives of the parties in the House of Commons.
There is a willingness on the completion of this motion that there will be an emergency debate, from the hours of seven o'clock to ten o'clock p.m., regarding the situation in the Baltic states. We have had those discussions and, if that were to meet with the satisfaction of the Speaker, we would certainly be more than willing to co-operate on that.
The motion is as follows:
That, upon completion of the emergency debate on the situation in the Baltic States, the House shall adjourn until Tbesday, January 22, 1991, at 5:00 p.m., at which time one representative from each party shall address the House on Government Business No. 27, respecting the Persian Gulf crisis, for a period of not longer than 15 minutes each, after which there shall be a 15 minute bell followed immediately by a division on Government Business No. 27.
I should indicate that those addresses by the three party representatives would be for a maximum of 15 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the interest of good order in the House, would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government be in agreement with me that after Bill C-88, there being no further speakers on that bill and that bill having been adopted, that he would comply with the usual practice of allowing members to prepare for their speeches tonight and suspend the House until seven o'clock?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that, in fact, yes, if Bill C-88 were to be passed on division now, then we would be quite happy to suspend the House until seven o'clock for the emergency debate.


EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois) I declare the motion carried on division.
Bill read the third time and passed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to suspend the proceedings until seven o'clock?

January 21, 1991


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The proceedings are therefore suspended until seven o'clock.
At 5.08 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 7 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 52, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park has obtained leave to move a motion for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the situation in the Baltic states.


Jesse Philip Flis: That this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I may add that under the provisions of Standing Order 52, each member has the floor for a maximum of 20 minutes and there is no period for questions and comments.
The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate you for having the wisdom to grant the House leave to debate this important crisis in one part of our world. I thank all parties and Independent members for agreeing to such an emergency debate on the crisis in the Baltic states.
Everyone thought that World War II ended on September 2 when the Japanese surrendered. Well, it didn't, because World War II continued. First, Hitler and Stalin occupied three countries under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. With a stroke of a pen, they occupied three countries.
How does that differ from another country, such as Iraq, invading Kuwait? This one was done by military might, the other one was done by the stroke of a pen. In both cases, sovereign countries got their independence taken away. World War II continued, in a way, because the Baltic states did not accept that. Most of the western countries did not accept that annexation.
There were partisan military actions by Lithuanians and the others, hiding in the bushes, disrupting communications for the Soviet Union, and making life miserable for the Soviet army. But it did not stop there. It stopped for a period and then, of course, we saw the demonstrations. We actually saw 50 years of continuations of some aspects of World War II.
Then came the bloody crackdown a week ago in Vilnius, for no apparent reason. The reason, according to some sources, is because the young men refused to be conscripted into the army. Most of those men, I am sure, would welcome joining the army to defend their country, but not joining the Soviet Union to defend another country. If the Soviet Union Army orders these young men from the Baltic states to invade any of the Baltic states, they would be shooting at their own parents. They would be shooting at their own brothers and sisters. So I cannot blame the young men who are refusing to join the Soviet Army. They are very willing to join the Estonian, the Latvian, and the Lithuanian armies, but not the Soviet Army. This was not the real cause. I think, President Gorbachev or whoever gave the order to move in the tanks found that as an excuse.
What was the reaction around the world when Gorbachev decided to move tanks and troops into Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania? The reaction was swift and the reaction was strong from around the world.
At a meeting that the hon. member for Scarborough Centre and I had with about 500 Baltic Canadians on Saturday, they praised the Canadian government for acting so quickly. Canada was one of the first parliaments to bring in an all-party resolution condemning the actions of the Soviet Union in this crack-down.
But there was immediate reaction from the United States. The New York Times quotes President Bush as saying:
We condemn these acts which could not help but affect our
relationship-I ask the Soviet leaders to refrain from further acts that
January 21, 1991

might lead to more violence and loss of life. I urge the Soviet Government to return to a peaceful course of negotiations and dialogue with legitimate governments of the Baltic states.
Then, of course, this question came up: Should the summit between President Bush and President Gorbachev take place? I hope it is not cancelled, but postponed or suspended until such time as the Soviet Army is withdrawn from the Baltic states.
What was the reaction of the European Economic Community? The New York Times states:
The European Economic Community condemned Moscow's violent crackdown, warned that the $1 billion in economic aid promised to the Soviet Union might be suspended, and demanded an explanation from Moscow indicating which authorities ordered the troops to fire on unarmed civilians.
Then, country by country, they expressed their condemnation, but I will not have time to quote the condemnation of each country.
In eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia called for consultations with Poland and Hungary and stated that it foresaw the discussion of joint action, including withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact.
Just this weekend, I learned that the Government of Poland has accepted Lithuania's government, should it have to go into exile. Poland knows what it is like to achieve its independence. Lithuania, an independent country, should not have to fight for its independence. If, as a last resort, the Landsbergis government has to operate from outside of Lithuania, that government has been assured that there is spot for the government in exile in Warsaw. This is the kind of co-operation and reaction we are seeing from around the world.
Getting back to Canada's reaction, on January 9 I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs also asking that he condemn this action and that he call in the Soviet ambassador. I want to thank him now-I see him sitting here-that he did call in the ambassador to explain the actions of the Soviet Union.
The Prime Minister sent a letter to President Gorbachev warning President Gorbachev that unless such action stops, this may harm future relationships between our two countries. We all received press releases about that letter.
Of course, in the House we passed the all-party resolution. I must say that, when the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast, the hon. member for Scarborough East, and myself paid a visit to the Soviet ambassador, what seemed to irritate him the most was this all-party resolution.
The ambassador accused us of not being objective and fair, but we assured him that we were very objective and very fair, and that we will not stop our pressure and our actions until such time that the troops are withdrawn and until such time that the Soviet Union sits down and starts talking to the Baltic states.
We asked the ambassador, what is the bottom line? How can we get Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia talking to the leadership of the Soviet Union? I was a little shocked to hear the ambassador go back almost to square one. His response was that they had a new constitution, so the first thing the Baltic states must do is hold a referendum. After the referendum, there will be a five-year waiting period with negotiations, et cetera. After five years, they might then might achieve their independence.
I throw in the word "might", because after five years there is still no guarantee that the Baltic states would actually achieve their independence.
When our external affairs committee was visiting the Soviet Union, the officials from the Soviet Union were trying to tell us that the Baltic states, if they want to secede, must pay back everything that the Soviet Union invested in the Baltic states, such as the infrastructure, et cetera.
I would say that the Baltic states are probably very willing to pay back anything the Soviet Union invested in the Baltic states, but, first, I think the Baltic states should present a bill to the Soviet Union and insist that the Soviet Union pay back everything that it raked from those three countries. Let them pay back the families that they sent to Siberia. Let them pay back for the families who did not return from Siberia. Let them pay back for the properties they stole from the Baltic people. I am sure they would find that they owe more to the Baltic states than the Baltic states owe the Soviet Union. To me, that is an argument.
During any talks that we have had with representatives from the Baltic states, including President Landsbergis,

January 21, 1991
President Godmanis, and all the representatives who were here from Estonia, they said: "We want nothing more than to sit down with the Soviet Union representatives to negotiate a peaceful settlement."
Being in Lithuania for the free elections on February 24,1 do not think we could find a more peaceful people, with peace as their whole attitude, than the people of the Baltic states. They do not want war. They want to settle this peacefully, but no one is talking to them because they keep going back to the line: We have a constitution. They must secede following the constitution. The elections of February 24 were held prior to the constitution being adopted.
On the referendum issue, the Baltic states are asking why they should have to hold a referendum asking people whether they want independence. They have been independent countries all along. By agreeing to a referendum, they would be telling the Soviet Union and the world that they are not independent. This is like asking Canadians to have a referendum on whether we are a sovereign, independent nation.
This is where the two sides seem to be hung up. Maybe this is where Canada can play a vital role in trying to get the two sides together to try to break this stalemate. The Soviet Union will not talk until the Baltic states hold their referendums. The Baltic states say recognize us as independent countries and let us negotiate. There is a big role here, perhaps, for Canada to play.
I am trying to explain why the stalemate. Anyone we talked to, whether it was in the Soviet Union, with the external affairs committee or representatives coming here, the message we got was that the governments of the Baltic states want to negotiate.
The other thing of which I might just remind President Gorbachev is that I did not see the elections in Estonia and Latvia but I witnessed the election in Lithuania. Is that not a referendum, when people elect their own Parliaments, when every party, and every independent candidate can run in the election? The people have spoken. They have elected their own democratic Parliaments. How can the Soviet Union now try to take those freely elected Parliaments away from them? This is what it is trying to do in Lithuania and, this weekend, in Latvia and next weekend, I hope it is not Estonia. But because the world is speaking up, let us hope the Soviet Union
will not attempt the same scenario in Estonia. The way it is going, it seems that that is its strategy, next weekend Estonia, two weekends from now back to Lithuania and Latvia and repeat the whole cycle. I hope that is not its strategy.
In meeting with the Baltic community, our parliamentary group on the Baltic states, has been getting very clear messages as to what the Baltic Canadian communities want. I am not saying this, Mr. Speaker, this is from the Lithuanian-Canadian community which asks the Canadian government to take the following actions in the wake of the brutal crackdown in Vilnius by the Soviet army: (1) impose sanctions on the U.S.S.R. until it withdraws its tanks and paratroopers from Vilnius and enters into negotiations with the legitimate Government of Lithuania; (2) immediately accord diplomatic recognition to the democratically-elected Government of the Republic of Lithuania, led by President Vytautus Lands-bergis; (3) introduce a Canadian resolution in the United Nations condemning the Soviet aggression and to push for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in order to debate the Baltic crisis; and, (4) call a special meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to condemn the assault on Lithuania as a threat to the peace of Europe. That came from the Lithuanian community.
And this weekend, in the meeting we had, the Latvian community put forward four proposals that it would like our Parliament to address. It calls upon the Canadian government to: (1) immediately cease all assistance to the Soviet Union and impose trade and economic sanctions; (2) call an emergency debate in the House of Commons. We met that request, that is what we are doing tonight. The third proposal was: to call on the United Nations to send observers to the Baltic states. I would like to enlarge upon that one. The Baltic Canadians were saying that they wanted the United Nations to send observers but they were saying that they would also like this Parliament to send Canadian observers. They had the experience of having Canadian observers over there before and they are requesting that our government send Canadian observers to observe what is going on now. Their feeling is that if there are international observers now Gorbachev will think twice before flying in the Black Beret paratroopers. Fourth, continue to raise the Baltic issue at the Conference on Security and
January 21, 1991

Co-operation in Europe by stressing that Soviet actions will continue to threaten the peace of Europe until democracy is restored.
The Estonian community makes the same requests. If you look at the requests from the Lithuanian and Latvian community, the Estonian community requests would be quite similar.
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to have this emergency debate. I said this before and I will say it again in this House: there are two crises facing us, one is the Iraqi crisis, the other is the Baltic crisis. The world rejoiced when the cold war came to an end. Let us remember how much money was wasted on arms because of the cold war. Now we can save that money and put it toward feeding the poor, providing better housing for our people. If this crisis is not settled, we are going to go back to another cold war period where east and west are going to be building up arms, east and west will stop trading with each other and stop talking with each other.
Mr. Speaker, no one in this Parliament, or in any parliament around the world would want this.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chair for having allowed this debate to take place. As well I would like to thank the member for Parkdale-High Park and the member for Winnipeg Transcona for raising this important issue in this House. I think it is an all-party issue.
The Prime Minister of Canada on January 13 sent a strong message to Mr. Gorbachev to live up to his promise of opening the Soviet society, and opening the Soviet society to the world.
I would like first to quote what was written about the tough line of Mr. Gorbachev on republic sovereignty in The Globe and Mail of December 10. I quote:
Was it only coincidence that Soviet authorities chose to crush the
1956 Hungarian uprising while the Western world was preoccupied
with the Suez crisis; or that Stalin sent his tanks into the Baltic states
the day the Nazis marched into Paris?
He doesn't think so. Nor does he believe it is a mere coincidence that while the rest of the world focuses on the potential war in the Persian Gulf, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev appears to be preparing to crush the
independent movement in the Baltic and other Soviet republics.
I think what is happening today is a tragedy. This is the anxiety that Canadians and people elsewhere in the world have today. If you look at the development in the Persian Gulf, the American Armed Forces have over
450,000	people there. They have withdrawn armed forces from Europe and from elsewhere to send to the Persian Gulf. During that period the Soviet Union is cracking down on the Soviet republics in the Baltics.
I have been to the Soviet Union on five occasions. When I was there in the fall of 1989, I could see that changes were beginning to occur. The Soviet Union was opening up. They were debating the market economy, having democratic elections and so on and so forth.
What is happening now? It seems that the hardliners are slowly taking over in the Soviet Union. Mr. Gorbachev seems to be acting on somebody else's behalf.
Coming back to 1989, when I was returning from the Soviet Union, while stopped in Vienna, I picked up a German newspaper. In that paper I read that the Archbishop of Austria was telling the Austrians and the world to pray for Mr. Gorbachev because he was the man who was opening the Soviet society to the world. They had acknowledged the atrocities that had been committed by Stalin during the 1930s against the Baltic nations. That archbishop was telling the world to pray for Mr. Gorbachev.
We saw during the period that followed the opening of the Soviet Union to the world. The Soviet Union allowed the unification of West Germany with East Germany. They allowed a democratic process in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. There was a spill-over effect into Yugoslavia where they were having free elections in Croatia, in Bosnia-Herzogovina and other parts of Yugoslavia.
We saw what happened to the regime in Romania. All this was as a consequence of Mr. Gorbachev's actions.
I went back to the Soviet Union just last year, again in the fall. I was amazed by the openness that was prevailing, especially in the Ukraine and Baltic states. They had had democratic elections. People were talking about the market economy. I had the pleasure and honour to speak to a regional parliament in the Ukraine. It was like here, everybody was able to express themselves. At the same time, other phenomena were occurring. There were

