1991-01-16

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday more than 500 people in Val d'Or took part in the first pacifist demonstration in the area against the war in the Persian Gulf. Demonstrators, most of whom were students, accompanied by teachers, representatives of associations, unions, native communities and the people of Val d'Or quietly walked for three kilometres.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that this march for peace in my riding was organized by a first-year student at the Polyvalente Le Carrefour of Val d'Or, 13-year old Tommy Saucier, who has every reason to be proud of this success.


TEST BAN TREATY
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, since January 7, an important conference has been taking place at the United Nations in New York. This is a special conference to convert the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty and thereby ban all nuclear tests.
At the present time only underground tests are permitted, but there have been over 1,000 of these tests since 1970, and the number of nuclear weapons increased from 20,000 to 50,000. Unfortunately, the United States and the United Kingdom are opposing this conference and Canada is not supportive. This is hard to understand, since some of the states involved in the Middle East crisis are pressing to develop nuclear weapons and a comprehensive test ban would retard this development.
Before this conference ends on Friday, I would ask the Canadian government to support the continuation of the conference and a comprehensive test ban. Stop the development of nuclear weapons.


EL SALVADOR
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, at this time of war threat caused by a bloody dictator, the death squads of El Salvador openly claim the right to absolute power.
For 10 days after Christmas, my wife Alice and I, with others, visited El Salvador. We met many unarmed people who are risking their lives to repopulate the rural areas, build a movement for peace in El Salvador, and contest the March 10 national and municipal elections.
One of them, whose father, the rector of the University of El Salvador was assassinated by the death squads in 1980, returned from exile and is running as a candidate for the national assembly.
Two days ago the Globe and Mail reported the broadcast by the death squads, claiming to represent "a superior capitalist class (that)-has a duty to exploit- and even exterminate the inferior classes when the benefits of capitalism require such".
I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs to demand that President Cristiani of El Salvador suppress the death squads.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the debate we are engaged in now is not an easy one. We are debating the future and whether or not Canada should stand with 30 other nations against the aggression of Iraq.
After hearing the talk in this House of Commons, Canadians have a right to be confused. Perhaps it would be useful if we all asked ourselves some simple questions. Is this a war about Kuwait, Iraq, oil supplies, Texaco's profits, or is it about preventing a global nuclear war?

Can Canada or the world stand the risk of having a holy war waged against Israel, where pilots now are sleeping in their cockpits? Most importantly, can we afford to wait any longer? Each day of sanctions, and not action, is a day that Saddam Hussein digs in deeper, a day he prepares to pollute the environment with crude oil and makes a larger war more inevitable.
Saddam Hussein wants this House to vote against this country supporting the United Nations. I think Canadians should ask themselves exactly why that is.


LITHUANIA
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the world was shocked, saddened and profoundly disappointed by the turn of events last weekend in Lithuania.
The brutal attack on Lithuania's broadcast facilities, resulting in the deaths of 14 people and injuries to 163 others, has raised concerns about the future of perestroika and glasnost and indeed the future of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. There are real fears that the Soviet government is losing or has lost control when events of this nature can take place without the apparent knowledge of Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet leadership.
For the sake of all the people in the Soviet Union, I hope and pray that the savagery we witnessed last weekend will not be repeated. Continued progress toward democratization and economic reform must continue. But it must continue with the historic recognition by the Soviet Union that not all of the constituent republics freely accepted their original participation within that union.
The only way in which peace, stability, prosperity and freedom will come to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia is for the Soviet Union to recognize fully the principle of self-determination and allow the peoples of those republics to determine their collective futures by democratic means.


SUPPORT FOR UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, by invading Kuwait, Iraq provoked the worst international crisis in recent years.
This act of aggression is a genuine challenge to the international community, at a time when the end of superpower rivalry has opened the way to using dialogue and co-operation to resolve international problems and preserve peace and security.
The main issue here, is how we can build and protect a durable new world order.
Saddam Hussein has had 49 days to act on the resolutions taken by the nations of this world.
Our collective security may require the use of force to safeguard order and peace in this world, when all other attempts to reach a solution have failed.
Our support for this resolution, which was adopted by the vast majority of members of the Security Council, where both small and large countries are represented, arises from our commitment to the United Nations as the preferred instrument for maintaining international peace and security.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, six months ago the Surete du Quebec attempted to storm Mohawk barricades at Oka, igniting a summer of native protest and armed response which tarnished Canada's reputation around the world.
When hostilities subsided last September, a $4 million land claim had escalated into a $200 million military action.
It appears that Canada learned nothing from last year's conflict. Continued police harassment of Mohawks at the Kahnawake reserve has led to violence in recent weeks. Yesterday's news that the Quebec government is purchasing three Leopard tanks to use against the Mohawks at Kanesatake has outraged not only Canadians, but also members of the European Parliament who are investigating our human rights record toward aboriginal peoples.

Canadians want to know when the Government of Canada is going to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction and its fiduciary obligation to protect Quebec's natives from the Quebec provincial police. They also want to know if the government is going to permit the SQ to acquire the kind of weapons which will transform them from a police force into a military force.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, today the whole world is holding its breath, faced with the imminent risk of armed conflict in the Persian Gulf. A world that a few months ago had found new hope after the end of the Cold War now faces the difficult task of restoring order and security, after the serious violations of international law by Iraq.
Since the beginning of the crisis, the United Nations has been the preferred instrument of consultations on a world scale, aimed at restoring peace and order by peaceful means. The fact that the nations of this world are prepared to work through the UN, to decide on ways in which peace can be restored, is a sign that there is still hope for a world based on mutual assistance and co-operation.
If we are to build a new world order, the efforts of the United Nations must be successful. The whole world shudders at the spectre of war, but failure to respond to this act of aggression conjures up an even worse spectre, that of a world dominated by misunderstanding and injustice, a world in which our hopes for peace and freedom would be dashed forever.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, clearly the majority of Canadians believe that Canada should not go to war, that there is still a chance for a peaceful resolution of the gulf crisis. Canadians also believe that our troops should be supported in their present role of enforcing sanctions. Until an impartial study concludes that sanctions have not worked, there is
s. o. 3i
no need to engage in war. Experts tell us that sanctions may require at least 12 months to starve Iraq's economy and its capacity to wage war.
We on the Liberal side therefore believe that we are a long way from the point when a war effort would be required. Should such a time come, such effort should be under the United Nations flag. While the artificial deadline has passed, there is still time for Canada to take initiatives to pursue a peaceful solution. Eveiy day, every hour, every minute counts. It would be a terrible mistake to assume that war is still inevitable.



Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, some journalists have been speculating already about the possibility of a draft of young Canadians to participate in a gulf war. Such speculation can only be described as unnecessary and inappropriate fear mongering.
Let us consider the facts. Some 2,000 Canadians are now in the gulf. There are another 83,000 regular and
30.000	reserves in the Canadian Armed Forces, a substantial number of whom have already volunteered for gulf service.
Twenty-five thousand Canadians served in the Korean war. They were all volunteers. Over one million Canadians served in World War II. In 1944, after four years of hostilities, the King government, after a national referendum, instituted conscription and eventually some
13.000	conscriptees went overseas, though not all of these people saw action. Similar numbers exist for World War I and, of course, only volunteers served in the South African war.
We still hope to avert a gulf war. However, there will be no conscription for a gulf war if it comes. No talk or speculation of such is warranted or helpful.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs inaccurately apply remarks made by the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. They stated yesterday "that Mr. Pearson always maintained that once talk was over, et cetera. What a careless depiction of his wisdom.

January 16, 1991
Oral Questions
This government did not allow for the exercise of Pearsonian diplomacy. Article 42 of the UN charter clearly states that should the Security Council of the United Nations consider that sanctions have proved to be inadequate, it may take other actions, which are possibly about to occur. Our own government has not offered any proof that sanctions have not worked.
A Harvard University test model on sanctions policies has shown that the likelihood of eventual success from imposing sanctions on Iraq, especially with the current physical enforcement of them by many nations, the 48 per cent of Iraq's Gross National Product would be lost, resulting in an over 85 per cent success rate for the sanctions policy.
The Prime Minister says that war is now our moral duty. What Mr. Pearson actually meant is that our true moral duty is to ensure all avenues contributing toward the de-escalation of tensions are given our utmost support. Give peace a chance.



Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the issue that challenges the world as we know it, the Persian Gulf crisis. It challenges each and every one of us as parliamentarians.
On a global basis the crisis challenges the new international order which we have been so actively attempting to build following the end of the cold war. Also, it fundamentally challenges the role of the United Nations as a key guarantor of that order.
As parliamentarians, the crisis challenges us to go beyond partisan politics. It also challenges us to respect the views and emotions on all sides of this issue. None of us can be said to have all the information and all the answers. Yet, based on what we feel is informative and accurate, we must in the end formulate our opinions and stances.
Irrespective of where we stand, I know that each and every one of us prefers a peaceful resolution of this crisis. Indeed, I personally remain hopeful that peace can still be achieved, and I pray that it will happen.
I would like to take this opportunity to call upon the world leaders to continue their diplomacy and efforts toward a peaceful resolution. No avenues or opportunities can be left unturned.

[Translation\



Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, since last August, events in the Persian Gulf have slowly but surely edged towards the fateful deadline of January 15.
The deadline has passed. The government claims that diplomacy has failed, and there is a real possibility that the conflict in the Persian Gulf will turn into a genuine conflagration.

In fact, a war will have catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of the Persian Gulf region and unimaginable repercussions for international peace and world security.
Has the government considered the human cost of our involvement in such a war? Furthermore, what social programs will be cut to finance Canada's involvement?
The government has failed to provide the leadership which Canadians have come to expect. Instead, it has chosen to follow blindly the Americans into the heart of a conflict, which outcome no one can predict.
Peace and sanctions must be given a chance to work.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday in his speech the Prime Minister referred many times to Lester B. Pearson. Well, Mr. Speaker, I knew Mr. Pearson and I think that if he were Prime Minister today he would be working for a peaceful solution to this crisis.
January 16, 1991

Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He would have phoned the American President and urged him not to go to war at this time.
Has the Prime Minister spoken with President Bush since the deadline and, if so, did he urge President Bush not to go to war now?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have to admire my hon. friend for a number of reasons, not the least of which is his capacity to discern what might be in Mr. Pearson's mind today. That is truly a gift and I congratulate him on it.