January 21, 1991
shortages of food and other commodities in the Soviet Union and in the Baltic states.
My understanding is that the conservative forces, conservative in the sense of those who wanted to maintain the old regime, were sabotaging the reforms of the progressive people who were surrounding Mr. Gorbachev. You could almost feel that if help was not forthcoming from the west, the conservative forces in the Soviet Union, the communist forces, would take over. I am afraid that this is what is slowly happening. The intentions were excellent. We have to pay tribute to Mr. Gorbachev to have wanted something to happen but, at the same time, people like Mr. Yeltsin are already saying other forces are at work.
I would like to quote from The Ottawa Citizen of today. An address from Mr. Yeltsin was read to 300,000 people in Moscow who were supporting the democratic process. Mr. Boris Yeltsin warned of dictatorship unfolding in Russia. When he talks about Russia, he talks about the Soviet imperialist powers. He is not talking about Russia itself, because Mr. Yeltsin is the President of Russia. He is not the President of the Soviet Union and he was elected with a huge majority. He warns of the dictatorship unfolding in Russia, if the public does not rise against growing signs that the Kremlin is in the grip of conservative communists.
Economic reforms have been blocked, democracy betrayed, and glasnost trampled upon. This is about what Mr. Yeltsin is warning the world. Mr. Shevardnadze has done the same. He has resigned because he felt dictatorship is coming back to the Soviet Union.
As we watch the happenings in the Middle East, as we watch how people are being destroyed in this war on both sides, and as all our attention is focused on the Middle East, as I said at the beginning, very profound changes are happening in the Soviet Union.
We could ask ourselves the question: Why did the Soviet Union co-operate with the United Nations? Normally it would have vetoed any action by the United States and other countries in the Persian Gulf, but it wants the world's attention to focus on the Middle East as the armed forces of the United States are involved in
a long and difficult war. It is in a sense that those conservative forces in the Soviet Union, the old time communists, are probably happy with what is happening in the Middle East because they can take over.
What is happening right now in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia is a tragedy because those countries were given away, as the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park said, by signatures on a piece of paper by Hitler and Stalin. It was a deal.
I hope that there was no deal between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Middle East, what we call the new world order: your sphere of influence is going to be the Middle East and our sphere of influence is going to be eastern Europe. I am sure Mr. Gorbachev had very good intentions, but he is no longer in control of what is happening in the Soviet Union.
I would like to mention that this crackdown is not only taking place in the Baltic states. In the Ukraine as well, members of Parliament are being arrested in the Parliament Buildings. One of those is Mr. Khmara. I would like to read a short letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister on December 13. This message was delivered in Toronto to a gathering of people who were fighting for Mr. Khmara's liberation from jail:
I wish to join those present here today to express our concern about what is happening in the Ukraine.
As we know, Mr. Khmara is a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, a leading human rights advocate, a former prisoner of conscience, and founding member of the Helsinki Human Rights Movement. He has been arrested on drummed-up charges by the secret police of the central government.
That is the Kremlin. It continues:
I hope that this is not a change in policy by Moscow.
Recently, we have seen serious clouds develop on the horizon of glasnost. The appointment of Mr. Boris Pugo, a hardline KGB major-general from Latvia, as Interior Minister of the Soviet Socialist Republics, indicates that there is a move towards a hardline position and away from democratization of Soviet society.
I ask the Prime Minister to tell Mr. Gorbachev that Canadians will not support flagrant human rights violations, as in the case of Mr. Khmara.
We should never abandon the fight for human rights, wherever they occur.
Those changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union are more dramatic in the Baltic states. I support
January 21, 1991

the request by the Lithuanian Canadian community that sent a letter to most members of Parliament. One of the actions that the Secretary of State of External Affairs and the Prime Minister should take immediately is to accord diplomatic recognition to the democratically elected government of the Republic of Lithuania, led by President Landsbergis, and those of Latvia and Estonia as well. I think this is the minimum that the Canadian government can do.
I would like to thank all members who want to participate in the debate. I feel that changes in the Soviet Union were certainly very positive until lately. Now we have to remind the leaders in the Kremlin that the world cannot watch the process of glasnost stop.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is not very often unanimity in this House, even on questions of international policy, but I think that this is one of those occasions in which the House of Commons of Canada speaks, if not with one voice, then certainly with one purpose and one conviction, and that is to send the clearest possible signal to the leadership of the Soviet Union and to the Baltic peoples that Canada, each and every one of us, each and every Canadian, opposes absolutely the crackdown that has begun to develop in the Soviet Union against aspirations and governments which have a legitimacy in the Baltic states.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hard question for us, and one that I think we cannot answer tonight, is what exactly and practically the people and Government of Canada can do to reverse these developments. We are all determined to seek the reversal and to find ways that are available to us within the limits we face as a government with obligations and restrictions in the family of nations.
Everyone, every Canadian, I believe, is shocked by the brutal and unwarranted use of military force against the people and democratically elected governments of the Baltic states last week in Lithuania and yesterday in Riga, Latvia. We condemn such appalling and reprehensible behaviour, and we call upon Soviet President Gorbachev to do the same.
No one can remain unmoved by the vigilant and peaceful struggle of the peoples of the Baltic states to regain their independence. Their future is bound up in that of the new international order we are trying to create, whether that is in Europe or in the gulf.
For that reason this debate is important. It is important also to make it clear to the leaders of the Soviet Union that whatever our preoccupations with a war in which Canadian lives are at stake in the gulf, those preoccupations will not allow anyone to get away with a crackdown of the kind that is beginning, that is all too evident now in the Baltic states.
I want to commend the excellent work of the member for Scarborough Centre who presides over an ad hoc committee of members of Parliament on the Baltic states. They have been concerned, committed, and tireless in their efforts on behalf of the Canadian Baltic communities and the people who come from there.
Canada's support for the Baltic states has been unwavering. We recognize their de jure independence. We have never accepted their forcible annexation. We support the right of their peoples to determine their own future. The question for us is what practical help can we offer now.
I have just had the great privilege of meeting, in my capacity as a parliamentarian, with Vice-President Ivans of Latvia who came up particularly to see me tonight and is going now for meetings later this evening or early tomorrow morning with the Secretary of State of the United States. We talked about three areas in which the help of Canada can be offered: one is material, one is moral and political, and the third is diplomatic.
Regarding material help, there may well be in Latvia, as there sadly is in Lithuania, a need for some medical supplies. I asked Vice-President Ivans, on behalf of the government and people of Canada, to prepare a list of the things that might be needed by the Latvian people, things that we might be in a position to provide, and we would then look at ways-and they could be difficult-by which those might be delivered to people in need.
I would encourage groups in Canada who might have materials, medical supplies, perhaps other things, that would be necessary to consider ways by which those

January 21, 1991
might be gathered and made available for transmission to people in the Baltic states.
In terms of moral and political support, two or three matters were raised by the Vice-President of Latvia. One of them I think must be considered carefully by this House. It holds some risks, including personal risks and including a risk of being counterproductive, and that is the possibility of a delegation of parliamentarians of this House going to Latvia.
As Secretary of State for External Affairs I would not at the moment make a recommendation on that matter. I think that is simply because this debate comes so quickly after the proposal was made.
There are some positive things that could be gained from a gesture of that kind. But there are dangers, some of them personal in the circumstances, and also the danger that that kind of action by parliamentarians from this House would invite exactly the opposite response from what we seek from the Soviet Union.
The Baltic countries have established a Baltic centre in Stockholm. That is something the Government of Sweden has determined to be acceptable by its interpretation of international law and practice. Certainly I think it is important and useful for us to consider whether a similar arrangement might be applied here.
There are things that we have to consider doing on the diplomatic front, as was discussed in this House in answer to questions from my friend for Winnipeg Trans-cona. There has to be consideration as to what we can do in the context of the United Nations, probably most likely in its committees dealing with human rights. We are already trying to define some ways in which we can make progress through the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I want to return to that theme a little bit later tonight.
As the two speakers preceding me have indicated, what is happening in Latvia and Lithuania is inseparable from the broader situation in the Soviet Union, a situation which becomes more troubling every day, particularly for those of us who were so encouraged by the movement towards glasnost and perestroika and so determined to do what we can to help those reforms succeed.
None of us wants the Soviet Union to crumble. All of us want reform in that society to succeed. We were
encouraged, among other things, by the attitudes that had been shown generally earlier with respect to the status of the Baltic states. We are discouraged now, deeply discouraged, by actions that have become more violent and more dramatic in recent days.
There are things we must consider doing to support the Baltic people, but we must try to do them in the context of encouraging the reform and the cohesion of the Soviet Union. That is a particularly difficult challenge for all of us, but it is, I think, Mr. Speaker, in everybody's interest, including the interest of the people in the Baltic states and the people of Baltic origin in Canada, that we seek a way that accomplishes or encourages together the reform that was started by Mr. Gorbachev in the Soviet Union and some movement towards the independence of the Baltic states.
There is no clear way, at least not clear to me, in which we can accomplish that goal tonight. But the Soviet Union, as it considers what it is doing now, and as it considers the importance to it of the support of a people and a government like ours, must understand that Canadians not only have commitments to human rights that are so much a part of our society, but also have a population that was formed in such large part by people who came from eastern and central Europe and from communities in what is now the Soviet Union.
Canadians cannot help but be profoundly affected by what is occurring in the Soviet Union now, and that if those actions do not stop, they are bound to have an effect for the worse upon the relations between Canada and the Soviet Union in a formal sense, but also, and perhaps in a much more important way, they are bound to dim and then to reverse the enthusiasm for reform that had been building among our own people, most particularly among people who had roots behind what used to be the Iron Curtain.

Canada's support for the Baltic states has been unwavering. We recognize their independence by right. We never accepted their annexation by force. We argue in favour of the right of these peoples to determine their future.
Last spring, the three republics held fair and free elections. Federal representatives, including the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon. member for Scarbo-
January 21, 1991

rough Centre, and a representative from Ontario, Premier Rae, went to Lithuania during the election as observers.
At the initiative of Lithuania, on March 11, these democratically-elected governments declared their independence from the U.S.S.R. They tried to negotiate with Moscow, as provided under the existing constitution. Instead they were subjected to political and economic pressure.
After five years of a steadily deteriorating standard of living, perestroika has now reached a critical phase. The Soviet economy is crumbling. Pressure from independence movements is rising and public opinion is becoming increasingly negative. Mr. Gorbachev must choose: advance or retreat.
Gorbachev's supporters claim that law and order are the only weapons against anarchy. His opponents say that a policy of oppression will make him the hostage of reactionary forces. Polarization quickly leads to instability-
This winter, the U.S.S.R. asked Canada and other Western countries for assistance. We decided to support reforms by reducing the cost of transition. After my conversations with the former minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Shevardnadze, the Prime Minister of Canada offered specific types of assistance at the last CSCE summit in Paris. All of this is now at risk.

That things were getting worse in the Soviet Union was evident when Mr. Shevardnadze resigned in mid-December, warning that dictatorship could be on the way. The tragic events in Vilnius the night of January 12-13, with 14 dead, 163 wounded and 57 missing, made Mr. Shevardnadze, unhappily, a prophet. Mr. Gorbachev has taken the position that the events in Vilnius were regrettable but inevitable. He has not condemned the violence; he has not expressed sympathy for the victims or repudiated those who ordered it. His ultimatum to the Baltic states gave the military a green light, though he is disclaiming any personal knowledge of the consequences.
All three Baltic states believe that military-enforced, direct presidential rule is imminent. They are directing urgent appeals to Canada and to other western states,
making an explicit linkage to the gulf crisis. The three have sent out representatives empowered to establish governments in exile if required. And, as the House knows and as I have said, I met earlier this evening with the Vice-President of Latvia.
Making any assessment difficult is the lack of coherence in Moscow among the various constituencies vying for power. Russian Republic President Yeltsin has joined the Baltic states in opposing the centre. Tens of thousands of people demonstrated in Moscow yesterday, calling for Mr. Gorbachev's resignation and the restoration of democracy. Meanwhile, the situation in other republics is increasingly tense, in Georgia, in Armenia, in Moldavia and in Ukraine. Mr. Gorbachev and the military have threatened them with similar treatment if they do not knuckle under. Many believe that the Baltic states are the dress rehearsal.
Last spring, Canada welcomed the free elections in the Baltic states, stressing our support for the right of their peoples to determine their own future. We protested the Soviet resort to intimidation. In my parliamentary capacity, I met with the then Prime Minister of Lithuania, Madam Prunskiene. Canada moved quickly to express its concern about the dangerous situation currently developing in the Baltic states. In December, the Prime Minister and I, in our parliamentary capacities, met with Lithuanian President Landsbergis, Latvian Prime Minister Godmanis and Foreign Minister Jurkans. I wrote to former foreign minister Shevardnadze on December 13 seeking confirmation of explicit assurances that were given to me and to the Prime Minister a year ago that there would be no crackdown in the Baltic states. On January 8 and January 11, the Soviet ambassador was called in.
I, on behalf of the Government of Canada, issued tough statements. Canada's reaction to the tragic events in Vilnius was among the strongest to come from any democracy in the western world.
The Prime Minister wrote immediately to President Gorbachev. He issued a strong condemnation, calling on the Soviet President to show restraint and to negotiate settlements based on the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris. He reminded him that at this time of heightened international tension, Canadians were watching events in the U.S.S.R. just as we were watching events in the gulf.

At the same time, the Prime Minister announced that Canada was reviewing its offer of technical assistance and the new $150 million line of credit. That is not food aid, but a commercial sale. We have drawn a direct linkage between Canadian assistance and the continuation of Soviet reform. I announced earlier that we were reviewing actions under those programs. I want to advise the House that we have now suspended any action under those programs that had not taken place before the actions in Lithuania.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: On January 15, this House passed a unanimous resolution condemning the brutal violence used against the people and democratically elected Government of Lithuania.
Saturday I received a communication from the Soviet Ambassador giving the official explanation for the tragic events in Lithuania. The note rejected Moscow's responsibility for what happened, blaming instead the Lithuanian leaders who were claimed to have held extremist positions. That, however, was before the equally tragic events in Riga yesterday.
No one knows if Mr. Gorbachev is still in charge or, more worrying, whether he remains committed to the reforms that began in his name. In his letter of January 13, the Prime Minister warned the Soviet President against the consequences of his present course. That letter remains unanswered, and tonight I would like to quote it and lay it on the table of Parliament.

The Prime Minister wrote:
Dear Mr. President,
I am writing to express the shock and abhorrence felt by all Canadians at the unwarranted violence used against the people and democratically elected government of Lithuania.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs raised Canada's concerns with the Soviet Ambassador, January 11. Since then, Soviet military forces have been used against the institutions and citizens of Lithuania with resulting serious injuries and loss of life.
I deeply regret that these actions have taken place. They are contrary to the assurances Mr. Clark had received from Foreign Minister Shevardnadze and which you had explicitly repeated to me that there would be no crackdown in the Baltic states. I cannot stress to
you strongly enough the importance of quickly and unequivocally condemning such behaviour.
You have accomplished a great deal in bringing new hope to your nation and the world. I appeal to you not to undermine this achievement but to show restraint in this increasingly dangerous situation so that further bloodshed can be averted. I urge you to seek negotiated solutions consistent with the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris and the legitimate aspirations of Lithuania and the other Baltic States. Democracy cannot exist without respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms.
As of now, Canada is reviewing its offers of technical assistance and new lines of credit for the purchase of foodstuffs. Developments in the Baltic States will also have an impact on the agreements reached during Mr. Clark's visit to Moscow and in our discussions at the CSCE Paris Summit.
I must stress that further escalation will have serious consequences for our relations. As Mr. Clark advised the Soviet Ambassador, at this time of heightened international tension, we are watching events not only in the Gulf, but in the USSR as well. In circumstances such as these, you should not underestimate the force of Canadian and world opinion.
That was the Prime Minister's letter to Mr. Gorbatch-ev, and I am prepared to lay it on the Thble of the House.

I understand that I am close to the end of my allotted time. I wonder if I might have two or three minutes.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jesse Philip Flis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we definitely would like to hear a little longer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his three minutes I wonder if he could clarify this point. He keeps saying that he met with the vice-president in his parliamentary capacity. I was under the impression he was meeting these people as Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member understands, as others in the House do, the constraints that are upon us as a country. I have made it very clear that the circumstances under which I could meet elected leaders, other parliamentarians who hold government office from the Baltic states, was in my capacity as a parliamentarian. That has been understood

by all of them and I think clearly understood by members of the Baltic community in Canada. It was certainly in that capacity that I met the parliamentarian who is vice-president of Latvia today.
Do I understand that one of the independent members has denied me-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. Do I have unanimous consent for extending the speaking time of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Mr. Plamondon:: I agree, provided that the minister's extra time is added to our total speaking time, so that those who wish to speak will be able to do so. For instance, I will hardly have any time at all, but if the minister takes more time, I will have to skip my turn altogether. I am prepared to let the minister continue, but if the minister takes an extra 15 or 10 minutes, I suggest that instead of finishing at 10 p.m., we finish at a quarter or ten past, as the case may be. I agree on that condition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If I understand correctly, there is no unanimous consent for extending the debate, because I am bound by an order of the House, unless the House decides to rescind its order adopted before dinner.
Does the House agree to extend debate beyond 10 p.m., to the extent that the speaking time of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is extended?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Clark (Yeliowhead):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the Departments of External Affairs and International Trade are in continuous contact with representatives of the Baltic communities and concerned individuals.
For example, we are continuing to facilitate the shipment of medical supplies to Lithuania and to other Baltic states.
In Moscow, our embassy has been repeating Canada's message, the message of the House of Commons and our government, to the Soviets through the ministry of foreign affairs there, including a conversation today between Ambassador Michael Bell of Canada and the
new Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh of the Soviet Union.
An embassy officer is on the ground in Vilnius providing consular services to Canadians in the region and acting as a channel of communication. He is in direct contact with President Landsbergis.
Another embassy officer is leaving for Riga shortly.
We are looking at ways of including the Baltic States in the CSCE process. Canada is making strong statements at the CSCE conference in Valetta, the meeting on the peaceful resolution of disputes, and will do the same at ongoing meetings in Vienna.
Canada and others will be invoking the human dimension mechanism of the CSCE, which we think may provide us more influence than we had heretofore seeking explanations formally from Soviet authorities about what is happening in the Baltic states.
As the House knows, the member from Markham raised a proposal in the House today of which I have taken note regarding the conference under the CSCE process on human rights.
We are discussing the situation with our allies in NATO and are considering the means by which it might be raised effectively in the United Nations, especially in the Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva later this month. Members of Parliament have made the point to me that, while they understand the effect of the veto on matters that might be raised in the Security Council, the presence of that veto should not in and of itself preclude us from raising the matter either there or in the General Assembly. We are looking at ways effect can be given to that view.
Bilaterally, we are looking at concrete ways that Canada can support the Baltic states through increased contacts and direct assistance. We are also exploring with the Baltic communities in Canada the possibilities of opening a Baltic information office here in Canada.
I am prepared to look at any other ways that are practical. There are limits upon what we can do, given our obligations in the family of nations and given the importance of our continuing relations with the Soviet Union, given the importance indeed of our capacity to influence that country and that government, not simply in matters it considers internal but also in other international matters.

January 21, 1991
I can say that, while I am aware of those limits, it is my intention and the personal commitment of the Prime Minister to push those limits as far as is humanly possible. I will need not simply the support of the House in that, but also the advice of the House as to means that might be followed that can accomplish that purpose. Any proposals that are put forward in this debate or later will be seriously considered.
The purpose of this debate, I believe, is to make one message clear to the Baltic peoples, and most particularly to the leadership in the Soviet Union, and that is that the violence and repression that we have seen in recent days is completely unacceptable to Canada, unacceptable to this Parliament, and poses a grave risk to relations that we want to pursue and to reforms that we want to encourage in the Soviet Union.
There is a crisis in the gulf that preoccupies us all. If leaders of the Soviet Union thought that would deflect the attention of Canadians, this Parliament, or this government away from the situation of the Baltic peoples, then they were wrong. We are committed to support principles that have been important to Canadians for years and to support peoples whose braveiy and determination have won the admiration of all of us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs has gone six minutes beyond his speaking time of 20 minutes, the debate this evening will finish at 10.06 p.m.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this is on question and comments, I trust.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are no questions or comments in the debate. Does the hon. member wish to speak?


Svend Johannes Robinson: No.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs for his speech, and also the two co-sponsors of the motion to bring on this emergency debate, the existence of which I think sends an important signal, particularly to the Soviet Union, about the seriousness
with which the Canadian Parliament takes recent events in Latvia and Lithuania. Also, it sends a signal to the Baltic community within Canada as to how serious the Canadian Parliament takes events in Lithuania and Latvia, and the concern which the Baltic community in Canada rightly has about their countries of origin.
I was going to say, while I have the secretary of state's attention, that I will send over to him a fax which I received indirectly over the weekend from the Minister of Health in Lithuania, Mr. Juozaz Oleksas. I stayed in his home for 10 days when I was in Lithuania observing the elections. It is a rather detailed piece of information about the nature of the violence, the wounds that people received, causes of death, et cetera, and an extensive list of the kinds of medical supplies which are in short supply. I send that over to him now. It may be in the file at External Affairs, but just in case he does not have it already, he will have it now.
With respect to the emergency debate, it is one of a number of steps that have already been taken by this Parliament with respect to the situation in Lithuania and Latvia, going all the way back to March of last year when we passed a resolution recognizing the right-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I say I would rather not talk over the voices of people on the other side. This is an emergency debate. There is an emergency in Latvia and Lithuania and, if members are going to be in the Chamber, they can at least pay attention to what is going on or have their conversations somewhere else.
With respect to what the Canadian Parliament has done so far, I was taking you back, Mr. Speaker, to the passage of the resolution in March, 1990 by which we recognized, collectively, the right of the Baltic states to declare their independence and the resolution of January 15, 1991 in which we called upon the Soviet Union, given what had already happened in Lithuania on the previous weekend, to stop the violence which was being visited upon civilians. Now, of course, there is the situation in Latvia where, again, people have been killed by the military, the so-called Black Berets.
I am very pleased to be part of this collective effort on the part of Canadian parliamentarians, an effort which owes its existence to a consensus about the situation in
January 21, 1991

the Baltic, but also I think to the actions of the group known as the Canadian Parliamentary Group for the Baltic Peoples. That group has its origin in the visit of Canadian parliamentarians to Lithuania in February 1990 in order to observe the elections there which brought to power, so to speak, the Sajudis Party. Sajudis is an umbrella movement which contains within it various ideological factions from Greens to social democrats, communists, Christian democrats, and a variety of people who were united in one thing and that was to see the day when Lithuania would regain the independence that it once enjoyed as a sovereign state.
I remember only too well the experience that I had there. We were of course in Vilnius for most of the time we were there, but one evening-I believe it was on a Friday night-I went to a small town near the Baltic Sea called Silute in which I was able to attend a town hall meeting where there were a variety of candidates. I think there were six candidates in all running in that particular riding. They had a town hall meeting at which the candidates spoke and there was a question and answer period after. Of course, because I was a guest, I got to say why I was there. I was also invited to say a word at the end of the meeting.
One of the things that I had to say was that it was the most polite, most civil, and most profound town hall meeting I had ever been at. It made all the town hall meeting that I had experienced as a Canadian politician look rather inferior. Perhaps because people realized the stakes, I think, of what they were arguing about and what they were debating, they were very generous with each other.
I reflected at that time that perhaps we take democracy too much for granted in this country and abuse, in many respects, our freedom of speech by being unkind to each other in ways that are not called for. These people knew the value of what they were experiencing for the first time in 50 years and treated it with a great deal of care.
Of course, the other side of that coin is that their politics have not yet come to be trivialized in the way that our politics has come to be trivialized by the media, the sound bite, negative advertising, and all the other things that afflict the body politic in western democracies.
Having said that, it is one of the things-the experience of that night and other experiences that I had there-that continues to motivate me in keeping what is happening in the Baltic states on the agenda of Parliament and on the international agenda, to the extent that any one member of Parliament can effect these things. I saw there, and I think we continue to see, a determination on the part of Lithuanians-although they are willing to defend themselves if pushed-to do what they have done so far in a very peaceful and democratic way, and in a very courageous way I might add.
We say to the Soviet Union, I hope, by everything we do and say here today, that we want the existence of those democratically elected governments of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to be preserved, to be preserved not just all holed up in the parliament buildings somewhere, under siege, but to be preserved as a legitimate instrument by which the eventual independence or new relationship, whatever it comes to be with Moscow, can be negotiated. Let Moscow or the centralized authority in the Soviet Union negotiate as toughly as it wishes in a democratic way about the consequences of independence in the same way that any other country would want to negotiate toughly and realistically with parts of it that wanted to seek sovereignty. I do not need to make any obvious comparisons.
Those governments have been elected in fair and democratic elections. For me, that is the bottom line of continuing goodwill toward the Soviet Union, that those democratically elected governments not be overthrown or replaced with non-elected governments. There are plenty of difficult issues to be sorted out between those elected governments and Moscow. There are plenty of difficult questions regarding security, respect for ethnic minorities in the Baltic republics and questions having to do with what the terms of separation would be and so on. These are things that will take time.
To that extent, it is incumbent upon the leadership in the various Baltic republics to understand the over-all difficulty of the situation in the Soviet Union and to proceed in a way that is tactically wise and that takes into account those realities. I am not in a position to judge whether they have done that or not, but we are all in a position to say that that is something they need to take into account.