Mr. Andre:: Like Mackenzie King.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It was the House leader who said Mackenzie King, not I.
But we can only go on the record with the contributions to the cause of peace of Mr. King, Mr. St. Laurent, and Mr. Pearson, all of which were very substantial and which contributed a great deal to establishing the traditions which we are respecting today.
I have been in regular communication with leaders around the world in regard to this important issue. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I maintain at this very moment the pursuit of all possible alternatives that might give rise to a peaceful solution.
Mr. Gauthier. Like what?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The House leader for the opposition says: "Like what?" Like, for example, Saddam Hussein saying to the world: "Yes, I will respect for once the call of the world community. Yes, I will give an affirmative answer to the United Nations, thereby placing the world on a course to peace."
The obstruction does not come from France, Canada, the Dutch, or the Senegalese. The problem is with Saddam Hussein and he must say yes.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Prime Minister, and I want a very clear and very simple answer. Since yesterday, did the Prime Minister get in touch with the President of the United States, George Bush, and did he
ask Mr. Bush to wait before starting the war and give peace a chance in the Middle East? And, is war the Prime Minister's only alternative?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition is no doubt aware, we are constantly in touch with our allies on this matter.
As for his suggestion regarding Mr. Pearson, this is what Mr. Pearson said in similar circumstances in the House, on September 4, 1950:

It has been suggested that we could have made further efforts in regard to mediation and the employment of pacific measures in the Korean dispute. That, of course, as I see it, is not a realistic suggestion. Because, even when it was tried-and it was tried in the earlier days of this dispute-the aggressor treated that suggestion with contempt.
Mr. Pearson was right then. Canada had to act because the aggressor in 1950 treated them with contempt.
Today, Saddam Hussein is treating the world with contempt. Even at this late moment, we ask him, personally and we ask his government-to send a signal to the world that he will comply with the resolution of the United Nations. If he does, he will enable us all to seek and obtain a peaceful solution to this extremely difficult matter.


Some hon. members:: Hear. hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that in 1950 the government of the day and Mr. Pearson, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, insisted that the troops going to war in Korea had to be there under the command of the UN and under the UN flag. It was not an American war. It was a United Nations war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the Prime Minister does not want to tell us whether or not he talked with the President of the United States, will he tell us if he has taken any initiative today with the Secretary-General of the United Nations; yesterday he was still making efforts to find a peaceful solution and there should have some discussions with the Secretary-General in order to find a peaceful solution? January 15 was not the date to start the war. We could be in a war position, but we are not yet in a war position. Can peace still have a chance?
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have two brief comments in response to the Leader of the Opposition, one having to do with the question of a flag.
The Leader of the Opposition invented a false principle, in effect, a falsehood, yesterday with regard to the question of the Canadian flag-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sure he did it inadvertently-with regard to the question of the Canadian flag, when he said that Canadian troops never serve except under a UN flag. Does he not know about the multinational force of observers in Sinai where Canada is serving? If he wants to speak symbolically, does he not know about Canada's participation through the years in NATO under the NATO flag? What is at issue is the authority of the United Nations and there is no question at all about the authority of the United Nations being vested under Resolution 678.
With respect to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Leader of the Opposition should know, if he was watching the Secretary-General's appeal yesterday, that that appeal reflects very largely the points that were contained in the letter from the Prime Minister of Canada to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, suggesting a negotiating position that might be followed with Saddam Hussein. I tabled that letter in the House of Commons yesterday.
We are encouraging the Secretary-General and others to continue to persevere in those kinds of efforts. But the Prime Minister makes it abundantly clear, and the world knows this-President Mitterrand made it clear for France today-that the person whose response is required is Saddam Hussein.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The majority of Canadian men and women are opposed to the government's actions in the gulf crisis. They ask that economic sanctions and negotiations be continued, in order to reach a peaceful solution. Does Canada intend to ask the Security Council and coalition members to take the time to look at other, non-military means to get Hussein out of Kuwait, such as reinforcing economic sanctions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about time. The Security Council and the world gave Saddam Hussein a period of grace, 47 days during which every day, every minute, Saddam Hussein had a chance to respond. Every time he refused. He shut the door on every initiative taken by the Secretary-General of the UN and others.

When members of the opposition speak of giving Saddam Hussein more time, let them ask themselves: What use does he make of this time? What use did he make of the period of a pause for peace? During that period he was building a trench across Kuwait to allow himself to take oil and move it through that trench to pollute the Persian Gulf, to undertake and commit, in effect, environmental warfare. How much time does the opposition party want to give Saddam Hussein to carry forward this kind of activity?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions in turn for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Number one, why is the government refusing to listen to Canadians who are saying: "Take the time to make the sanctions work to get Hussein out of Kuwait by not going to war"? Why does the government not listen to Canadians who are trying to tell them something?
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, why does he not listen to Canadians who say that you do not have to destroy a country? you do not have to kill people, you do not have to destroy a region to stop aggression?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I naturally do listen to Canadians.
I listen to the evidence that is given by intelligence experts. I would very much listen to the hon. member if he would begin to accept my invitation of some months ago that he make available to us any information that he has that sanctions are working.

I will be writing to the hon. member because we do not have time in the House to correct all of the false impressions he leaves upon the record of Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should move on. The hon. member for Yukon.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He is aware that this morning, I sent the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition a letter asking that a free vote be held on the question of war. It has become increasingly clear that for all Canadian men and women, the decision whether or not to go to war is a personal one. It is a matter of conscience and also a matter of the kind of information available to each person.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The decision each and everyone of us must make is the most non-partisan decision we will ever have to make in our lives. My question for the Prime Minister is: Will he hold a free vote on this question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday. As far as the government is concerned, the policies we adopted were approved after full and vigorous debate in our national caucus, a debate that started in August last year.
I have not asked a single member-not yesterday or the day before and I will not do so in the future-to vote along any kind of line on this issue. Our members will confirm that after these vigorous and interesting debates in caucus, I go out and defend the interests of the government as I see them. I admit that a number of important and personal questions have been raised by a number of members, including several members on this side of the House, and I did not ask anyone how he or she is going to vote.
I assume that considering the fact that members were personally and actively involved in preparing this important policy, those members will support the government. I have not asked for any guarantees or opinions of any kind whatsoever. However, I realize the hon. member
Oral Questions
has a position she would like to make quite clear and it is one that I respect.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Prime Minister and his government took the decision to have Canada participate in a war in the gulf based on some information. When the United States Congress voted on its resolution, which certainly passed narrowly, authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, it added that the U.S. President must come before Congress and both give reasons why sanctions had not worked and what other information was then available.
Presuming that the Prime Minister made this decision and took the position based on information available to him about whether economic sanctions have worked or not, will he table that information with this House so that we may also have access to that information?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party will know that there was a lengthy hearing of the standing committee that dealt with the questions of sanctions. I presented a very full presentation. I indicated I would be prepared to have confidential briefings with others for further information. I made it clear that the information we had that was in confidence was not different in its effect from what was being presented to the committee.
I can tell the member now and the House that there continues to be very broad international respect for sanctions. It is one of the most effectively adhered to programs in the world. That is on the outside. The question is. What is happening on the inside? Is it affecting the military capacity of Saddam Hussein? The answer sadly is that there is no evidence that it is. There is a problem, Mr. Speaker, a problem that would be very troubling to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that is that no matter how tight these sanctions of unprecedented tightness are, foodstuffs and strategic imports such as chemical additives, lubricants, water purification chemicals, and spare parts are reaching Iraq undetected. They are needed in relatively small volumes and they can be transported by air or overland by truck or pack animal, or by small boats capable of eluding naval interdiction.

Oral Questions
In other words these elements which can be used to build a war machine are still getting in despite the tightest sanctions we have. How long would the Leader of the New Democratic Party-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should move to the next question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister responsible for external affairs is telling us in this House that we can put people on the moon but we cannot stop material going into Iraq by air, we cannot stop material going into Iraq by sea, and we cannot stop material going into Iraq by land.
Why then would we embark on economic sanctions in the first place because we would have known that? Also, where does he get this information, and will he table the source of his information today?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the Leader of the New Democratic Party because she lives in a world of wish. She wishes that it were possible for humankind to be able to develop absolutely airtight control of human behaviour.
What I am telling here is that we have the most airtight system of sanctions the world has known and yet even with the most effective network of sanctions we have known, there are strategic imports getting into Iraq. They will continue to get into Iraq because if there is a change in the effectiveness of sanctions, if we weaken the United Nations, that will be a change not to make sanctions more effective with more countries participating, but to make sanctions less effective.
So how long does she want to-


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The government has decided to send a field hospital to Saudi Arabia.
Can the minister tell us whether this will serve only the British forces or will it serve Canadian forces as well? Does he have any plans in mind for sending other Canadian forces to the gulf, such as land forces, for
example, and will this indicate any change in the position of the Canadian forces from defensive to offensive?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. colleague was calling a field hospital an offensive force.
Canada received a request from the United Kingdom to provide a field surgical unit. They believe two things. Because of their additional commitment to the multinational force is presently serving under the UN Resolution 678 that they did not have the capacity to, one, provide their medical support, and two, the capacity as the Geneva Convention calls for to provide medical support to prisoners of war.
Canada has the capability of providing a self-sustained field hospital unit. It will consist of some 550 Canadian personnel. It will have the medical support side which will be made up of some 170. The other support staff will make up the balance, including an infantry company which will provide perimeter defence to the unit. It will be under technical control of the United Kingdom and it will fly the Canadian flag.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it should be clear that this party has no opposition in principle to the sending of medical services and personnel. But what Canadians do want to know is the role of the Canadian forces now in the gulf, and those Canadian forces that may be committed to the gulf. Can the minister say what he has in mind exactly? Can he say today, clearly, what he has in mind for the role of the Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions over the last number of days the hon. member has talked about ground troops.
I have said that the Government of Canada has no plans, secretive or otherwise, to send a brigade group into the gulf area.
I would like to know whether the hon. member agrees with his leader now that he says in principle the Liberal Party supports the sending of a field hospital unit. Does that include the statement his leader made yesterday, that if hostilities start all Canadian troops should be withdrawn?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. I want to get back to this business about who is running the show.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence suggested to me that in the absence of a United Nations force commander that the principles of the well established NATO command and control structure could apply. I would remind the minister, of course, that NATO is headed by a military committee, as he well knows, and a chairman of that committee. The chairman is the boss.
In the Persian Gulf situation, who is going to be the equivalent? Who is going to be the boss? Who is going to be in charge?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the function of the multinational forces has taken place since August 2 when several nations, now totalling some 30, made a decision to support the United Nations resolutions, starting with resolution 660.
The coordinators, equivalent of the military committee in NATO, have been the national commanders representing their countries in that area.
If the hon. member wants to draw an equivalent to SACEUR, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, who is an American general, it is an American general who is co-ordinating in Saudi Arabia in conjunction with King Fahd, the protector of the two holy mosques.
In the other areas in the gulf, because of the presence and the size of the assets that are there, the co-ordination is done by an American admiral.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response.
If I understand it properly, McArthur ran the Korean war, Eisenhower ran the D-Day operation and I think there is an example there. One cannot run a war without one person being in charge. I am still not sure who is in charge.
I would like the minister to clarify it for the Canadian people. Are we working for the Americans, the Saudis, or just who is going to run the show?
Oral Questions


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, since the outset of the Saddam Hussein attack of Kuwait on August 2, Canada has been working toward peace and security in the world, and we are serving the United Nations and the people of Canada at the present time in bringing that about.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of the role of Canadian forces in the gulf.
The minister has not clearly answered the question. He has ruled out a brigade group but he has not dealt with specific and clear questions, particularly in respect of the role of the CF-18s. Senior military officers say the role has not yet changed. The Minister of Justice has said that no decision has been made as to a change in role.
Will the minister tell this House and the Canadian people whether there will be any change in the role of the CF-18s to a role in support of the military attack that is now being contemplated against Iraq in Kuwait?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, if hostilities commence, the Canadian forces personnel in the fighter squadron will continue to do the job that they are doing at the present time. That is, flying combat air patrol over Canadian vessels and those assets of the allied nations or the collaborating nations in the region.