I met with the Soviet ambassador on Friday before I returned to my riding and received what we have received before in terms of an official explanation from the Soviet Union. That is the explanation that the external affairs committee got when we were in Moscow in April 1990, that there is a provision for the separation of republics from the Soviet Union. It is a five-year process and it is something that they ask the Baltic republics to respect.
The problem is twofold: One, for the Baltic republics to accept that constitutionalized process for separation is for them to accept the Soviet constitution. They are not willing to do this because they maintain that they have a special status, recognized by a significant part of the international community which never recognized their annexation by the Soviet Union. For them to seek separation purely and only within this established constitutional process is to concede the point on which they base their entire political self-understanding.
The second thing which is never highlighted by Soviet spokespersons, unless you ask them, is that at the end of this five-year process, any separation, even if it is ratified by referendum-and I think I am correct in this understanding-still has to be approved by Moscow. There is a sort of a trump card at the end which the Lithuanians and others suspect would be used against them. There are problems there.
What is needed is for the Baltic leadership to recognize the difficulty which the Soviet Union finds itself in, at the same time as Moscow recognizes the special case of the Baltics. This special case is established in the report by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade in our report on our visit there. It is not a new thought but one which I think still has to be fully absorbed by the Soviet Union, the extent to which the special case of the Baltics is something that it would be wise for a variety of ways for the Soviet Union to accept and not only because it would permit it to negotiate with the leadership in the Baltic republics at this point.
If they were able to establish a different relationship with the Baltic republics and permit a transition to a market economy, for instance, in the Baltics quicker than they are obviously able to do it elsewhere, they
might in a way have sort of a pilot project for perestroika. Things might be able to happen more quickly, more easily and provide the basis for the kind of change that needs to take place in other parts of the Soviet Union.
Obviously, this is an argument that has not been accepted by the Soviet leadership, but I think it is something that does recommend itself. I am very sorry that those arguments have not been heard or, at least, have not been accepted in Moscow or at the Kremlin. I do not disagree with the decision that the minister has announced to suspend various things that were in train with respect to the Soviet Union, but I regret very much that it has come to that as I am sure the minister of external affairs does.
I think this new relationship with the Soviet Union that was and still is developing is not only important for Canada because the Soviet Union happens to be one of our largest neighbours in every respect but also because the new relationship that the whole world was entering into with the Soviet Union is very important to the future of the planet for obvious reasons.
The point of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is well taken when he says that we have to judge how we respond to these events in light of the whole context of our relationship with the Soviet Union. That involves some very difficult decisions, because it is quite understandable that the community here in Canada has a list of the things that it would like the government to do.
I think we should be able, even though we share these concerns, to disagree with each other on a tactical level as to what will achieve the desired result and what may have to be held back at this point in order to preserve larger possibilities within which the possibility for an independent Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia is contained.
I believe that if the Soviet Union were to crumble-to use the minister's words-or were seen to be crumbling, that this would provide the opportunity for the army in the Soviet Union, at least in the short term, to take over, to exert more influence and to perpetrate more of the kind of violence that we have seen in Latvia and Lithuania.
I think there are some very difficult judgments to be made there and I hope that we all, as politicians, have the understanding of the various communities when we try to be as serious as we can about this and not just
January 21, 1991

simply agree with people for the sake of achieving political points.
With respect to the gulf, I am not sure. I have a suspicious enough mind growing out of my life in politics to believe that all kinds of things are not coincidence, but I think it is fair to say that the gulf war does distract attention from the events in the Baltics. Whether this was deliberate or not is really almost beside the point.
I think things would have come to a head there anyway in the absence of any willingness on the part of Moscow to accept the special case of the Baltics. Whether we were dealing with this now or later, we probably would have been dealing with it at some time. But it does raise some interesting questions vis-a-vis the gulf because here we are all agreeing, and yet over the gulf we cannot seem to agree.
It would be useful it seems to me to try to find what it is in the government's position with respect to the gulf that might permit it new freedom of action with respect to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia; that is, this new emphasis on the United Nations which the government-I believe sincerely even though I disagree-sees as the underpinning of its action with respect to the gulf.
I think here is another opportunity for the UN to exercise itself on a situation which is entirely new, in the sense that it is not even a year since we have had these new democratically elected governments. It is entirely new in the sense that this is the post-1989 post-cold war world that we are dealing with.
I do not agree with the way in which this post-cold war United Nations has dealt with the gulf, but I think that this is another situation which asks of this new United Nations, which asks of this new post-cold war order, how shall we deal with this?
In that sense, new thinking has to be applied to that situation as well. Nothing in the way that we have dealt with these questions before is a truly reliable guidepost for us. I think some of the new thinking that has gone into the United Nations by the Soviet Union in some of the speeches by the now resigned foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze need to be examined for ways in which the Soviet Union can be taken at its own word on how to deal with the situation in the Baltic republics.
I would commend that analytical task, if you like, to the minister and to the department because it may be that in things which have been said over the last little while by the Soviet Union you may find the hook by which to persuade them that they have an obligation, consistent with their own rhetoric to allow the Baltic situation to be debated at the UN; or considered by the Security Council; or whatever the case may be.
The object of all these things is to get the issue of the Baltic states into the international arena where it properly belongs, as a result of the longstanding contention by the international community, that the annexation of the Baltic states is only a de facto reality and not the the de jure reality that would enable the Soviet Union to claim that this was purely an internal matter, which raises, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member's time has expired. Does the House agree to extend the speech time of the hon. member?


An hon. member:: Agreed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I was talking about the UN, Mr. Speaker. Just one final point.
The point we need to look at-after the gulf war is over-hopefully soon-is how do we so reform the United Nations to enable it to legitimately concern itself with what nations regard as their internal affairs?
We can no longer go on like this permitting government after government, whether it is Canada with respect to native rights; the Soviet Union with respect to Lithuania; to Iraq, with respect to the Kurds; or whoever it happens to be, to claim that this is purely an internal matter. I think that is an agenda for reform that the government should turn its attention to.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, following consultations in the House whether I might be permitted to address a brief question to my colleague at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Does the House agree to allow the hon. member to put a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.

January 21, 1991


Louis Plamondon: I agree, Mr. Speaker, provided we add the time as we did earlier.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I want to first of all congratulate my colleague for his very insightful analysis of the situation in the Baltic republics. I know that he has travelled to that area himself, specifically to the Baltic republics, and last year he was in the Soviet Union as well. Certainly he has been one of the leaders in this House on this very important question.
As the spokesperson for my party on external affairs, I want to make this very clear, as my colleague has done.
First of all, we have had a long-standing position of non-recognition of the annexation of the Baltic republics. That position remains. We fully support the importance of a dialogue, a constructive dialogue between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Union with respect to the facilitating of their desire to obtain sovereignty and self-determination.
Obviously this House and I join in condemning the violence that took place in Lithuania, the death of some 14 Lithuanians eight days ago, the violence and death in Latvia. Tragically, earlier today, we learned that there have been two explosions of undetermined origins in Estonia at a building in the Tallinn Shipyards and a centre for worker collectives. Fortunately there were no injuries, but we recall that similar explosions in Riga in early January preceded the recent events in Latvia.
I want to take this opportunity to indicate that we certainly, in general terms, support the position that the government has taken in response to this very difficult question. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has outlined that response. We welcome, particularly, his assurance that within the context of the United Nations this matter will be given high priority, whether it be in Geneva at the United Nations Human Rights Commission or at the Security Council. I would hope that we would be prepared, although not a member of the Security Council, to seek to have this matter raised there or in other fora including the CSCE.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows that I have communicated with him in respect of the question of observer status for the Baltic republics at CSCE meetings. I understand the consensus process at CSCE meetings, but I would hope that Canada would take a position now of support for observer status at the CSCE.
As well, my colleague referred to the fact that the eyes of the world have been so focused and so riveted on the situation in the gulf that not enough attention has been paid to the situation in the Baltic republics: in Lithuania, in Latvia, and hopefully not but possibly in Estonia.
I wanted to note as well that in the same context-and I will be brief-the eyes of the world have not been focused on another very serious violation of human rights. I am speaking here of the trials which are taking place in China of the Tiananmen Square dissidents. I have the same concern with respect to the lack of attention. Indeed a young Chinese citizen, Mao Jiye, Secretary-General of the Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars in Canada, attempted to visit China and was denied. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will express his concern on this matter, as eloquently and as forcefully as he has done with respect to the Baltic republics.
In conclusion, I want to reinforce our full support for the measures that have been taken in this context and to urge that the United Nations, the community of nations, very forcefully make it clear to Mikhail Gorbachev, who has done so much over the past six years to give the world hope of a new beginning with glasnost and perestroika, will not abandon that very important course and will in fact ensure that the Baltic republics are no longer the scene of violence and death.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since the hon. member spoke five minutes, this evening's debate will continue until 10.11 p.m.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, let

me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time on this side of the House with my colleagues.
I want to express appreciation to members of the House of Commons for agreeing to have this debate. Particularly I want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his excellent and thoughtful remarks tonight. The Secretary of State for External Affairs can be applauded for his commitment and indeed for his excellent work in the matters relating to the Baltic states.
Just one year ago, I had the opportunity, along with colleagues in this House of Commons, to visit Vilnius, Lithuania. At the invitation of Sajudis, the freedom movement in Lithuania, we witnessed the democratic election that gave an overwhelming victory to the principles of independence and self-government. The Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, after 50 years of domination by the Soviet Union, were set on a path for freedom and democracy.
To have been in Vilnius last year living with a Lithuanian family, speaking at meetings on behalf of freedom candidates, meeting students at the University of Vilnius, chatting with people in restaurants, stores and on the street, the determination and discipline of the people was clear. They wanted political and economic independence.
Upon returning to Canada, my colleagues and I set to work to establish the Canadian Parliamentary Group for the Baltic Peoples, a non-partisan group of MPs from all sides of the House, to work together with those Canadians with Baltic heritage or Baltic roots in order to advance in a concerted way our assistance, as well as to encourage our government's support and assistance for the realization of independence for Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
I want to thank the leaders of the Baltic community in Canada for their tremendous work. Particularly I want to mention Laas Levitt, President of the Estonian Central Council in Canada; Doctor Gurtis Silins, President of the Latvian National Federation in Canada; and A1 Pacecui-nis, Past President of the Lithuanian Canadian community. The work that they provide within the communities and the information support they give to parliamentarians are very much appreciated. All the members of the communities in the Baltic states are to be applauded for their good work.
The election in Lithuania was a one-issue election. It was independence, and it was an overwhelming victory. Now, just a few short months later with freedom and independence within reach, the oppressive Soviet regime, in spite of its words of glasnost, perestroika, openness and freedom, has hit these Baltic nations with the full force of the military.
The Soviets first responded to the calls of independence with an economic blockade of vital necessities. It was attempting to strangle the people into submission. When the blockade failed, the Soviets appeared to hold out the promise of negotiation. It is clear now that never was its intent. Now presidential rule has been threatened and the Soviet tanks have rolled in bringing back memories of previous atrocities.
Just this weekend, I heard the testimonial accounts of eyewitnesses from the three Baltic communities of the massacre, as well as the persecutions suffered by the men forced to conscript to an army not representative of their values, their beliefs or their ideals. I was moved to horror at the atrocities inflicted.
This issue is an international issue. It cannot rest untouched in the affairs of the Soviet Union. We have witnessed a side of Mikhail Gorbachev which is contrary to all the progress and reform made in that nation. We cannot ignore it. This is why it is so fundamentally important that we debate this crisis in the House of Commons tonight.
We stand resolute in support of the people of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia for their independence, to ensure freedom, democratic and human rights, and justice. Through the United Nations, the Human Rights Commission or the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, every possible effort must be made to set our position squarely on the agenda, that we accept nothing less than the independence of these nations.
I encourage parliamentary representation within our delegations. I urge our government to support the striking of a United Nations task force on the Baltic states to observe the events as they occur and report back to the international community.
I applaud the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am pleased that Canada has suspended the earlier commitment to the Soviet Union to assist in its reforms.

Indeed, how could we continue to assist a country, the values of which obviously run contrary to our own. How could we provide assistance to a country, the president of which has gone back on his very assurances to our government that force would not be used in the Baltic states. I was also pleased to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs talk about the medical aid which would be sent directly to the Baltic states.
I want to speak about the information centre. The Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in his remarks that the establishment of an information centre was under review. I applaud that. I believe this to be an excellent initiative: to establish an information centre in order to make available all relevant information concerning events, as well as the safety of families in the Baltic states. I understand that a similar information centre has already been established in Stockholm.
I also urge our government to make every means available to those persons who wish to leave the Baltic states and come to Canada, especially those who are the victims of criminal acts and persecution.
Our parliamentary group has met with representatives of the Baltic communities in Canada. I am pleased to report to the House of Commons the appreciation extended to right hon. Prime Minister for his forthright and quick response by communicating with President Gorbachev, expressing the abhorrence of all Canadians of the unwarranted violence used against the people in the democratically elected Government of Lithuania.
In closing, we must continue as parliamentarians and as individuals committed to democracy to support the aspirations and the goals of the Baltic peoples in then-struggle and the realization of their independence.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, it is with an enormous sense of disappointment and foreboding for the future that I participate in this debate.
Over the past two or three years the relationship between the Soviet Union and the rest of the world has been characterized by one word: hope, hope of a new era in the history of the world.

Hope for independence and freedom, and with them a new meaning of reality not only in relations between nations but also in the spirit of the human soul.

Even as we have witnessed the difficulties and increasing dangers accompanying change in the Soviet Union, we have hoped that the leadership and the citizens of that vast land would find the will and the ways to continue their march toward the future. Today we must question that march and we must question its direction: to the future with confidence, or back to the past with fear and terror?
There can be no question of Canada's concern at events in the Baltic. We condemn, without reservation, the unwarranted and brutal violence with which democratically elected governments in Lithuania and Latvia and their institutions have been attacked.

We are not naive. We know and we understand the enormous pressure brought to bear on the Soviet Union president, but we also know-and we thought he knew- that there is no room for coercion and intimidation in the society he was defending and which was his aim, at least that is what we thought.

We still hope Mikhail Gorbachev stands for the free development and growth of democracy and for the self-determination which such democracy demands. We believe democracy offers to the Soviet Union, its peoples and its neighbours greater security and greater prosperity than they have witnessed under the old regime.
Where does the Soviet Union stand at this hour? Where is Mikhail Gorbachev? Where is glasnost at this hour of decision? Every one of us participating in this debate tonight knows full well the facts of history which brought the free and independent Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia under Stalin's rule 50-some years ago.
We know the brutal repression with which all opposition was eliminated. We know the enforced Russification with which the cultures of these peoples were suppressed. But we also know that that oppression failed.

We know here, in our own country, and in many others, how courageously and passionately the former citizens of these countries and their descendants kept alive their hopes and their dreams of free homelands through so many dark years.
With the changes President Gorbachev brought to the Soviet Union, we saw that the citizens living in those Baltic countries had kept alive those same hopes, those same dreams, no less brightly.
There are many things tanks and armoured vehicles can crush, but they cannot crush the idea of liberty once planted. That is the lesson of history we thought the new Soviet Union understood. The universal declaration of human rights, the Helsinki Accord, these, we thought and we had hoped, would be the pillars of any new relationship to form between constituent parts of this huge union. If they were to be called republics, we here in Canada looked for them to be republics in more than name only.

That is the evolution in which we have put our confidence and in which the Balkan states and their citizens have faith. When they were given the opportunity to cast their ballots, they did not hesitate. These are nascent democracies, as we can call them, but through their conviction and understanding they have shown wisdom and maturity beyond their years.

Are these brave hopes now to be ended in bloodshed and destruction? Is the Charter of Paris, signed only a few weeks ago, to become as worthless as so many other pieces of paper in history have become?
I know that all Canadians join me in urging President Gorbachev to stand with the believers in democracy and openness at this time and to demonstrate that courageous leadership for which he has been applauded by the whole world.
In the past year so many of the symbols of tyranny have been swept away, across Europe and in the Soviet Union itself. The walls have come down. The secret police organizations have been disbanded or recalled to barracks. The presses and broadcast towers of a free and uncensored media have begun to take their place.
The world has applauded this transformation and those who have made it possible. We have rejoiced that millions have found new purpose and new hope. What possible purpose can there be to end such progress?
Security? Can anyone seriously believe a return to the cold war can lead to greater security?
Prosperity? What prosperity is there in a new arms race, in the collapse of economic development that will follow new repression?
Tranquillity? Tranquillity in the streets of Vilnius and Riga will come with the sounds of citizens rejoicing in their freedom and in the things free citizens do, not in the sound of tanks and machine guns.
Canada has never recognized the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union and we will not. What we will recognize is whether the Soviet Union desires to continue or to withdraw from its new relationship with the world and with its own people.
We want for the Soviet Union every opportunity for peace, friendship and freedom and all that they can bring. But President Gorbachev must also know that Canadians will watch closely how he acts at this time.
We urge him to act with courage and with wisdom, for democracy, for freedom.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians and like all freedom loving people around this world, I was absolutely shocked and disgusted by the events that have been taking place in Lithuania and more recently in Latvia in the last few days. It is even more shocking when one considers the fact that this is coming so hard on the heels of the events that have been taking place in the Persian Gulf.
I, like most members of this House, have a great many constituents and personal friends whose place of origin is the Baltic states. I have a Latvian Canadian Cultural Centre in my riding. I have a good many friends and constituents who are very close to that centre. The Estonia House is just on the border of my riding. Again, a good many constituents and friends are associated with Estonia House. Just a few short months ago, I had the opportunity of being at the Lithuanian Community House in Toronto to celebrate with some of the other members of this House the free and independent elec-

January 21, 1991
tions which had taken place in Lithuania for the first time since the end of the Second World War.
All members of this House and all Canadians are well aware of the very troubled existence that the Baltic states have had over the years. We are aware that they were independent in the 13th century. We are aware that they were dominated by their larger neighbours up until the end of the First World War. They became independent for a very brief period of time again between World War I and World War II and that independence was snuffed out by the Soviet Union in breach of non-aggression pacts signed with each of those three nations.
We are aware, as well, that the Baltic states were fought over by the Nazis and by the armies of the Soviet Union. Ultimately, they came to be dominated, after the Second World War as a result of the Yalta conference and the dividing up of spheres of influence throughout Europe, by the Soviet Union.
We know as well, however, that Canada has never recognized the illegal annexation or occupation of the Baltic states. We have always considered that legally they remain independent.
Now, just as they seemed about to gain their independence in fact as well as in law, that independence has been struck at again by the Soviet army. What can we do, and what should we do? We have heard that the Prime Minister has already condemned these actions. He has written to Mr. Gorbachev condemning these actions.
We know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has gone further, first of all, in indicating that we were reconsidering our aid to the Soviet Union and now, has indicated that we are suspending that aid. Many of my own constituents have pointed out other ways that we can act as well.
They suggested an emergency debate such as the one we are having tonight. They suggested that Canadian observers be sent to the Baltic states such as the Norwegians have sent. They suggested that we, again, insist that the U.S.S.R. stop the illegal and horrific actions that are taking place there. They suggested that UN Security Council can try to impose sanctions even though we know that the Soviet Union holds that veto power.
They have suggested UN observers, and they have suggested again that the UN impose sanctions. These are things that we might do unilaterally, but there are things that we should be doing through the United Nations as well, it seems to me, because we failed to bring about an effective and peaceful conclusion in the Persian Gulf.
What we must do now is try to find an effective and peaceful means of solving this problem with the Baltic states. At the same time, we must find it in a way which will guarantee once and for all the freedom, the democracy and the independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I wish to describe the terrible conditions under which people in the Baltic countries are living. The situation in these republics is very serious. The attacks against these peoples will have dramatic consequences.
In this part of the world, where political foundations are so fragile, people are fighting for survival. The gulf war must not let us forget them. The tragic events of the last few days have shocked us all. They show us how vulnerable efforts to obtain more open and transparent government are. They also show that people cannot be repressed indefinitely. The desire for self-determination cannot be muffled forever. The history of the Baltic republics is written in blood. Devastated by war, abused by dictatorial regimes, the Baltic people have nevertheless survived. Perestroika had given these people hope. Unfortunately, interests with dictatorial tendencies want to snuff out this spark of freedom.
We now know there is no government that can extinguish the flame of the Baltic countries. The movement is irresistible. It points the way to a world where force will no longer be relevant.

The valiant efforts of the Baltic states have taught us much. They have taught us that moral principles, that principles of justice are the principles of nationhood.
Free elections were held in the Baltic states. In February, for instance, my colleague, the member for Parkdale-High Park, who is one of Canada's leading experts on eastern Europe, was a witness to the election in Lithuania. He told me, as he has said to this House

tonight, that those elections were fairly held. He has said that they observed the principles of democracy. He has said that their legislatures were democratically elected. Under these circumstances how can anybody now justify sending in troops to take away from the people of the Baltic countries their duly elected Parliament?
First Lithuania, then Latvia, how much longer before Estonia? The world must now speak with one unequivocal voice. What must the world do? First, it must recognize that the simple niceties of diplomatic language will not deter those who would take away a people's freedom by force. It must recognize that vague protests and economic aid possibly withheld are simply not enough. What must the world do?
First, it must put real weight into the economic levers that the world has at its disposal. To that end, I would congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the announcement that he made tonight.
Second, the world must introduce a resolution in the United Nations Security Council condemning Soviet aggression. The motion may well be defeated but the point must be made. It will not go unnoticed.
There are other measures that we must take as well. In Canada, we must pay more than lip service to the very real fact, which is the absolute independence of the Baltic states. We must say that de jure recognition is no longer sufficient, that the Baltic states are entitled to real recognition. A people who have held free elections, a people who have fought for their independence, are entitled to full diplomatic accreditation.
Again I refer to the question of my colleague from Parkdale-High Park when he asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs why he did not meet the leaders of the Baltic states, not in his simple capacity as a parliamentarian, but in his full capacity as the representative of this country, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
There are other things. We must call a special meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to condemn the very real menace that the threat to the Baltic states poses to the peace of Europe and the world.
Finally, because my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, we must accept as refugees those from the Baltic countries who find their way here. That the government of the Soviet Union is considering deporting young men whose only crime is that they refuse to report to an army whose ultimate purpose may well be to shoot their own people is simply unthinkable.
Freedom is not the cause of destabilization. What are the objections to doing that which is right? Well, there are those who say that we must not destabilize Mikhail Gorbachev. There are those who say we must not destabilize the Soviet Union. I would argue the opposite.
The world owes a great deal to Mikhail Gorbachev, but he is now in a battle with conservative forces who would undo him and would undo everything that he has done. Those forces must understand that the free world will not stand for any backsliding. They must be told that Mikhail Gorbachev was right to begin with, and that he is wrong now. We must make it clear to the Soviet president that we will stand behind those who speak for freedom. Destabilization in the U.S.S.R. will not come from giving freedom to the Baltic states, it will come from refusing that freedom.
The Baltic states represent no threat. The threat comes, as it did indeed on the weekend, from the 300,000 people who demonstrated in Moscow, from the countless thousands who demonstrated throughout the Soviet Union against the great brutality that was demonstrated in Vilnius and in Riga. The Russian people, too, want their freedom. They know that it is linked to freedom elsewhere.
In conclusion, the Soviet Union is in the grip of terrible economic chaos. Its leadership must understand that economic progress without political freedom is simply impossible. The Soviet Union must understand that we are on the threshold of a new world order and that the Baltic states are a symbol of that order.
The Soviet Union must understand that all our fates, all around the world and indeed in this Chamber, are tied to the battle that three small but very, very courageous countries are waging.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