Mr. Benjamin:: What are the assets?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: An hon. member asks what the assets are. They include everything that happens to be in the gulf and everything that happens to be an asset on land in Saudi Arabia.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has confirmed by his last answer that this government is plunging Canadian troops into an offensive war that is immoral, that is wrong, and that does not have the support of the Canadian people.
When will the government listen to the Canadian people?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member about collective security, if I could.
The hon. member is suggesting that Canada has changed its role. Yes, there has been a change in the circumstances. Up until January 15, last midnight, there was a pause for peace which started with resolution 660 of the United Nations and went all the way through the 12 resolutions, concluding with resolution 678.

January 16, 1991
Oral Questions
What has changed is Saddam Hussein did not take advantage of that pause for peace. What has happened is that the brutal aggression that took place on August 2 and the occupation of a country and the destruction of a people continuing.
The United Nations and the issue of collective security has to be enforced. The opposition can make decisions that are not responsible. Unfortunately, this government has a position to make and it must be responsible. We accept that responsibility. God help Canada if his party ever has to make that responsibility.


BALTIC STATES
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As world attention remains focused on the gulf crisis, the tension in Lithuania and the other two Baltic states increases by the day.
At the opening of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Malta yesterday on the peaceful settlement of disputes, and I repeat, the peaceful settlement of disputes, I was pleased to learn Canada made a statement condemning the crackdown in Lithuania, calling for a restraint on further violence.
I ask the minister: What recommendations did his government make to the conference? If he has not already done so, will he pledge to increase humanitarian aid in the form of medical supplies and/or food directly to Lithuania and to the other states, as already requested by many Canadians of Baltic descent?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am veiy pleased that even in the teeth of the grave crisis we face in the gulf the hon. member and other members of the House would cause the Parliament and public of Canada to focus again on what is happening in Lithuania, actions that are entirely unacceptable to us.
That has been communicated to Soviet authorities by a letter from the Prime Minister to Mr. Gorbachev and by the eloquent and I hope effective resolution adopted unanimously by the House yesterday.
With regard to medical supplies, we are prepared to do everything we can. We have had conversations with members of the Baltic communities in Canada, the Baltic communities in their entirety, not simply Canadians of Lithuanian origin. We will speak with others.
We will do everything we can to continue to ensure, because the hon. member knows that we were able to get medical supplies in earlier, that medical supplies get in. There may be some new limits on our capacity. There will be no limits upon our will.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his party and members of all three parties for giving unanimous consent to the resolution that we passed in this House yesterday.
There is a fear that similar military action that occurred in Lithuania will soon occur in Latvia and Estonia. Will the minister confirm today if he has sent a strong message directly to Moscow that Canada will view such action as totally unacceptable, that such action would have dire consequences for the relations with the Soviet Union and could rekindle the east-west cold war, which none of us want?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that was certainly clear in the letter that was sent by the Prime Minister to Mr. Gorbachev.
As the hon. member will know, there is now a new foreign minister in the Soviet Union who has been to Canada, whom I have met and I think others have met. I will be in touch with him shortly, and among the points I will be making will be precisely the two points the hon. member has raised: first, our concern about that unacceptable behaviour extending to other Baltic republics; and, second, the inescapable fact that if the Soviet Union continues upon that path with regard to the Baltic States. That is bound to have an impact upon not only the official policy of this government but also the attitude toward the Soviet Union and toward the goals of reform articulated by Mr. Gorbachev that had been so strongly supported by so many Canadians of eastern and central European origin, of origin in the Soviet Union, including the Baltic peoples. But those peoples, those Canadians, cannot be expected to support an idea of reform by an administration that carries out activities of the kind we have seen in Lithuania.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Before the Persian Gulf crisis came along, the minister was sending out signals that substantial cuts could be expected in the numbers of the Canadian forces personnel and other areas of the defence department as a cost saving exercise.
In view of the varied and valued expertise of our forces, does the minister still have plans in place to cut the Canadian forces after the gulf crisis is over?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as long as this party has the authority and the responsibility of providing security for Canada, we will continue to spend the appropriate amount of taxpayers' dollars to provide that security.
I am not too sure with his present leader whether that would be necessary if his party formed the government.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister. The government has proposed cuts in the Public Service of Canada to help pay for military operations in the gulf. That is the kind of financial commitment this government has.
How does the government now plan to pay for the Persian Gulf operation in addition to those measures already stated? For example, will the government increase the deficit or is the Minister of Finance opposing that step?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, since the gulf crisis which started with the attack of Iraq on Kuwait on August 2, I have had the total support and commitment of my cabinet colleagues, from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance and my caucus.
Oral Questions
I can say to the hon. member that Canada in the past has never made a decision to defend world order and bring about peace and security because of the cost. It has done it because it has been right.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The human and environmental consequences of any war are self-evident. Scientific projections of the environmental implications of Iraqi threats to destroy Kuwaiti oilfields if attacked reveal the potential for devastating climate change.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs alluded to environmental warfare. Does the government not recognize that this war is too horrible to contemplate? Why is this government following this insane course?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated to the House that Saddam Hussein has used the last period of time that was given to him to construct, I said, a trench. In fact it is a pipeline, the purpose of which is to create terrible environmental damage. That is happening now.
If there is a point that I am seeking to have communicated to the people of Canada, it is that the status quo we face now is a status quo that is full of peril and full of damage.
Ask any Kuwaiti. Ask anyone in Saudi Arabia whose water purification processes would be corrupted irretrievably by the way that Saddam Hussein has used the time.
The choice is not between some kind of peaceful status quo and the terrors of war. Of course war is horrible, but so is allowing aggression and so is allowing Saddam Hussein the time to do other terrible things.
What do you think he is doing with his chemical weapons? What do you think he is doing with his biological weapons? He is using that time in ways that the New Democratic Party should not be supporting.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The definition of collective security seems to be limited to military security. Given the scientific evidence of the global ecological implications of war in the gulf, will the government broaden its definition of collective security beyond the narrow view of military supremacy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that was done some time ago, not only in the speech I had the honour to deliver on behalf of Canada to the last General Assembly of the United Nations, but most profoundly in the green paper brought down by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment.


ALTERNATE FUELS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Garth 'Rimer (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, the Persian Gulf crisis has again underscored how dependent the western world is on the fragile oilfields of the Middle East. In response, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Can the minister tell this House exactly what steps this government is taking to encourage seriously the development and use of alternative fuels like methanol, ethanol, propane, and natural gas?
Surely, if there is a time that we should think about running our cars on alternate fuels, it has to be now.
Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
I think the important point is, despite the gulf crisis, that the government has been involved in alternate fuels and fuel switching for some period of time. That has been the MILE program, the natural gas program that we have initiated, for example the agreements that we have signed with General Motors with respect to the methanol use and with the Ford Motor Company, also including transit buses.
I appreciate what the hon. member is saying as well. Within the green plan there is an initiative for further expansion of methanol, ethanol, and natural gas, compressed gas. I say to the hon. member that we will continue redoubling our efforts on it, but it has been going on for some period of time.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am convinced that the decision to go to war can only be made on the basis of a deep conviction that the sanctions just could not work. I do not think that you have managed as yet to establish that.
I sent yesterday to your parliamentary secretary the results of an analysis of 115 cases which The New York Times published yesterday, where experts found that, in view of the exceptional effectiveness of the sanctions against Iraq there were 100 per cent chances that in the long run the sanctions would succeed and that even-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please come to his question?


Benoît Tremblay: What can you reply to that?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I missed the question, if there was one. Perhaps the hon. member could repeat it very briefly.


Benoît Tremblay: What can you reply to the experts who carried out this analysis?


Charles Joseph Clark: I believe the hon. member is referring to an article in The Globe and Mail and The New York Times where a number of social scientists carried out projections on the probability of success of the sanctions. As I said yesterday during the debate-I do not know whether the hon. member was here at the time-


An hon. member:: No, he was not here.


Charles Joseph Clark: He was not here? I clearly indicated then that there was a difference between concrete evidence and social scientists' projections. We have no reason to believe that the sanctions in place against Iraq will have an impact on its military capacity before at least six months, maybe nine; perhaps much longer than that. As I have just told the Leader of the New Democratic Party, it is quite clear that even with the most stringent sanctions in the history of the world, strategic material can still get to Iraq thus allowing Saddam Hussein's to increase its military capacity.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Today the minister would have us believe that he is concerned over the human repercussions, but in his speech yesterday he did not refer even once to the serious environmental consequences of the conflict.
Can the minister tell us to what extent Canada considered the environmental impact before making its decision? And can he give us today his assessment of the terrible environmental degradation we can expect if war does break out?


Charles Joseph Clark: One thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, is that Saddam Hussein did not bother to analyse the impact on the environment, on human rights, and on world security before launching his attack against Kuwait. Another thing for sure is that he did show he is quite capable and determined to use and create war tools which might lead us into an environmental war. This has already been demonstrated. If we continue to give Saddam Hussein the time asked for by the Liberal Party, it is clear that he will seek other means to launch an attack against the world environment.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have the right to expect from their government a far higher degree of concern than is being shown by Saddam Hussein.
The environmental fallout from this war is simply going to be devastating, far greater than anything that Saddam Hussein could do on his own. The effect may well be to destroy the food chain far beyond the immediate regions involved. It will certainly turn the Persian Gulf into another Dead Sea.
Given this and given the hundreds of thousands of deaths that will surely occur, the question this government must answer, the question this government has not answered is: Why take the fatal and irreversible step of committing to war before it is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt-and it is not clear beyond any shadow of a doubt-that the most comprehensive set of sanctions that have ever been imposed in modem history will work?
Point of Order


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the most comprehensive set of sanctions ever devised in human history, and I agree with the hon. member on that, are allowing now the passage into Iraq of chemical additives, lubricants, water purification chemicals, spare parts and other things that can be used to build the war machine. The time that is being demanded by the Liberal Party is allowing Saddam Hussein to devise new means of environmental warfare, to perfect his capacity to conduct chemical warfare, and to perfect his capacity to conduct biological warfare.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to other impacts, let me quote from the report of Amnesty International. It reported on December 19 that the violations of rights within Kuwait by Iraq include arbitrary arrest and detention, without trial, of thousands of civilians and military personnel, widespread torture of such persons in custody, imposition of the death penalty, and execution of hundreds of unarmed civilians, including children. The member should stop pretending that there is some kind-
Soine hon. members: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs may want to table that document.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured to do so.