January 21, 1991


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in my limited time, I would first like to compliment my colleague, the hon. member for La-Salle-Emard, who has been working closely with my colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, in organizing, with all members of this House today, an emergency debate on this issue.
I want to read into the record a letter I received from a gentleman representing members of the business community, Mr. Peteris Kusmanis, from my riding. I think he summarized the situation well. He writes:
As a member of the Business Community, I am concerned with what is happening in the Soviet Union, particularly with the use of force to crush the democratically elected governments of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. We cannot have mutually beneficial economic relations with the Soviet Union until the Soviet Union demonstrates that it is truly committed to democracy and free enterprise, and that it is worthy of our trust. The Soviet Union was apparently headed in the right direction-perestroika, glasnost, democratic elections-but the events of the last months have proven that perestroika and glasnost are a farce. I appeal to you to support or introduce a call for an all-party resolution today to condemn the Soviet attack yesterday on the democratically elected government of Latvia. The House of Commons should hold an IMMEDIATE emergency debate on the Baltic situation. Sanctions must be taken against the U.S.S.R. Canada must urge its partners in NATO, the CSCE and the United Nations to do the same; the U.S. is key in this matter and Brian Mulroney should be on the phone to George Bush to urge the U.S. to take strong action immediately.
Until freedom is restored to the Baltic States, and until the Soviet Union proves that it is committed to a free market system, there should be no thought of economic aid to the Soviet Union. This situation demands immediate action -
Many of my constituents are reflecting Mr. Kusmanis' point of view and I want to go back to the hon. member from Edmonton and his thoughts when he talked about being in the Soviet Union last year right around this time. I, too, was there speaking at an environmental conference where there was so much hope and so much feeling that we were all heading in the right direction.
Here we are tonight in this emergency debate, frustrated, hopes shattered. It is only by all members of the House uniting and sending a strong message to the Soviet Union that we can keep a flicker of hope that maybe some action will be taken. We hope Mr. Gorbachev will take a stand and for starters crush the action
that is going on in the Baltic States so that we might regain the hope that we had a year ago that he was going in the right direction.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Mr. Speaker, for the past 18 months the world, especially the western world, has witnessed a rollercoaster of hopes and expectations. It was 18 months ago when we began hearing the faint stirrings, the evergrowing stirrings, of hope for freedom in those countries which we used to call the east bloc countries in the days of the Iron Curtain.
We witnessed events almost beyond belief in the ensuing weeks which culminated in the tearing down of the Berlin wall.
It was not peace that was breaking out. These nations had experienced 40 years of a kind of peace all over eastern Europe. It is not the kind of peace we cherish, but it was a kind of peace, and it was not peace that was breaking out, it was freedom that broke out at that time.
But the forerunner to that experience was a statement by the Soviet Union, an admission on the part of the Soviet Union that the Molotov-von Ribbentrop agreement of 1939-1940 was in fact an illegal transaction.
This is what three'generations of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians had been waiting for. Those people had been raped and pillaged by two European countries under an illegal agreement. Now a confession from the Soviet Union declared that to be illegal.
Therefore, it is now incumbent on the Soviet Union, since it has admitted its guilt, to undo the wrong of that treaty. That is what the debate is about tonight. Peace has been there, but now freedom is breaking out as witnessed, as several of our colleagues have spoken tonight, in the elections of the past year. Freedom is breaking out, but this presents President Gorbachev with an enormous problem.
In the ensuing 40 years, those countries have experienced interlocking populations, interlocking cultures, ideologies, goals, economies, all interwoven. How do you unscramble that egg? That is the difficulty facing President Gorbachev. When 50 per cent of the population of one of those countries are actually Russians, or citizens of the Soviet Union, that is a problem. It needs to be
January 21, 1991

solved. We should not retreat from it, but we must acknowledge that that problem exists.
We should also acknowledge that the problems will not become smaller. They will become greater as the years go by as long as that is ignored by the Soviet Union.
It is important to remember that these people have now tasted and experienced freedom as they never had known it before. They will not be satisfied until it is theirs permanently. They will not be denied. Suppression of that hunger for freedom will simply lead to greater explosions in the future.
It is important to notice that the Baltic people are trying to do it right. They are not trying to thumb their noses at the Soviet Union. They are trying to do it peacefully and by negotiations, and they are acting in good faith. Up to this point, they have not been rewarded for their good faith and for trying to do it right.
Canada has several responsibilities. First, we must sound the alarm that something is going drastically wrong in those countries. We must sound the alarm to the world. We cannot sit by, simply clucking our tongues and pretending it will go away.
We must learn from the mistake that we have experienced in the Middle East. Witness the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran when one million people were killed. The world stood by and said: "Isn't that terrible?" When Saddam Hussein was willing to sacrifice 50,000 lives just to capture one town, we stood by and we clucked our tongues as he gassed his own citizens, the Kurds. We did not say very much. Then, he moved into Kuwait, and we realized we had to do something and do it now. We need to learn from the experience of the Middle East that we cannot allow a repetition of that kind of pattern in the Baltic states.
Just four weeks ago, I met with a young man from my constituency. He is a professor of international economics and finance at UBC on leave studying in Finland the events of the Baltic states. He told me then, just before New Years that what the leaders in the Baltic states feared the most was that the heightening of the activity in the Middle East was going to give an opportunity to the conservative reactionary forces of the Soviet Union to move into the Baltic states. While everybody was
distracted in the Middle East, it could move into the Baltic states. Their prophesies have become true and we must sound the alarm.
The second thing we must do is stand by the Baltic people. We must let them know that we encourage them, that we stand with them, that we cherish their freedom with them, and that we want them to experience it the way we experience it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Benno Friesen: We must let them know that we are not simply mouthing words, but we want them to cherish our freedoms. Therefore, we welcome the announcement by the secretary of state tonight that he has already suspended some of the present negotiations and initiatives that have taken place between Canada and the Soviet Union. They have been suspended.
Second, he is now initiating new ways of working with the Baltic people. We must meet with them. We must spend time with them. We must walk along side of them. We must take these new initiatives, some of which the secretary of state has announced tonight.
We must sound the alarm and we must encourage. We cannot allow the mistakes of the Middle East to be repeated in the Baltic states.
I welcome the debate tonight, and the only point I would make regarding my friend, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, is this. He said that it is worth the risk, destabilizing the Soviet Union and maybe allowing President Gorbachev to be set aside. It sounds very attractive if Mr. Gorbachev does not bring the reforms necessary-


An hon. member:: He did not say that.


Benno Friesen: Yes, he did. He said that it is worth the risk.
I would simply ask him: Who has he got to replace him? If he could tell us who it was, I could agree with him because it sounds very attractive.
We stand with the Baltic people tonight. We will stand with them in the future, and we will demonstrate to them that we cherish their freedom with them.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the Canadian House of Commons tonight to join with colleagues on all sides of this House to condemn and to

lament the armed suppression of the peoples in the Baltic republics and the curtailment of their freedoms.
Just recently I was browsing through one of the recent biographies about Mikhail Gorbachev. There were grouped on some pages a series of photographs. One seemed almost inexplicable. It was a full-page photograph of President Gorbachev by himself in a park, crouched down, feeding a squirrel. What was written underneath that was the statement: "The tragedy of Mikhail Gorbachev is that he will be unable to finish his own revolution". Why that picture, why that prophecy is hard to say, but certainly what we are seeing here is something that we often see with revolutionary change, that there is a period of retrenchment.
Just as George Bernard Shaw taught us that paradoxes are the only truths, we see a profound paradox in this situation, for the Gorbachev revolution as epitomized by perestroika and glasnost was accompanied also by a clear movement toward democracy and a clear suppression of the old instinct of totalitarian states to call out the army at the moment of crisis.
It was not the first time in the past few years that in the countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary we saw efforts to overthrow the regime that had been imposed since 1945. It had happened in 1956 in Budapest for Hungary. It had happened in 1968 in Prague for Czechoslovakia.
The difference this time was that the Red Army remained in the barracks and it remained there because Mikhail Gorbachev instructed that it should be so. So the paradox that we face tonight is that it is under this same regime, the same leader, that in fact military suppression has become the sad signature in already two of the Baltic republics, Lithuania and now Latvia.
At issue now is the future make-up of the Soviet Union. Mr. Gorbachev, it appears, is bent on maintaining control of a slightly decentralized federation of Soviet republics. The democratization that he once promoted stops short it seems of democratic self-determination for individual republics.
The Baltic peoples, on the other hand, took the Soviet leader's ideas seriously, drawing from glasnost and perestroika the logical conclusions that all republics would be free to administer their own political and economic programs. The differences have now become very clear.
While Mikhail Gorbachev preaches reform, the Baltic peoples practise it.
Tonight at six o'clock, I met with the Vice-President of Latvia, here in the East Block, in the company of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What impressed me most particularly about his many messages to us was his statement that the people of Latvia have been making a journey in the past months, and they do not now want to go back. There is a palpable feeling of new power of democratic realization in many of the republics, including Ukraine which I visited last October, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Russian republic itself. So, now is a time when we must not send the wrong signal.
Two years ago on March 4 when I addressed the annual congress of the Baltic veterans in Canada, I quoted from books where on earlier occasions the freedom fighters in those republics had prepared to seek to overthrow the existing authorities and re-establish a free and democratic society. They had based part of their initiative on statements made by leaders in the west and their assumption that those words would be translated into material support at the time of their uprising. Tragically, that support was not there when they moved and when they expected it.
Now we come to the need, as many members have said, to match our words with actions. That is why I fully endorse and gladly support everything that was contained in the outstanding speech this evening here in the House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure he and members of the government did not come lightly to announcing to us tonight the suspension of the $150 million line of credit and all the other initiatives that he referred to that are now in a state of suspension. The member from Winnipeg also referred to the sense of hope that we had seen in all of these recent developments, so tonight is not a happy night when we see the necessity of taking these steps.
We cannot have this debate in the House and be unmindful that our country is again at war in the Persian Gulf. For the fifth time in this century our country is at war and we are once again, as Canadian poet Robert W. Service said, staring into the aching womb of night. There is nothing about this war that we relish or

welcome. We are there because of a commitment and support of the United Nations.
We are considering tonight the situation of Latvia and Lithuania, countries that also were invaded, occupied and annexed by a neighbouring power. So we have many parallels here which cannot be lost on any of us tonight who are grappling with the difficult legal dilemma that the Soviet Union, as a member of the United Nations, considers to be an internal matter and not something subject to the purview of the United Nations.
In conclusion, I want to say that last October when I was in the Soviet Union, I saw many things that would encourage all of us, the kinds of changes for which we called for years and years now actually happening. I also saw a country that in so many respects was simply one level above chaos. So many people were determined to throw over the old order, a system that for 70 years had preached success but had produced shortages, failure, repression and extermination of millions of freedom loving people.
As I left, the only question in my mind as I felt that palpable sense of freedom, that rising surge of reform and democracy was the question of who controls the Red Army, because as Lenin had once said, the communist party is the glue that holds the Soviet Union together. The communist party today has atrophied and withered away and is no longer any such glue. We are, I am afraid, seeing that in these last remnant hours of this 20th century's last empire, the only force that is available is the force of arms. Let us all hope that the measures taken here and the voices expressed here can in time, and I mean now, cause this to be reversed.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: In his wisdom, the Speaker of the House has permitted this important emergency debate to take place and on behalf of the Canadians of Baltic origins in my riding of Hamilton West, I thank you, Sir. I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park for his tireless effort as co-chair of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for the Baltic Peoples, that all-party, all-member group of which I am so proud to be a member.
Members of the Society of East Central European Nations at Hamilton, Ontario, remember all too well
what Gromyko said when he was succeeded by Gorbachev. He said: "Behind his nice smile he has iron teeth". It is a cruel quote to be restated here tonight, especially in light of all the good that Gorbachev has presided over as of late. It is a cruel statement maybe, but not for the Lithuanians, not for the Latvians and hopefully not for the Estonians.
Just yesterday in downtown Hamilton, which was the first municipality in the country to draw up a resolution in support of democracy for Lithuania, appealing to the federal government to take a strong position in support of Lithuania, it was a bitter wind that swirled around the hundreds of protesters who gathered outside Hamilton City Hall, the members of the Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and Ukrainian communities who agreed that the struggle in the Baltic states is no less serious a threat to world peace than the war in the Persian Gulf and that if it is forgotten, we will all pay a heavy price.
Showing their support for the Baltic states, some demonstrators carried their national flag. Others waved placards which read: "Peace not bloodshed". Another said: "Gorbachev, Nobel Peace Prize Winner", except the word "peace" was scratched out and the word "war" was inserted so the sign read: "Gorbachev Nobel War Prize Winner". Still another picket sign read: "Talks not tanks". A very touching moment was when a group of school-aged children took their black bows as symbols and placed them on a symbolic tree, an evergreen tree.
Yes, I and many members of this House feel again the fear and the frustrations of those valiant people whose homelands face the bonds of tyranny. Tension in the Baltics is high. In fact, there is growing fear that the unwarranted military crackdown used against the people and democratically elected government in Lithuania, which killed 13 people, injured 165, and 65 people are missing and the attack by Soviet troops on a Latvian police headquarters resulting in the deaths of five, will soon spread to Estonia because there in Estonia concrete barriers have been erected around the Parliament Buildings where the people wait and watch hour to hour.
My fear is that the world attention and much of the resources of the news media have been diverted from the troop movements and bloodshed in the Baltics to the Persian Gulf war. If allowed to continue, Gorbachev may