POINT OF ORDER
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may pose a point of order.
We are asking The Secretary of State for External Affairs, as a senior minister, should know the traditions of this House, that when he cites from and reads from a document in this House, he should be asked to table that document so that all members can share the information.
I am not referring to the Amnesty International document; I am referring to the document and piece of paper he was reading from in reference to sanctions. Would he please give us the piece of paper and information from which that was drawn?

Point of Order


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, at one time I believe the hon. member was a minister of the Crown and he followed the practice of occasionally referring to notes. He knows that the practices of Parliament, which he has just cited, are practices which apply to documents which were quoted but not from notes for Question Period. He knows that.
The Speaker, quite properly, suggested that I should lay upon the table the Amnesty International document from which I had quoted, and I am very pleased to do that. I hope many Canadians will read that document in detail, so that they will understand what Saddam Hussein is doing to Kuwait.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the minister did not bring the documents to the House from which he is citing. Considering the importance of this basic debate about the validity of sanctions, will the minister be prepared to table in this House, and make public the documents from which he drew the information and presented to the House today?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the propriety of this exchange but I am, as always, in your hands. I made a commitment to the standing committee that I would make available to the standing committee a great deal of information. I did that orally when I was there to answer questions.
I told the hon. member, who was present and, through him and through members of the committee, the whole House that I was prepared to make available briefings on a confidential basis of other matters that should perhaps not be put for valid reasons, in a situation such as the present situation, in the public domain. That follows the long, unvaried traditions of Parliament.
The hon. member asks me to repeat the undertaking I gave in the standing committee; of course, I do that. And I am prepared to give him access, in his capacity as a Privy Councillor with all of the obligations that involves, to information with respect to the effectiveness of sanctions. I also repeat my request to him. If he has any information suggesting that sanctions work, let him present that to the people of Canada.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs cannot be half in and half out on this matter. If he has information on
sanctions, he has to table the document he was quoting from and give us the sources. Otherwise there will be a question as to his credibility and the credibility of the government on this important-


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know what the rule is with respect to tabling documents. As I saw it, the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs was reading from the report. I suggested that it was appropriate to table it. He has done that.
If there are other matters that need to be discussed, perhaps they could be raised at another occasion, after there has been some discussion. This is now turning into debate and I think we have to close it off.
The hon. member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I was also going to request that the minister for external affairs table the document which he cited in his answer to my question.
I am pleased that the members of the opposition have continued to pursue that question as well.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on this point, to be veiy precise, I was not at that point quoting from a document. I was referring to notes.
We do have assessments available. I shared them with the standing committee when I appeared at an earlier time in this debate. I am prepared to share that information again with Parliament. There is not a document as the hon. member is talking about. There are my speaking notes to which ministers habitually refer, but I am certainly prepared to make any document available on the basis that I outlined in the committee. That basis was that those that can be made available publicly will be made available to the committee. Those that require people to be sworn to an oath will be made available to members of the Privy Council.
That is one of the reasons why the government was so pleased that the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party was prepared to accept a swearing to the Privy Council, because it allows someone in her party now-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty of the Chair is that this is leading into a debate. However, hon. members have raised the matter. The right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated his willingness to co-operate and it is now my duty to continue with Routine Proceedings.

Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 47 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] PERSIAN GULF CRISIS


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to table petitions on behalf of my constituents of Parkdale-High Park.
The petitioners say that whereas the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated, and as a result that the United Nations sanctions may be slow in coming, and foreign nationals are still being detained; and whereas Canadian troops are currently in the Persian Gulf and their presence may be required for an undetermined length of time, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to commit that any Canadian involvement in military action be solely at the command of and under the auspices of the United Nations.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the next petition is on parental leave. The petitioners are very concerned. They are pleased to see that the current legislation on maternity benefits has been extended as of November 18, 1990 to include an additional 10 weeks of parental benefits for the mother, and a new 10-week claim for parental benefits for the father.
Unfortunately, there are a number of women who are currently enjoying their right to 17 weeks maternity leave under the former legislation. These women have been informed that they will be obliged to return to work at the end of the 17 weeks, work for another 20 weeks, during which time the new baby will have been weaned, have been part of a child care program under the care of the mother and/or father.
They call upon the government to recognize the difficult situation in which these women find themselves, and allow them the option of running a new claim for the additional 10 weeks, immediately after the claim under which they are currently covered.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition on another subject. The petitioners want to highlight to this House the continuing gross human rights violations in Iran.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to bring to the attention of the Government of Canada reference to the fact that since last year the situation of human rights has deteriorated and the use of terrorism by the ruling mullahs expanded dramatically.
They request that the Government of Canada actively participate in introducing and passing resolutions during the current 45th session of the United Nations General Assembly condemning the severe violation of human rights in Iran, as well as paying tribute to the memory of Professor Rajavi.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed at a demonstration against Canada participating in war in Iraq.
The petitioners ask Parliament to prevent Canadian Armed Forces from being used to attack Iraq. They point out that 87 per cent of Canadians are absolutely opposed to the Prime Minister of this country and that the majority of Canadians oppose the use of Canadian Armed Forces in this war. In fact, probably the major impediment to exercising the wishes of Canadians on this matter is the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which calls on Parliament to recognize that, whereas international economic sanctions have had a demonstrable effect on Iraq, and whereas the military strategy of blockades is preferable to war, the shedding of blood and the loss of human life.
Wherefore, the undersigned, the petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to give economic sanctions against Iraq a chance to work and withdraw all but peacekeeping Canadian military from the gulf. That is signed by 48 people from coastal British Columbia.

Routine Proceedings


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition under the provisions of Standing Order 36.
The first petition is from residents of Ottawa, Montreal, Tbronto and other smaller places. It expresses their opposition to Canada's participation in the gulf war in any military attack against Iraq because of the unforeseeable amount of harm that would be done to the region and even the world because the United Nations has imposed massive and effective economic sanctions.
They request that Parliament withdraw all Canadian forces from the region so that we can be assured they will not be employed in any offensive capacity, but solely as is necessary to make sanctions effective and to use our tax dollars for useful and social programs such as child care, pensions, health care, education and not for military adventures in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition gives the same reasons for saying in effect, we, the undersigned, ask that the Government of Canada use all means available to it to encourage UN member states to give sanctions a chance to work, to refrain from offensive military action against Iraq.
They further ask that the government not commit Canadian Armed Forces to offensive action against Iraq.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have under Standing Order 36, a 24-page petition signed by people from Maple Ridge who have indicated that as a country we have built gradually a reputation as a dependable advocate supporter of the United Nations. We are recognized world-wide as a peacekeeping nation.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to resist strongly war in the Middle East at all costs and to allow time for economic sanctions and pressures from within Iraq to influence Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several hundreds of people in communities in the greater St. John's, Newfoundland area such as Kelligrews, St. Thomas, Chamberlain, Long Pond, Manuels, and so on.
The petitioners point out that Canadian cities are being polluted by automobile emissions and that there is a solution through the use of ethanol blended gasoline which would have the effect of boosting the oxygen content of the fuel. In that context, the petitioners call upon the House to make a minimum 3.2 oxygen content in gasoline fuels mandatory.
I have great pleasure in supporting the petition on behalf of those petitioners and ask that it be referred to the appropriate department for action.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 343, 347, 363, 383, 384, 396, 409, 414, 418 and 421.


Mr. Nunziata: Did the government issue a press release on April 10, 1990 entitled "Centennial Fountain Coins to Support Associations for Canadians with Disabilities" and, if so what was the cost of (a) production (b) mailing (c) courrier delivery?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Yes. The government issued a news release on April 10, 1990, entitled "Centennial Fountain Coins to Support Associations for Canadians with disabilities."
(a)	The production cost was $402.80 to print 5,500 releases in English and 5,100 releases in French.
(b)	The mailing cost was $2,439.20, which included the cost of envelopes to mail to municipalities in Canada.
(c)	The courier delivery cost was approximately $60. This cost included sending 900 English releases and 500 French releases in bulk to the parliamentary distribution centre for distribution to senators, members of Parliament and members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.


Mr. Caccia: Since the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, how many new inspector positions have been (a) created (b) filled, in each of the provinces and the two territories?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was proclaimed on June 28,1988. At that time a total of 108 inspectors were designated for the purposes of this Act. b) As of October 1, 1990, a total of 271 inspectors were designated for the purposes of this Act. The following outlines the allocations for each of the five regional offices and Headquarters of Environment Canada:
	28/06/1988	01/10/1990
Pacific & Yukon (province of British Columbia and Yukon)	28	57Western & Northern (provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Northwest Territories)	18	42Ontario	14	29Quebec	17	72Atlantic (provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island)	27	57Headquarters	4	14Tbtal	108	271


Mr. Milliken: For a) 1988-89 b) 1989-90, were expenses incurred by the National Capital Commission in the development of the "Master Plan" for Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex Drive, as listed on page 18 of the Third Report (Summer 1990) of the Official Residences Council and, if so, individually, what were they?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
RIDEAU HALL	1988-89	1989-90Buildings architectural and engineering studies (27 in total)	$257,005	$164,382Grounds partial study (88 acres)	2,924	0Tbtal	$259,929	$164,38224 SUSSEX DRIVE	1988-89	1989-90Buildings architectural studies Phase 1 and Phase 2, Part 1 (5 in total)	$36,625	$52,301Grounds studies (4 acres)	26,569	8,864Total	$63,194	$61,165
Mr. Blackburn: Since 1984, for a) government b) Crown corporations c) agencies d) commissions, are public servants eligible to collect travel points gained from travels paid for by taxpayers, and, if so, in each case (i) how many have gained points (ii) what categories of public servants are eligible (iii) how many accumulated travel points for their own use (iv) how many points have been used (v) what is the total monetary value of travel points used (vi) had these travel points been handed back to the government, what would have been the value to the government?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: (a) Public servants can only use these points for further government business travel. Private use of these points is strictly prohibited. This policy predates 1984.
(b)	This policy does not apply.
(c)	Policy applies only to public servants for whom Treasury Board is the employer.
(d)	Policy applies only to public servants for whom Tresasury Board is the employer.
(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) The government does not keep statistics on travel points.


Mr. Stupich: For Public Service 2000, what are the a) salaries of the director and seconded staff b) estimated cost of person days charged against PS 2000 by deputy ministers heading subtask forces and any others contributing to PS 2000 c) cost of current promotion campaign d) cost of implementation?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: a) As of November 6, 1990, there were three employees on the strength of the secretariat (which is attached to the Privy Council Office)-the manager, an administrative assistant, and a clerical officer. The salary cost of these, since January 1, 1990, is estimated to have been $161,853.

Routine Proceedings
A further 20 employees have been on secondment from various departments for various periods of time. The salary cost since January 1, 1990 for all these staff is estimated to have been $529,331.
b)	Public Service 2000 is a Public Service-wide initiative and it would be very difficult to put a meaningful value on the time spent by deputy ministers and other staff on the task forces.
c)	It is not clear what is meant by "the current promotion campaign". Since the beginning, press releases, speeches, articles in Public Service and departmental publications, reports, fact sheets, et cetera, have been produced and distributed by the central agencies and by departments. This kind of activity will continue as an inevitable and essential part of a major administrative reform.
d)	Since the government has not yet taken a position on most of the many PS 2000 recommendations, it is far too early to give a meaningful response.


Mr. Pagtakhan: Has the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada or the Government of Canada ever approved a policy for the permanent disposal of the tailings from abandoned uranium mines and, in any case, who is responsible for managing the tailings from abandoned uranium mines where the former or original owner no longer exists or cannot be located?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In 1975 the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) started directly regulating uranium mining in Canada. In addition to ensuring that the mining activities do not pose any undue risks to members of the public and to the environment, the AECB has established a policy regarding financial responsibility for the decommissioning of uranium mining facilities, including the tailing areas. The operator of a mining facility must submit to the AECB, at the earliest stages of operation, a plan outlining the financial assurances for all decommissioning activities in the short term as well as in the long term. Since no mining facility subject to AECB regulations has been abandoned, no AECB policy has been developed to date for disposal of tailings from uranium mining facilities for which no owner may be identified. There are no known cases of uranium mines which ceased operations before 1975, where it is not
currently possible to identify an owner who would be responsible for the proper decommisioning of the site. In the event that a responsible owner could not be identified, proper decommissioning of the site would lie with the federal and provincial governments. EMR is currently discussing this matter with various governmental departments and agencies.


Mr. Milliken: In the Supplementary Estimates (B) 1990-91, under National Defence vote 20b-Emergency Preparedness-Contributions, were any natural disasters the cause of the requests for payments, and if so, which disasters?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Two payments were made for natural disasters under disaster financial assistance arrangements. They were:
1)	1988 Flood in Manitoba
2)	1983 Storm in Quebec


Mr. Fisher: What was the cost of the court action which followed the 1989 Public Service Alliance complaint pertaining to essential services designation?


Gilles Loiselle: It is estimated that these costs were approximately $35,000. About $1,000 of the amount was spent on court filing fees, travel costs of Employer's witnesses in PSSRB proceedings, and printing costs. The rest of the amount represents salary costs incurred by Department of Justice lawyers, Treasury Board Secretariat and departmental employees who worked on the files, as well as the associated clerical and secretarial help. All counsel involved on the Employer's side were Department of Justice lawyers. There were no expenditures of funds to engage private sector lawyers.


Mr. Harvard: Will representatives of the Armed Forces Pensionners'/ Annuitants' Association of Canada be invited to become part of the current committee of public servants in Treasury Board who are preparing a new Pension Reform Bill?


Gilles Loiselle: The government considers the ongoing consultative process an important part of the Public Service pension reform process. Very careful consideration is being given to the many representations being made by or on behalf of various groups to the President of the Treasury Board. The association referred to has also provided its views to the Associate Minister of National Defence who has passed them to the President for consideration.


Mr. Skelly: Did Mr. Bud Neville of J.F. Hickling Management Consultants Ltd. write a background report for the government's response to the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and, if so, was Mr. Neville a former employee of the Department of Indian Affairs and, if so, during what time was he employed by the Department?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Bud Neville was the principal consultant, chosen in consultation with Makivik Corporation, for the background report, prepared by J.F. Hickling Management Consultants Ltd., for the government's response to the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Mr. Neville was employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development between 1957 and 1971.

[English)


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 406. Due to the length of the response, I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.


Mr. Breaugh: For each year from 1986 to 1989, a) how many taxpayers claimed partnership losses from real estate investments b) what was the total value of partnership losses claimed from real estate investments c)
Routine Proceedings
what was the cost to the government in terms of tax revenues lost due to partnership losses claimed from real estate investments?


Hon. Michael Holcombe Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Data on partnership losses resulting from real estate investments are not readily available as taxpayers are not required to identify the source of partnership losses on their tax forms. While financial statements and tax calculations relating to the partnership must be included in the income tax return of each partner, the sources of partnership income/losses are not transcribed by Revenue Canada, Ikxation. Consequently, answers to the questions are not available.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise under an application pursuant to Standing Order 52, seconded by my colleague from LaSalle-Emard, to ask 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 debate over the next few days should focus on the gulf situation, we cannot neglect the seriousness of recent events in the Baltic states and their implications on world peace.
My request is based on the need to ascertain Canada's response to the recommendation that the matter be referred to the United Nations Security Council and dealt with in the context of an emergency world conference or some other appropriate forum.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with what the member for Park-dale-High Park has said. There are a couple of other important points to be made.
There are seven Canadians registered as being in Lithuania, six in Latvia, and two in Estonia.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
There is the question of our $150 million line of credit to help improve distribution and our technical assistance, both of which were based on Mr. Gorbachev's undertaking to the Prime Minister that there would be no crackdown in the Baltics.
There is the concern of many thousands of Canadians of origin in the Baltic states, all of which I agree with when my friend suggests having a debate at a suitable time to discuss this very important issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard both the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park and the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast on an application for an emergency debate relating to events in Lithuania.
I want to remind hon. members that yesterday in the House by unanimous consent, it was resolved:
That this House condemns the brutal and unacceptable Soviet crackdown in Lithuania, and calls upon President Gorbachev and U.S.S.R. authorities to refrain from using further violence against the people and democratically elected governments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia;
That this House appeals to the U.S.S.R. to adhere to its obligations under the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, and to seek solutions consistent with respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms; and
That, recognizing the continuing Canadian government policy not to recognize the de jure annexation of the Baltic states, this House recalls its resolution of March 1990 and continues to support the right of the Baltic peoples to determine their own future.
I depart from usual practice to bring that to the attention of the House because we have here significant development in that there is a unanimous motion dealing with the subject and, of course, hon. members know that it has been dealt with and may well be dealt with in the next few days again in Question Period.
Under the circumstances and given the other things that must be debated, it would not be appropriate to move today to a special debate. But I do want it made very clear how all members of this House on both sides are treating the matter as one of very great urgency and importance and also that they have passed a very strong and unanimous resolution.
I thank the hon. members for raising the matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, January 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
And the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "Kuwait" the following:
"through the continued use of economic sanctions, such support to exclude offensive military action by Canada at this time."
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace will have the floor and I will come to him in a moment. Before that, I am required to present to the House a ruling on the sub-amendment.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Last night, during the course of the debate on the motion of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, and on the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona proposed to move an amendment to the amendment. The text of that amendment reads:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word "sanctions" and substituting the following:
"such support to exclude the involvement by Canada in a military attack on Iraq or Iraqi forces in Kuwait and to encompass diplomatic initiatives including settlement of border and other disputes through UN mediation or the International Court of Justice, promotion of democratization throughout the region, establishment of a mechanism to reduce the arms trade and to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and the convening of an international peace conference to discuss all outstanding Middle East issues."
The Chair took the proposed subamendment under advisement, and I am now prepared to rule on the matter.
Beauchesne's fourth edition, Citation 202, paragraph (3) states clearly:
Since the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment-if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
January 16, 1991

Furthermore, Beauchesne's Fifth Edition further clarifies the concept of a subamendment at Citation 438, paragraph (2), which states:
A subamendment must attempt to explain the substance of the
amendment and may not substitute an entirely new proposal.

Another important criterion is explained at citation 441(2): A sub-amendment must be relevant to the amendment it purports to amend and not to the main motion.
The amendment, now before the House, proposed by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word
"Kuwait" the following:
"through the continued use of economic sanctions, such support to exclude offensive military action by Canada at this time."

The amendment to that amendment which the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona proposes to move goes far beyond the terms of that motion. It introduces a variety of entirely new concepts, for example, the notion of democratization in the area, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, and the idea of an international peace conference.
While these concepts are perhaps germane to the very complex issue being debated, nonetheless, from a procedural perspective, they stand well beyond the terms of what could be considered an acceptable amendment.
Accordingly, the Chair must find that the proposed subamendment is not in order and cannot be proposed.


SUPPORT FOR UNITED NATIONS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am continuing my speech from last evening which was interrupted by the adjournment at midnight. Since that time, the critical hour for war in the Persian Gulf has arrived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, just to put things in the right order, we are now in the 10-minute question and comment period following the hon. member's speech. There are eight minutes left in that period.
Government Orders


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I understood that. Last night a question was asked by the hon. member for Bourassa. After she asked the question, and before I had the opportunity to answer it, you stood up and called the adjournment.
Since that time, the critical hour for the war in the Persian Gulf has arrived, but fortunately both sides are holding their fire and there is still some time to pursue a peaceful settlement.
As I stated, at the end of the debate last night the member for Bourassa asked me why I continued to support the economic sanctions to settle this dispute with Iraq when there were leaks, according to her, along the Iranian and Syrian borders. Consequently, she said that the sanctions would not work.
Today, during the Question Period, the Secretary of State for External Affairs made similar statements. He told the House, without giving us the sources of his information, that the sanctions could not work as far as impacting on Iraq's military capacity. That is one view of the sanctions. That is the view of the hon. member for Bourassa. Obviously, it is the view of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There is another view with respect to that question.
In my speech last night, I referred to the study carried out at Harvard University which was reported on Monday of this week in The New York Times which stated in effect that the sanctions were working and they would bite even harder as we went into the spring.
Also, in my remarks last night- and I will repeat it-I referred to the debate in the American Senate and House of Representatives. A good number of senators and congressmen said their information was that the sanctions were working. They challenged the American government to give them evidence to the contrary and the American government failed to do that.
I also referred to the statements made by the CIA and the American administration before the American elections in November. At that time, the CIA and the United States administration said that the sanctions were working. After the election, they changed their tune and resorted to military alternatives.