succeed through the back door that which he could not possibly accomplish walking in through the front door.
Many words have been written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He strongly protests, in fact condemns, the brutal and unacceptable Soviet crackdowns in Lithuania and Latvia. Many words have been spoken in protests and demonstrations in my riding of Hamilton West, in the riding of Parkdale-High Park and other ridings of this House, and in demonstrations around the world. Many words will be spoken in this emergency debate tonight.
However, it is concrete action which I urge the government to implement continually in order to impress upon the Soviet Union the urgency of this grave situation. "What action", one may ask. We promote constructive dialogue between the Soviet Union and the Baltic states, the aim of which is the peaceful resolution of the crisis. In the words of one of my constituents-and I will use only her initials to respect her privacy-E.G. on Emerson Street, writes:
As you are no doubt aware, the Baltic countries lost their independence when the Soviet army illegally occupied them in 1940. Although Canada steadily maintains a policy of non-recognition de jure of this occupation, for which I and my fellow exiles are grateful, in actual fact Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania with their western European outlook and work ethic continue to function as colonies of the Soviet empire.
Recent political activities of the popular fronts in these countries and their supporters have forcefully shown the world their abiding desire for the restoration of freedom and dignity in their lives.
They need Canada's help.
Can Canada help? I congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs for meeting with the Soviet ambassador today and for the announcements that he has made here tonight. Canada can play a vital role by hearing the desires of the Baltic Canadian communities.
The Lithuanian Canadian community asks the Canadian government to take the following actions in the wake of the brutal crackdown in Vilnius by the Soviet army:
First, to impose sanctions on the U.S.S.R. until it withdraws its tanks and paratroopers from Vilnius and enters into negotiations with the legitimate government of Lithuania.
Second, to accord diplomatic recognition immediately to the democratically elected Government of the Republic of Lithuania, led by President Landsbergis.
Third, to introduce a Canadian resolution in the United Nations condemning the Soviet aggression to push for an emergency debate of the UN Security Council in order to debate the Baltic crisis.
Fourth, to call a special meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to condemn the assault on Lithuania as a threat to the peace of Europe.
Then we hear from the Latvian community which says clearly that this warning had no effect on Soviets. The Canadian Latvian community is outraged by the senseless tragedy of Soviet black berets killing and maiming innocent civilians and journalists in Riga. It calls on the Canadian government to cease all assistance to the Soviet Union immediately; to impose trade and economic sanctions, which we are glad to hear have begun tonight; to call an emergency debate in the House of Commons, in which we are participating here tonight; to call on the United Nations to send observers to the Baltic states; and to continue to raise the Baltic issue at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe by stressing that Soviet actions will continue to threaten the peace of Europe until democracy is restored.
My Baltic constituents say they look forward to learning that members of Parliament, privileged to serve, have helped the Baltic nations in their struggle for the restoration of their economic and cultural sovereignty.
On their behalf, I implore the Secretary of State for External Affairs to use every practical, peaceful tool at his disposal, such as the one he announced here tonight, to pressure the Soviet Union into negotiating the terms of independence which we pray will resolve the legitimate concerns of the Baltic states.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this evening on the situation in the Baltic states.

It is very difficult when the focus of attention in the world is on another part of the world, on the Persian Gulf, to draw the attention of many people to the
January 21, 1991

concerns that many of us have for the people of the Baltic republics: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
However, it is of great importance for the world community, as an international community, to draw its attention to each and every sector of the world where concerns such as those we have all been expressing tonight need to be brought to bear. It is particularly important when so many in this country and elsewhere question the actions of the international community in the Persian Gulf, because they perceive there to be a double standard at practice in the world.
If the world community, through gaining experience in co-operative action and collective security, is to achieve a lasting world peace on the basis of those principles, it will be necessary to establish a standard that can be applied in many situations, not just in those where specific and important economic interests prevail.
All of us feel a very great disappointment at what has transpired in the Soviet Union and in the Baltic states, very great disappointment made that much greater by the amount of hope we all felt for this regime led by a new man, a man who looked affable, competent and, as Margaret Thatcher once said, "like a man with whom we could do business". Now, having awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize, we find that in his nation troops are firing guns and driving tanks over people who are speaking on behalf of democratic reforms in their own country.
It is important for Canadians to remember that the history of the Baltic republics is one which in this century has included the subjugation by the Soviet Union as a result of the pact between Nazi Germany and Stalin which led to their being acquired in 1940. To this day, Canada has not recognized that subjugation of the Baltic states.
We still had so much hope. Of course, they did not immediately permit their independence, but when we think back over the years of the cold war we think of what happened in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the building of the Berlin wall in 1961, the enormous change that occurred, and the years and years of arms reduction talks which went on and on and seemed to go nowhere.
Suddenly, with this new leader in the Kremlin, the world seemed to take on a different face. Freedom seemed to spring up in the Soviet Union: the right of dissent, with people marching in the streets protesting
what their government was saying; Soviet politicians and journalists coming to Canada and telling us what was happening; and the freedom of expression, the freedom of opinion, in the journals of the Soviet Union. Suddenly the door seems to be slamming shut. Of course we are disappointed.
This is important, in light of some of the comments that President Gorbachev made. This is not a question of law and order in Lithuania, in particular. This is not a question of law and order. This is a question of military force being applied against the democratically elected government of the state of Lithuania. Those elections were not held by some outside power. They were authorized and legitimized, even by the government of the Soviet Union. They were held under international supervision in Lithuania, the result of which was to elect the government that last March 11 voted, not by a narrow majority but unanimously, to declare the independence of Lithuania from the Soviet Union.
What an exciting event that was. I have a report from the Washington Post dated March 12, 1990, indicating the excitement felt by the people who witnessed that occasion. Tears streamed down their faces as they realized that their country again had the prospect of becoming independent. Then a few months later, 10 months later, that hope seems to be dying in the face of Soviet tanks.
There should be no questions where Canada stands on this issue. Canada has never recognized the occupation of the Baltic republics by the Soviet Union. That position has remained consistent, no matter what party has been in government.
I would like to read from a letter dated April 29, 1983 from the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, who wrote at that time:
Canada does not recognize de jure the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. The Soviet Government is well aware of our position which has been firmly maintained over the last forty years. In following this policy the Canadian Government expresses its continuing disapproval of the forcible incorporation of the Baltic states.
In the face of that statement-and I have no reason to believe the current government has changed its position on it-I fail to understand why the Secretary of State for External Affairs must meet with Lithuanian and Latvian representatives in his parliamentary capacity and not in

January 21, 1991
his ministerial capacity. He should be ashamed to refuse to do that.
It is important for the Soviet Union to understand that the national ideal in the Baltic republics is integrated with the democratic ideals. Mr. Gorbachev must be brought to understand by representations-and I understand that they have been clear and strong from our government-from our government and other western governments indicating that the concept of democratic reform incorporates into it the right to self-determination of peoples, particularly in republics such as the Baltics where national ideals are long held and national traditions clearly exist.
Just as it is impossible to stop the wind, leaders of countries throughout the world must understand it is impossible to stop the winds of freedom which are blowing. We felt their sensation in China. We have seen them blow down the Berlin wall. We have seen them blow away governments in eastern Europe. We feel their gentle breezes in other parts of the world. The winds of freedom and democracy are blowing in the Soviet Union.
The choice is clear. That government can either harness the wind or it can attempt to resist it. The benefits of harnessing the wind are a people, proud of their land and able to dedicate themselves to making it better, to building a strong economy, to building a land based on compassion and the principles of democracy. To resist is to build anger and frustration, to build sadness and despair, and to ensure that economic reforms will not succeed. I think the choice is an obvious one.
I applaud our government for the actions that the minister has announced tonight. I would hope that actions such as those and others duplicating them around the world will assist Mr. Gorbachev in making his case in his country that he can either succeed in his negotiations with the west, build the new world order and a stronger, healthier Soviet economy, or he can go back to the old ways, face the enormous resistance that western countries will bring to bear on him and find that nothing will dig his country out of the economic pit into which it has fallen.


Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me five minutes and thanks also to
the "bloc conservateur" for giving me five minutes of their speaking time. As a member of the Bloc quebecois, I also wish to condemn the Soviet Union's actions against democracy and the Baltic peoples. Quebecers understand what it must feel like because they had the same experience in 1970. They too saw Canadian tanks roll in to repress a growing democracy. If we compare what is happening in Lithuania and in other countries throughout the world with what happened in Quebec during the October Crisis, we see many similarities. We remember that Canadian tanks entered Quebec and that the Canadian government suspended the rights of individuals as is happening today in Lithuania. They sent soldiers and tanks, like today in Lithuania. They arrested people without cause. More than 400 Quebecers were detained in prison, although they had no connection whatsoever with the October Crisis and had not been in involved in anti-social or other activities. These people were kept in prison and denied the right to call a lawyer. They were tortured. They were threatened as people are being threatened today in Lithuania, in the Baltic States. After those arrests, people lost their jobs forever and their reputations were smeared forever as well.
Mr. Speaker, no country in the world is immune from such abuse, such attacks on democracy. We must not turn a blind eye to our own actions that were also attacks on democracy.
Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, in 1989, China used tanks to subjugate democracy, and the House of Commons condemned that decision. In 1990, the House of Commons condemned the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. In 1991, it condemns the invasion of Lithuania by Soviet tanks. But I may remind the House that in 1970, it remained silent when Canadian tanks entered Quebec to subjugate democracy.
However, after listening to speeches by hon. members this evening, I found their resolve to defend all parts of the world that are seeking democracy and sovereignty very reassuring. I am therefore very confident that in the future, Quebec will be a democratic and sovereign country and that members of this House will rise to defend it with as much zeal as they did this evening in defending Lithuania.
January 21, 1991


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to be part of this debate. I am really saddened by the developments. We have seen profound and regrettable acts by the U.S.S.R. against the Baltic states.
I have had the opportunity to visit the Soviet Union on three occasions, the most recent last June. There really were some signs of progress, progress in moving down the road towards democracy. But one only had to be there a few hours to know how fragile that progress was. Perhaps the many people in the Soviet Union and the Baltic states might have had their expectations too high because that road to democracy is going to take quite some time.
I want to commend the patience and the resolve of the people in the Baltic states. I want to commend the patience, as well, of the Canadians whose origins are Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian. This year they will be organizing the 19th Baltic dinner, which they organized on the Hill to speak to parliamentarians and leaders about their important cause.
I would like to recount some of the statements, commitments and actions of the last two weeks. On January 8, this statement came from the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
- Joe Clark, today expressed concern about the announced movement of military forces into the Baltic states, Ukraine and several other republics of the Soviet Union.
"Our concerns have been forcefully conveyed today to the Soviet Ambassador," stated Mr. Clark. "We are urging restraint on all sides in this potentially dangerous situation".
Mr. Clark called on Soviet authorities to refrain from further intimidation and the use of force, expressing the hope that solutions to the outstanding differences between the republics and Moscow can be negotiated.
Mr. Clark recalled that Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze had assured him several times that there would be no crackdown in the Baltic States, and that President Gorbachev had reaffirmed this to Prime Minister Mulroney.
On January 9, a letter was sent from the Canadian Parliamentary Group for the Baltic Peoples, signed by the chair, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre and
the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park and, of course, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona was involved in this. It was sent to the Soviet ambassador in Canada, Mr. Richard Ovinnikov, and it states:
On behalf of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for the Baltic Peoples, we wish to register our strong protest at the recent movement of Soviet troops into the Baltic states.
This action is totally unacceptable and is contrary to previous statements made by your government. It was our expectation that negotiations would proceed in order to resolve the differences which exist between your government and the Baltic States.
Two days later, on January 11, this press release was issued, on behalf of Mr. Clark, and it stated, in part:
"We deplore the use of force against the democratically elected government and the people of Lithuania," Mr. Clark stated. "Such actions are contrary to the assurances given to me by Foreign Minister Shevardnadze and repeated to Prime Minister Mulroney by President Gorbachev, that there would be no crackdown in the Baltics."
Mr. Clark urged restraint in this dangerous situation and called on the Soviet authorities to refrain from further violence. He emphasized that the Soviet Union must adhere to its obligations under the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and negotiate solutions based on the principles of the Helsinki Final Act.
Two days after that, January 13, a news release from the Prime Minister's office included these remarks:
The Prime Minister deeply regrets that these actions have taken place, contrary to explicit assurances given to Canada by Mr. Gorbachev. The Prime Minister stressed the need for Mr. Gorbachev to quickly and unequivocally condemn such behaviour.
The Prime Minister appealed for Mr. Gorbachev to show restraint and avoid further bloodshed. He urged the Soviet President to seek solutions consistent with the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris and the legitimate aspirations of Lithuania and the other Baltic states. Democracy cannot exist without respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms.
The Prime Minister advised that Canada was reviewing its offer of technical assistance and new lines of credit for the purchase of foodstuffs.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said tonight that program has been suspended.
On January 15, two days after that, the special motion which was agreed to by all members was put to the House, and it reads:
Be it resolved
That this House condemns the brutal and unacceptable Soviet crackdown in Lithuania, and calls upon President Gorbachev and the U.S.S.R. authorities to refrain from using further violence against the people and democratically elected governments of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

S. ft 52
On top of all that, just last evening we saw on television and heard the news that the Soviet Black Berets attacked and assaulted a building in Riga, Latvia. It is reported that four people were killed and at least 10 were injured. This is another regrettable backward step, a sad step, that is repugnant in the eyes of most people.
Canadians with roots in the Baltic countries are very concerned. They have been worried and frustrated for years but they had their hopes picked up in the last year or two. Now they have been dashed again by these developments.
I received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. A. P. Stanenas in Thornhill and I would like to read a bit of that, Mr. Speaker. It is addressed to me and it says:
In view of the ongoing Soviet atrocities against the people and the
government of Lithuania we urge you -
(2) That you urge the Prime Minister of Canada to call for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council and to sponsor a resolution condemning the use of acts of bloodied aggression against the people of Lithuania and ordering the withdrawal of Soviet military forces out of the Republic of Lithuania.
Also, a few hours ago Mr. Voldemars Berkis, a Canadian from Latvia telephoned me very concerned and worried. He had several questions and I will just state two or three. Basically what he wanted to know was why the double standard, why do some infractions, why do some human rights violations seem to be dealt with more quickly than the problems in the Baltic states. Why not have this debated at the United Nations was another question.
He had many other concerns about the decades of talk without concrete action. What do you say to a man like that, Mr. Speaker, other than that all members on all sides of this House will tiy to stand together this time and really move toward concrete action.
Earlier today I asked the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs a question in the House. The gist of it was that the third round of the CSCE, which is emphasizing the human dimension, is being held in Moscow later this summer. The U.S.S.R. is hosting it so I asked the minister if we would give some thought to reconsidering being a participant and if some of these violations are not dealt with very quickly maybe we
should withdraw from that conference. It sounds harsh but it is time for harsh action on behalf of the people of the Baltic states.
In closing, I want to assure all Canadians of Baltic origin that all members of this House are going to do every practical thing possible in the coming weeks and months to help them achieve that dream of theirs, that dream of independence, that dream of freedom, that somehow it will be reached and these atrocities and setbacks that have happened far too many times will be history.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on this topic tonight, the special debate on the Baltic issue.
I want to thank the members of this House who have been so active in keeping this issue alive and being a driving force to make this debate happen tonight, the members for Scarborough Centre, Parkdale-High Park, and Winnipeg Transcona. Without their driving energy, quite possibly this debate would not have come tonight, even though I know all of us in this House have received phone calls from all over Canada asking that this House come together to consider this most important issue.
I want to thank the people in my riding of London- Middlesex whose origin and family ties are back to the Baltics. This community of several hundred families in London and southwestern Ontario has done a great deal to enrich the culture and the life of our community. It has been a great addition for all of us. The knowledge they have passed on to their fellow Canadians about their roots and their part of the world has helped all of us to a better understanding.
The lesson that we have learned from these people is one that I guess is not a big surprise to most Canadians, that these three countries were independent countries. They had self-determination.
Self-determination is really the point of my speech tonight, because clearly self-determination is on everyone's mind at the present time in the Persian Gulf, whether one is a Kuwaiti, a Palestinian, an Arab of another descent, or a Canadian who is fighting for the freedom of self-determination of those countries. We are all very interested in self-determination and, as
January 21, 1991

parliamentarians, this is the thing that we are pushing for the most.
The U.S.S.R.'s persistence in keeping self-determination from these three countries came as quite a surprise to us. Even though Gorbachev opened up the Soviet, and opened up this part of the world so that it looked like self-determination was possible with free elections for the first time, which some of my colleagues had the good fortune of witnessing, we are now finding out that in fact his intentions were not real. In the last few days, with brutal reality, the Black Berets have moved in and trampled the rights and trampled the growth of self-determination. These people and Canadians are indignant, and rightly so, to this action.
We have heard tonight from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada has taken, through the actions of our Prime Minister and through his own department, some very dramatic and hopefully helpful gestures. One is freezing the $150 million help to the Soviet Union effective today, which I think was a very good move. But more than this is in order. As a group of parliamentarians committed to self-determination and to the rights of the Baltic people, we have to go further than this.
There has been talk tonight about acting on the recommendations all of us receive from our communities. I have met with the Baltic communities in London and London-Middlesex and found that their concerns were echoed here tonight in the House.
I hope that actions will be taken in the United Nations at the Security Council. We look forward to that. We have already talked about the government's action, which I hope will be a help.
Tonight, I see some of my colleagues in the House who are members of the executive of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. That group has representation of all the parties in the House. Under the aegis of yourself, Sir, I think it can provide a veiy useful service to the newly elected governments of the three countries, as we have done with fledgling governments in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
The association has been veiy active and would like to be active in the Baltic countries in terms of helping them with their role as parliamentarians and helping them, through the eyes of other countries, to see their legitimate practice as they work towards maintaining their
right of self-determination. Also, to put the backbone on that, these countries, these governments, and these parliamentarians need help in developing an economic infrastructure.
The Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association has worked very hard indeed with the parliaments of the other eastern European countries. In fact, over a period of a year, it has had some very significant results in terms of helping with their economic strengths.
As the economic strengths come together, so does the rigor of the people. When some citizens take it upon themselves to usurp the control of the government, as clearly is the case in Lithuania and certainly yesterday and today in Riga, where some members are saying that they see the elected government as being out of step with the realities of that particular country. Its goals are in effect going back to the U.S.S.R., using the Black Berets to come in and trample the rights of the elected governments which are in fact carrying almost the self-determination of the people of those states.
Clearly, they need to be strengthened as parliamentarians. They need all the help they can get from equivalent countries around the world and this Parliament. I think I can speak for all members in the House that we will definitely commit ourselves to this endeavour. Through the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, we want the communities in Canada from the three Baltic countries to know that all members are committed to working with the newly elected governments in those three countries.
We will find ways to work together so this base of parliamentarians which, as I said at the opening of my remarks, began with three of our colleagues who have taken this case up and have worked with Baltic Canadians in a very positive way to bring the issue in front of all Canadians. Thus all 26 million know now that it is not just in the Persian Gulf where self-determination is at risk, but, in fact, it is in northeast Europe where three countries, whom Canada has always recognized with the right to self determination, are very much finding their rights lost.
We want those people in Canada, as well in those three countries to know that this Parliament is strongly behind them. There is one association under your direction, Sir, which is going to make every effort to speed up this process and to help them through the

January 21, 1991
hurdles, so that that freshness of democracy can blow through.


Jesse Philip Flis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has been such an excellent debate tonight. We have had such excellent co-operation from everyone that I seek unanimous consent from the House to not see the clock for no later than 10.30. We have only two speakers left who need about five to seven minutes each.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House have unanimous consent to extend the sitting time for 10 to 15 minutes?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Ten to 20 minutes?


Patrick Boyer: Why don't you give five minutes each.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minutes each.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, as has already been said by others, it is indeed an honour to rise tonight to speak to this emergency resolution. This motion has come about as a result of the events that have taken place over the last number of days in the Baltic states and the increase in military activity in all of these areas. I feel strongly tonight that Canada's relationship with the Soviet Union must be revised.
As my colleague from Parkdale-High Park said earlier in the day, and I quote: "The Government of Canada must call on the United Nations to send observers to the region and recognize the consuls of the Baltic republics in Canada."
What is happening here is clear. As the world's attention remains focused on the Persian Gulf crisis, the communist government is beating and killing people in the Baltic states. The violence and death is escalating day by day.
Military action is occurring all over this area without any shame from the communist state of Mr. Gorbachev.
I would like to quote from a January 13, 1991 press release from the Prime Minister which states: "Canada was reviewing its offers of technical assistance and new lines of credit for the purchase of foodstuffs. Further escalation would have serious consequences for Canada-U.S.S.R. relations". I believe that we should stop immediately all offers of help to the U.S.S.R.
What I have heard this last week is not of reform, not of help, and not of understanding, but rather of violence. Sending 30,000 to 40,000 additional troops to the Baltic states within the span of two or three days is totally unjustified. It will and it has already incited civil unrest.
This man has received the Nobel Peace Prize, was voted man of the year by Time magazine, and has made so much change occur in the world in six or seven years. We have seen the democratization of so many places as a result of him. He has been upstaging western politicians and leaders for many, many years. He was the man who grabbed all the attention. It is almost unbelievable that this could happen, that this man would let this happen. It is hard to believe this after we saw the Berlin wall come down, and after we saw democracy returned to areas that had not seen it for 40 and 50 years. We have seen great changes occur in his own country.
Now, in light of all this, we see the beginning of the end. Was this truly this man? Is this really this man speaking, or is it something else that I fear to even suggest could be happening?
In closing, I would like to reiterate the Liberal policy position with regard to the Baltic states. First, we never did recognize the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the Union of the Soviet Socialists Republic. Second, we categorically disapprove of the forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the U.S.S.R.
The self-determination of the people of the Baltic states must be respected by Mr. Gorbachev. Furthermore, the Soviet Union is in violation of principles seven and eight of the Helsinki Final Act. The Soviet Union must come to understand that self-determination and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is a new world order. This has to be brought home. Mr. Gorbachev must be made to believe this. It is hard for
January 21, 1991

me to believe that after all that has happened in the last number of years that this could come about.
I want to commend all the speakers who have taken part in this debate. I want to say thank you and give the floor to my hon. colleague.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me this opportunity to talk on a very important matter.
Let me first say how proud I am of the House when it can come together unanimously, as it should more often, in terms of this issue. Unanimously we have condemned the actions of the Soviet Union in its aggression towards these three Baltic states, and parliamentarians have been able to come together in a very non-partisan way and be supportive of these three independent states. I think that is commendable.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the government and the Prime Minister for moving quickly to indicate to Mikhail Gorbachev that what he has done is unacceptable.
I was impressed by the speech of the right hon. secretary of state who indicated that at least Canada is moving quickly and forcefully, perhaps not as forcefully as we would like, but I will get to that in a moment, to demonstrate our willingness and our political will to ensure that the Soviet Union understands clearly a very clear message again from Canada that we will not stand for this aggression toward these three independent states.
The government can do more, along with Parliament, to ensure that the message is not lost while the world's attention is directed to a very other important region of the world, the Middle East.
I also want to thank the members from Parkdale- High Park, Scarborough Centre, and Winnipeg Transco-na, the chairpeople of the committee that seized this issue some time ago and made sure that parliamentarians were well aware of what the situation was.
I want to highlight a few points: The atrocity toward these three Baltic nations of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia started 50 years ago. Fifty years ago that atrocity began by the U.S.S.R. when in fact it invaded, maybe not by the force that it is using today, but by the stroke of a
pen it took away the independence of those three states. To this very day, those three Baltic states have been looking to the world and to Canada to essentially stand up and say that illegal annexation by the Soviet Union of those three independent republics should not have happened, cannot happen, and we cannot remain silent anymore.
I shared the joys-as many of you did-one year ago when in fact the democratic governments were elected. We shared their joys. I was in the church basement of the Lithuanian community in London, Ontario. One could see the tears of joy from the people as they heard the votes coming in to re-establish their independence, to rededicate their independence, and we shared that joy with them.
This past Sunday I shared their horror and their anguish at what was happening again to their countries when, in fact, the Soviet Union moved in to Lithuania and Latvia, essentially killing and brutalizing those people and those countries again.
It is absolutely necessary that we collectively indicate and show our political willingness that we are serious about this matter, that the world is serious, that Mikhail Gorbachev cannot hope to hide behind the veil of what is happening in the Persian Gulf to try to go in the back door and re-establish that illegal authority in those three Baltic states.
We, as parliamentarians, supporting those people and their free and democratic spirit and their willingness to exist in peaceful coalition, hopefully with the U.S.S.R., take this opportunity of demanding that the UN take this issue seriously and that the CSCE also look at this matter in a very serious manner. Also, that we, and our government, tell the Soviet Union and the new world order that the atrocities now perpetrated on these three Baltic states again cannot be tolerated any more.
If this government really wanted to demonstrate its true commitment to the three Baltic states, it would finally recognize these three Baltic states as truly independent states. While we have never recognized the illegal annexation of these three Baltic states by the U.S.S.R., I think it is most appropriate today or tomorrow for this government, along with Parliament, to

January 21, 1991
S. 0. 52	
re-establish or re-dedicate themselves to recognizing and giving full diplomatic recognition to those three Baltic republics. That would show our political will in coming to grips with this crisis.	pursuant to order made earlier this day, I declare the motion carried. [Translation] The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 5 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 10.20 p.m.,	The House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, January 22, 1991