Government Orders
Finally, in answer to the member's question, three members of this House, one from each political party visited Iraq. They said that from their observations the sanctions were working. If there is doubt with respect to the sanctions, if there are leaks as alleged by the hon. member for Bourassa and the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, then surely the answer is not war. The answer is to refer this matter back to the Security Council to re-examine the issue, find out where the sanctions are lacking and how they can be strengthened.
When the Security Council established the sanctions in August, it also established a committee to monitor those sanctions. That committee has not yet reported back in an official manner to the Security Council, which should be done. If there is division of opinion as to whether the sanctions are effective or if there are leaks along the Iranian and Syrian borders, that should be examined by that monitoring committee of the Security Council. It should be officially reported to the Security Council. Then the Security Council can decide what should be done. Either it will make further recommendations to strengthen the sanctions to block the holes or then it could decide to go to war.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, contrary to chapter 7 of the charter of the United Nations, it proceeded to the powers under article 42 without thoroughly exhausting the powers under article 41. It says very clearly in the charter that you cannot resort to military action until you are assured that non-military means to settle a dispute have been tried and failed.
No report has been officially given to the United Nations by the monitoring committee on the sanctions that they are not working. I say to this House that the decision to take military action before that was done is wrong.
If the member for Bourassa is right, if the Secretary of State for External Affairs is right that there are gaps in the sanctions, that they will not impact on the military strength of Iraq, then that should be taken up by the Security Council. They should ask for a report from the monitoring committee and then deal with this in the proper way.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, in congratulating the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace on his very fine intervention last night and this afternoon, I would like to ask him to comment on the following statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last October when he said: "We should not rule out the possibility that young Canadian soldiers, women and men, will not return to this country for celebrations but will stay in the gulf for burial". This statement was made in October and I would seek the hon. member's comments on this stand taken at that time.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made similar statements in his speech. He said that in going to war against Iraq there were risks and that there very likely would be casualties and human lives would be lost.
That statement by the Prime Minister and the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last October, referred to by my hon. colleague, in my opinion are cold, callous assumptions with respect to this war. Last night I described it as a revisitation of Dr. Strangelove, a new version of Dr. Strangelove. Here we have politicians, diplomats and generals playing with the lives of millions of ordinary men and women who are being sent to war, but they are not risking their lives themselves.
I said in my speech last night that in former days, in medieval times, when kings and princes decided to go to war, they at least led their troops into battle and risked their own lives with the lives of the people that they sent to war. Here we have the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs talking about Canadian lives as if they could be dispensed with like that, especially when they have not tried sanctions to the very end when many, many people in the world have said that sanctions will work, will continue to bite and will bite even harder as we move into the spring and the summer. For them to talk about Canadian lives, Canadian boys and girls being sent home in body bags, to me is a cold, calculating and callous approach to this whole matter. It indicates that they are not living in the real world and they are not listening to Canadians.
What they should be doing is still pursuing peaceful means in settling this conflict, and they have not done that. Today our leader asked that they attempt to get the Security Council recalled to deal with the committee that is monitoring sanctions. If the information given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is true, that information will go before that committee and will be verified.

Then we will know. It will not simply be opinion. It will be verified by an official committee of the Security Council of the United Nations whether or not those sanctions are working and whether or not we can continue with them.
For the moment war is premature and simply to dispense with Canadian lives in the way that has been done by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs is unacceptable.


Mr, John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I noted that the Speaker has ruled out of order the comprehensive subamendment which the New Democratic Party had introduced in the House. It will be my intention in a minute or so to introduce a briefer subamendment which I trust will be in order and will permit our particular views to be tested in the House.
I will get to that at the conclusion of my brief remarks.
I would like to take this opportunity to make two or three comments on this historic and frankly depressing situation in which we find ourselves. Canadians coast to coast to coast are deeply concerned about how we find ourselves, how the world at the end of the 20th century finds itself in the position of entering into what will only be a catastrophic and terrible war.
The catalogue of the cost in pain that this war will cause has been listed by other members of the House. But let me just summarize.
There will be the loss of the lives of the Armed Forces on both sides, and there are over one million troops now facing each other in the Persian Gulf. There will be thousands upon thousands of young men and women killed or injured in the war that is about to take place. Their families and societies will be affected. There will be thousands who will spend the rest of their lives in pain.
There are thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians who will be hurt. We have heard the catalogue of ecological disaster. It appears that no one has contemplated the geopolitical damage and how the world and that region are to operate once this action is completed.
Government Orders
Canadians are voicing this concern in many ways. Each of us, as a member of Parliament, has been inundated with telephone calls, particularly in the last few days. In every constituency young people-in fact, people of all ages-are conducting vigils, are marching, are trying desperately to express the horror they feel at what is about to take place. It is unbelievable to the world. It is unbelievable to Canada. It must be unbelievable to every member in this House that after the pain and agony of war in this century we find ourselves once again ready to go to war.
The government has tried to defend its role in the past and the role that it is now contemplating once war begins with the flag and the resolution of the United Nations.
While I respect the fact the government has come to the conclusion that it has and respect the fact that there are many members on the government side for whom this must be a very difficult decision, let me say that it is completely wrong to rely on the United Nations as a justification for the war that is about to be unleashed in the Middle East.
Let me first say that the charter makes it absolutely clear that the fundamental purpose of the United Nations is the avoidance of war. The structure of the charter makes it very clear that before war can take place there must either be clear self-defence, which would have justified Kuwait defending itself, and does justify the world community standing by Saudi Arabia and other neighbours of Iraq in defending against any further aggression.
But before military action can take place against Iraqi positions in Kuwait, the Security Council must find that sanctions have failed and are inappropriate and inadequate.
As has been demonstrated over and over again in the last two days, the government simply does not have the evidence that sanctions have proved inadequate. The very resolution on which the government relies, resolution 678 of the Security Council, says not only that other means may be used, but it is very specific. It only authorizes all necessary means.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
The clear implication of that resolution is that military force is not justified if sanctions still have the potential to work. I say "only the potential to work" for there is no certainty in these matters.
Until sanctions have demonstrably failed, as they clearly have not, it is counter to the charter. It is counter to resolution 678. It is counter to the experience of this generation, to the people of this century. It is counter to simple humanity that war can be even contemplated in the Middle East at this time.
Our people therefore ask: "How did we get here? How did it happen?" I suggest-and I try to use these words calmly-that the United States has blackmailed the countries of the United Nations into wrapping the U.S. actions and policy in this area in the flag of the United Nations. The U.S. has made it absolutely clear to its friends that if the United Nations did not provide at least a fig leaf of support, the U.S. would go it alone.
It is clear that the United States made the decision in November that it was going to war in the gulf and nothing would stop it, despite all the efforts of the world community.
Now we sit at the brink of war. This House has only one choice on the resolution before it. This House must vote against war in the Middle East. We urge the House to treat this as a free vote. We do so solemnly and understand its significance.
This is an historic vote. This is a vote that will put our young men and women to war. It is a vote that has only taken place twice before in the history of Canada; in 1939 and again in 1950. It is a vote in which all members must express themselves as they honestly and clearly believe.
In order to make our position as clear as we possibly can, it will be my intention in a second to move a subamendment to the Liberal amendment which effectively would have Canada not go into offensive military action at this time. It leaves open the possibility that tomorrow, the next day, the day after that, Canada could participate in offensive military action.
The word "offensive" in the Liberal amendment has been already defined by the military in this country, and I suspect by the government, as referring precisely to attacks on enemy positions and does not include the support of attacks on enemy positions.
Government spokespeople have said that is defensive action, that it is defensive to accompany B-52 bombers on an attack on Iraq or Kuwait. To make it absolutely clear, I will move the following amendment:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "sanctions" and substituting the following:
"such support to exclude the involvement by Canada in a military attack on Iraq or Iraqi forces in Kuwait".
I would ask the House to give this subamendment its serious consideration, and I would ask all members of the House to support it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could have a few short minutes of the time of the House to comment, if I might, and make a commentary on the subamendment proposed by our colleagues in the NDP. Of course we agree with many of the sentiments: their concern about the use of military action and the real demand that sanctions be applied.
However, I want to make clear why we will have to vote against the amendment. The hon. member cited the charter. We have based much of our argument on the charter as well. We have said that if there is ever to be a policeman role in this world, it has to be through the United Nations and according to the rules set out by the UN charter.
The hon. member properly cited article 41 of the charter when he indicated that the United Nations has the right to establish an economic embargo. Article 42 of the charter then goes on to say that when that embargo, in the judgment of the Security Council, is no longer effective in deterring aggression, the Security Council has the right to call upon members to participate in a military force organized by the UN under the UN command and under the UN flag.
We have been arguing in this House that if there were ever to be use of force against the Iraqis to expel them from Kuwait, it must be within the proper procedures and rules of the United Nations charter.
That is why the amendment we proposed was very careful in its wording at this time, because there may come such an occasion, which we cannot predict or prophesy. There could be other attacks upon other countries. No one can tell what will be in the mind of Saddam Hussein. He certainly has been somewhat unpredictable up to now. We do not want to totally exclude that possibility forever.

Therefore I want to say simply that the hon. member and I have exchanged views on many occasions in the last week. He expressed sentiments, eloquently, I may say, in terms of the need to impose sanctions, to reinforce them, and attacked the government for not giving us any evidence whatsoever other than the somewhat hyped-up evidence the minister tried to give us today.
In the short time remaining I simply want to say that the charter does give the United Nations the right to make a decision about sanctions and then to decide whether a UN military force would be required. We would like to adhere to the charter and that is why, with regret, we will vote against this subamendment.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, the Liberal critic for external affairs has attempted to justify the Liberal failure to support the subamendment which we put forward.
Our subamendment has the effect of deleting what I can frankly only describe as weasel words "at this time" and the insertion of the term "offensive military action". The Liberal amendment is so vague when one examines the word it uses that it in fact permits even those in the Liberal Party who would have CF-18s support B-52 bombers over Kuwait and Iraq to be able to justify their support for that military action. It also permits the day after hostilities break out Liberals, who would want to participate in supporting at least in a defensive capacity the so-called land based assets to which the Minister of National Defence referred, to support that.
We simply say that is not good enough. It is important for each member of this House to stand up and be counted on the fundamental issue: Shall Canada send in its troops to support the U.S. led military attack which we can expect momentarily against Kuwait and Iraq?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to see whether there is not a disposition, as we did with the capital punishment vote, to vote row by row as we would do in a free vote.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the next question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Therefore the question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bell?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bernier
Bjomson
Members
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquifcre)


Right Hon. John N. Ttirner (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, the matter which has brought the House together today under an emergency session could not be at once more sombre or more momentous.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
Our words here by themselves will not decide war and peace, yet we in this House should not in any way diminish the importance of what we say. Above all, we should not diminish the importance of where Canada stands in these very grave days.
Let us be clear from the outset. All of us in this House are united in our desire to see Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. While we may have differing views as to how that should come about, we are all agreed on that objective.

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the government recalled Parliament. As parliamentarians we have important decisions to make, but each member, like each Canadian, has a moral problem. We are all convinced that war is frightening and we have always been in favour of peace. But at what price? We can say that collective security is at stake and that we must act quickly, but then we can also plead for more time to make the sanctions work. We all know that Iraq has rejected any diplomatic initiative, any compromise, any avenue for a potential settlement, whether it comes from France, Jordania, Yemen, the United Nations, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Egypt, Algeria, and so on.
I think that the members who spoke before me gave a good description of the horrors of war, but the basic question is this: What alternative is left if sanctions, diplomatic moves and threats fail before the intransigence of Saddam Hussein? As a nation we have always defended the principle of the sovereignty of our country. We have been and still are among the highly respected members of the United Nations, so how could we choose to ignore our commitments in this instance?

The matter which seizes us today transcends the merely personal, the merely partisan, and the seeking of political advantage.
This Parliament and our country, Canada, are faced with a clear choice. We can continue to stand behind the United Nations and its resolutions for which we voted and which told Iraq what it must do to avoid war.
We can remain an integral part of the most determined demonstration of collective political will ever marshalled by the United Nations to stand up against aggression. In my view it is the choice which all our history and the long tradition of Canada's support for the United Nations oblige us to make today.
To do otherwise would repudiate the votes we have unfailingly cast in support of the United Nations resolutions. It would also repudiate our commitment to internationalism and to the United Nations, the hallmarks of the Liberal Party and Canada's foreign policy for decades.
At the very moment when the United Nations has moved itself to take a strong, unambiguous and collective stand against a brutal aggressor, Canada should not break solidarity with the nations that are standing united against Iraq.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ttimer (Vancouver Quadra):: To do so would give Saddam Hussein what he has been trying unsuccessfully to achieve by every desperate means these past months and weeks.
It has been said that Canada should not stand up to Hussein because this is a dispute about oil on the other side of the world, that it is not in Canada's interests to become embroiled.
Others have compared a war in the gulf to Vietnam, saying it would be an American war for American interests. It has also been argued that the Persian Gulf countries were the creation of occupying colonial powers and many of these nations are mere fiefdoms with capricious and arbitrary borders.
The most persuasive argument against the use of force is that sanctions should be given more time to work.
In my view all these reasons are in the end invalid. None of them justifies any weakening of the collective will now mustered to hold to the United Nations resolutions.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: oil supplies, it is a little more costly and inconvenient; to Europe, a little more serious; to Japan, it is vital; to the Third World, it is disastrous. Those are the countries that would be least able to pay ransom prices that would be imposed.
The United Nations has not stood up to Hussein for the sake of oil. The stake is much higher.
What about the Vietnamese comparison? The critical difference between what happened in Vietnam and what may happen in the gulf is that now the United States is not acting alone, though it is ready to bear by far the largest burden. The nations of the world have arrayed an unprecedented military alliance against Iraq under the auspices, through, and with the authority of the United Nations.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: The United Nations, not the United States, set the January 15 deadline. Anyone who knows the United Nations and knows that institution, knows that it is very jealous in being master of its own destiny. Nobody pushes the United Nations around, not even the United States. No one nation, especially not the United States, is able to impose marching orders on that institution.
No, this is not an American adventure. It is a United Nations action in collective security, one of the greatest historic developments of our time, certainly in my lifetime, since the Second World War, one with enormous impact for the future.
The credibility of the United Nations is at stake. You do not have to know much about history to know that the League of Nations, after it failed to respond to Manchuria and failed to respond to Abyssinia, was finished. Its credibility was sapped, diluted, gone. This is one of those important moments in history.
I know there are those who want to limit Canada's role to peacekeeping. The fact is peace must be established first and unilateral aggression repulsed before peacekeeping can be effective.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: The whole history and tradition and commitment of the party to which I have belonged for 35 years has been in support of the United Nations. Our people were there at the beginning, upholding the principle of collective security and sup-
Govemment Orders
porting the resolutions and actions of the United Nations.
This is a crucial test for that international organization. This is a crucial test for the United Nations, and Canada must support it. This is a crucial test for collective security, and Canada must support it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, the failure of the United Nations to act upon its resolutions would lead eventually to instability, to non-credibility and perhaps to international anarchy.
Aggressors would have hope of profiting from their aggression. Saddam Hussein would sponsor other Husseins, aggressors who would use chemical warfare on both the enemy and even on their own people as Hussein has done, aggressors who would use nuclear weapons should, God forbid, they possess them.
As to how the Persian Gulf states came to be, that makes an interesting historical study. I believe that history is irrelevant today. What is relevant is that there is a sovereign country, or was a sovereign country called Kuwait, which was brutally invaded by a neighbour for no other reason except that it was coveted.
Even if the case for sanctions could be made, and it is a strong case, the issue today is not sanctions. The issue today is whether the United Nations resolutions will be obeyed. It was the United Nations that decided the date. It was the United Nations that decided not to wait for sanctions and it was the United Nations that imposed its own deadline.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: Madam Speaker, the issue before us, before the House and before the world, is whose will is going to prevail: the ambitious will of Saddam Hussein who would hold, at the very least, the Arab world under his thumb, or the collective will of the world expressed as uniquely as it can be expressed within the forum of the United Nations with a rare singleness of purpose never in my lifetime seen by an international body.
If the alliance against Iraq were to fall into disarray from good intentions, from walking too many last miles, the impact upon the future of the United Nations would be devastating to the future efforts of collective security. The United Nations would be fatally exposed as the

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
League of Nations was so ruthlessly, as being simply incapable of standing up to aggression, even to a brutal bully like Hussein.
Canada has had a proud role in the United Nations right from the beginning. This country has stood by the United Nations even when other countries, including the United States, lost faith in that organization.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: It is no accident that we have relied as Canadians upon the fiat of international institutions, the International Monetary Fund as the Minister of Finance knows, the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, and I will leave that argument alone. But with the United Nations we have believed in internationalizing our institutions. We have never treated the United Nations as irrelevant. We have never treated it as merely a talking shop. As Canadians we may have lost some idealism but we never lost faith in the United Nations.
This issue is one on which I had to break silence. Since June I have remained quiet except for the odd lecture at a university. I felt the question before the House was paramount for us as elected representatives of the people of Canada for our country. I felt that each member must speak out as a Canadian, and more than that, as a citizen of the world, because the future of the world order is at stake, and stability and future peace.
I believe that this Parliament has a duty to support the United Nations resolutions as those texts are written, and therefore, the resolution before this House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, this is not an easy situation but in life-this is a comment I am making-there are difficult situations. But when one is firmly convinced about what one is going to do and should do, well one does like the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra just did, one speaks out.
But there are others who are just as convinced about what we are going to do and what we must do, and this is why I will make only a brief comment.
Hon. members are aware of my great respect for the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who has been my friend for 35 years.

I also have belonged to the Liberal Party for close to 40 years. The Liberal Party I stand for is a party that is about to vote against this motion. I can give many explanations which are contrary to those of my right hon. friend. This is not a United Nations declaration of war. If that were the case we would have different kinds of speeches.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Prud'homme: The reading of the situation by my right hon. friend is a reading that I do not share. Therefore I will sit down. I regret it, but I had to say it. Accordingly, with great regret, because friendships sometimes can be broken-I will not break my friendship with my right hon. friend-I will say that I honestly, profoundly, and totally disagree with his reading of the situation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I feel that the process of democracy has been enhanced by the fact that people can speak so freely in this the highest institution in our country.
The fact that I may disagree with the previous member does not detract from the seriousness and importance of each one of us taking a decision, not only to reflect the wishes of our constituents, but to reflect what is utmost in terms of conscience, and to bear the heavy burden of what is involved in war, the possibility of war and death.
Might I ask the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, for whom all of us in this House have tremendous respect, whether he feels, because in his words the ultimate question is support for the United Nations, not a question of war, not a question of whether sanctions should go longer, that the United Nations itself is being denigrated by the fact that all the provisions of chapter 7 have not been followed in the pursuit of this effort by the multinational force, that there is not a flag of the UN, that the military committee has not been appointed in accordance with articles 46 and 47. Does that not denigrate the role of the United Nations itself?

Mr. T\imer (Vancouver Quadra): Madam Speaker, my answer to my good friend is no.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I have been a member of this House for six years and I would like to put a question to the member for Vancouver Quadra.
On a number of occasions, while he was leader of the Liberal Party, we had occasion to vote in this House on matters that some of us considered matters of conscience, in particular the votes on the Meech Lake Accord and on cruise missile testing. At the time the member said it was essential that the party stick together, even though some of us felt that we ought to express our own point of view.
I would like to ask the member for Vancouver Quadra what has changed. What makes this matter of conscience any different from other matters of conscience that this Parliament has had to deal with? Can he explain, if his views are so strongly held, why he did not attend caucus over the last six months to explain to his colleagues-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would find it rather difficult to apply the question, which the hon. member has just asked, to the intervention made by the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of National Defence.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I have been a member of this House since 1979.1 have heard people make speeches because they should make speeches. I have heard people make speeches that were important and will be read. I have just heard a fine speech from the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and one that will be read not only in this Parliament in later years, but in others. I want to thank him.
I do not thank the hon. member, Madam Speaker, on my behalf of my party, but I thank him on behalf of other Canadians. I thank him on behalf of the men and women who are serving Canada today in the Persian Gulf and will serve Canada tomorrow in others areas of the world, continuing to bring about peace and security and a more peaceful order so that we all can have the kind of world that we wish. Those men and women will appreciate, I
Government Orders
am sure, the depth of the hon. member's feelings, not just from the way he delivered his address, but from the decision he made to deliver his address.
We gather here in a very serious and difficult time for the world. Last evening the deadline established by the United Nations in resolution 678 had passed. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, "The opportunity to bring about peace or war was that of Saddam Hussein". It was his decision to make. He initiated a crisis in August by his naked aggression against Kuwait. He could have ended that aggression in a peaceful manner.
From the outset Canada has played an active role in the management of this crisis. Canadian forces ships and aircraft have been on patrol in the region for the last number of months. We sought to have a peaceful end to this crisis. No one in this House, no one in this Parliament seeks war.
What we seek is justice for Kuwait and order in that region of the world.
Members of the House should understand part of the sense of why Canada is in the gulf, and why we will continue to do our part to support the United Nations and the international coalition that has been assembled.
I want to take the next couple of minutes to review some of the activities that have taken place and how this crisis came to cause Canadian men and women to be deployed in the Persian Gulf region.
I want to address the central issue. The central issue of this crisis is pure and naked aggression, brutal and unprovoked. The central question for the world is can we allow that aggression to remain unchallenged. I want to remind the House how this crisis started and why.
On August 2, when Iraq launched a massive invasion in the middle of the night against its much smaller neighbour, Kuwait, it used a force of some 150,000 military personnel, some 12,000 tanks, and some 1,000 armoured vehicles. It used those against the people of Kuwait who had a military force of some 20,000, one-fiftieth of the military force of over one million that Iraq has.
Iraq not only captured Kuwait City, but began a systematic ravaging and pillaging of the country's resources and its most precious resource people.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
The human tragedy of Kuwait has been documented by Amnesty International. It has been mentioned in the House. It does not need repeating. But this is the ugly reality of today. Today, as we speak and debate what Canada's part should be, that ugly reality continues and a nation of people are being destroyed.
There has been much said about the impressive array of international forces that have been assembled. There has been much discussion that this is an American-led initiative. There has been much discussion in the House about Canada following instructions, false as those accusations are, of another country.
I want to remind members of the House that in 1939, when it sent its young men and women into battle, Canada did not follow the instructions of the United States. I want to remind the men and women in the House that in 1940 Canada did not follow the lead of the United States. I want to remind them that in Korea Canada did not follow the lead of the United States. Canada has made its own decision over its history as to how to take part and how to contribute to world order. It is making that decision today, independent of any other thought because it is right to make that decision.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Nine Arab states are part of the international force. The newly emerging democracies of eastern Europe-Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland-are making a contribution to world order. Two states from the African continent, Niger and Senegal, are making a contribution. Why?
The right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs both identified in their addresses to the House the damage, harm, and deprivation that this naked aggression by Iraq is causing the poorest of the poor in the world.
There has been discussion from Iraq and an explanation put forward to the world that in some way this would assist the Palestinian cause, or in some way this was to resist economic aggression by the small country of Kuwait. This aggression took place for no reason but pure greed and power on behalf of Saddam Hussein and his wish for himself. That is what caused the crisis that we are debating today. It is power and profit on behalf of Saddam Hussein.
There is no difference between what we see in the response of the United Nations today and how it has attempted to respond in the past. I say to hon. members that there is a new reality in the United Nations today. It is because of the end of the cold war. It is because of the resolution between the two superpowers that both the United States and the U.S.S.R. will use the United Nations now as an instrument of world order.
When we sent Canadian men and women to the gulf to enforce the embargo against Iraq authorized by the United Nations, we had hoped, as all citizens of this country and other countries had hoped, that the sanctions would bring about the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein.
Some 12 solemn resolutions of the United Nations, from 660 to 678, were all designed to bring about the removal of the aggressor in Kuwait. It has to be remembered that during that time Saddam Hussein, even in the pause for peace, continued to build up his military strength, to occupy the country of Kuwait, and to brutalize the people of that nation.
When we take a look at what would happen, I found it very difficult yesterday when the Leader of the Liberal Party in his address said: "What is wrong with the status quo at this time?" What is wrong with the status quo is that a country is being occupied, its citizens are being brutalized, and a region of the world is in disorder. Order has to be restored.
The pillage and the occupation continues, and the international community has made a decision on a resolution co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, the United States, the U.S.S.R., and Canada. That is resolution 678 which demands that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait by a deadline. That deadline has passed and the Security Council said if that deadline has passed, states were authorized to use all necessary means to bring about Iraq's withdrawal.
It does not constitute any change in the objectives of the Security Council from the start, from 660. Resolution 660 called upon Iraq to remove itself from Kuwait. Every resolution since that, including 678, wants to bring about and is designed to bring about the same thing, the removal of Saddam Hussein.
I have heard in the House that there was something wrong with the drafting of the UN resolution. As much as I admire the intellect of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I do not believe that their intellect is superior to that of the United Nations assembled, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to the legal staff of the United Nations body.

I have heard from both opposition parties that this is somehow a maverick resolution, that this is somehow something that is illegal. This is beyond my comprehension. As intelligent as the individuals we have in this House may be, their combined intellect and their combined desire for justice does not exceed that of the United Nations assembled to bring about order to this world.
T\vo generations of Canadians, because of geography and because of our neighbours, have grown up believing that Canada's role in restoring order is that of peacekeeping, which Canada has done and will continue to do in a very efficient manner. Despite Canada's fortune in geography and neighbours, we cannot forget the history that Canada has. Even in peacekeeping there are severe risks.
The Leader of the Liberal Party, in his address yesterday, said: "What did Canada do at the invasion of Cyprus? It did nothing." I want to remind the House that in that invasion, Canadians were there as peacekeepers. They became involved in a confrontation. Two Canadians from the first commando in Quebec died keeping the peace. Two Stars of Courage and eight medals for bravery were awarded to Canadian men and women who were there keeping the peace in Cyprus.
Another thing that I found strange about the address yesterday by the Leader of the Official Opposition was the statement that it has been the policy of Canada, since 1956, only to enter into military combat under the United Nations. That belies the proud history of his party in bringing Canada into NATO, bringing Canada into a NORAD agreement, and bringing Canada into a world body such as the United Nations.
A country structured like Canada cannot provide its security independently. That is why collective security for the people of Canada is the only kind of security that can be procured. That was recognized 40 or 50 years ago: If Canada wanted to be secure we had to join with others in providing collective security.
Government Orders
We forget sometimes that the first aim of the United Nations was to spare succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The preferred means is a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to conflict. The United Nations founders recognized, shortly after 1945 following the Second World War, that it could not just be a place to talk, that it had to be able to act.
Canada has been very active in talking and supporting in the United Nations but we have to be prepared to act. Everything that we have said, through successive governments of different political parties, has been to use the institution to bring about a peaceful resolution to world conflict. If it cannot be brought about peacefully, the United Nations found a way in its resolutions to bring it about by collective security, by joining together, using force and waging war.
I have some difficulty when I have to reconcile in my own mind why someone would suggest that only 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the population of Canada are against war. I know a lot of Canadians. I know a lot of people on both sides of the aisle in this House. I know some of them well. I do not know any of them who want war. I do not know a Canadian who wants war. Most of all, with my responsibilities for the Canadian forces, the people who least want war are those whose duty and responsibility it falls upon to fight.
There comes with the responsibility of governing and the responsibility of service in the Canadian forces the responsibility to make decisions. The Government of Canada has to make decisions. If we do not take that responsibility and understand it, then the people who voted for us, whether they believe today that the people who voted for us voted improperly, voted for us to make a decision as a government.
We have made a decision not inconsistent with decisions made by previous governments and governments of different political parties, but we made a decision. That is what comes with the responsibility of government. That is what comes with the responsibility of leadership and that is what comes with the responsibility as a Minister of National Defence to advise his cabinet and his Prime Minister. It is not easy. But, when you ask for advice and you ask the men and women who serve and who are professionals in their careers, if the government makes a decision, can you fulfil a commitment made by the government, the answer is yes.

Government Orders
We have had a debate about the roles and future roles of the Canadian forces. I can say to the House with all sincerity that the roles that the Canadian men and women who serve in the Canadian forces will undertake, whether today or in the future, will be roles that they are capable of taking. They will be roles that they trained for and roles that will minimize the risk, if you can minimize risk in a war.
That is what a government does. It makes a decision, maybe not for today, maybe the decision that we made is for tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. I believe it is. I believe that the opportunity to contribute to world order. A responsible government that leads a democracy and a government that has the countiy of Canada and the history of Canada to support it, has the responsibility that we have taken.
We on this side of the House, basically as parliamentarians and partisan politicians, have to look at what we do after this debate.
After this debate, if the motion that is before the House is supported, the Parliament of Canada has spoken and the government has made a decision. In our system of democracy and our parliamentary system, it is difficult not to be partisan after a debate. It is difficult not to continue to carry on the political debate after the votes have been taken. We are able to do it as persons with one another but we are not able, in most cases, to do it as political parties.
If there is one thing that I admire about my cousins south of the border, it is that after the debate and after the decision has been made and the political points have been made, what do Republicans and Democrats do? They go ahead and they say: "I was involved in the debate and I did not succeed in convincing my colleagues but my country needs my support, my President needs my support, and therefore I will do it and I will support my country." That is what we ask. That is what the men and women who serve Canada and what the population of Canada deserve.
Madam Speaker, I would like to move under Standing Order 26:
That this House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of
adjournment to continue the debate on motion 27.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
And more than 15 members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a short point of order. There have been discussions for most of the day to attempt to arrive at a suitable debating schedule on what has to be the most important debate this House has seen in decades.
We offered earlier today, without any question, to sit until at least midnight to discuss these important issues, as we did last night. I am not certain of the wisdom of sitting in the middle of the night, considering many people are watching these debates and want to watch these debates. There are a whole set of questions to be asked.
I want to make the point that continuous negotiations between the parties have occurred during the day. All of a sudden, out of the blue, comes this initiative that, in a sense, is rigged in favour of the government. I do not know whether the government wants to get out of debating this issue as quickly as possible. I do not know whether it wants to go on a holiday as a result of the embarrassment of its position, but I do not understand this initiative.
We are prepared to debate for days and days. We are prepared to debate late at night and early in the morning. While we are saying that we are not prepared to debate around the clock so that the debate will in a sense be curtailed, we are prepared to discuss further, if it is the wish of the House leaders from the other parties to see if we can come to a decision on a debate for the rest of the day. If that is not to be done and we have no assurance of that, then I am afraid that the debate will be ending at six o'clock.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I find the New Democratic Party's position somewhat perplexing. We just heard this party refuse to allow the House to extend the debate past the usual time

of adjournment at 6 p.m., in order to give all members of this House who have not yet had a chance to speak an opportunity to take advantage of their democratic right to speak freely to this important issue. And now, after denying us this opportunity to extend the sitting of the House past 6 p.m., it now wants to sit until midnight.
We are prepared to sit until midnight. However, we would have preferred to continue the debate so that all members of this House would have an opportunity to speak. I do not see why hon. members will not give us that opportunity. They refused to do so yesterday, and they are again refusing today. In any case, the House has our unanimous consent to sit past 6 p.m., until midnight.
Subsequently we may have a chance to make further arrangements with you, Madam Speaker, meaning that when it is the Liberals' turn to speak we intend to ask for permission to share speaking time and have two periods of 10 minutes, thus giving more members a chance to speak.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I would perhaps like to make a couple of suggestions. It is our intention to provide an opportunity so that every single member of Parliament who wishes to speak on this issue has that opportunity.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, earlier today my leader indicated that we are prepared to start earlier in the morning, to speak until midnight every night, to speak on the weekends, Saturdays, Sundays, if that is what is necessary so that everyone has an opportunity to make a serious speech on this issue.
The question is that at this point I want to seek unanimous consent-we can discuss this later into the evening in terms of facilitating debate so that all members have an opportunity to speak-and at least agree now that the House sit until twelve o'clock tonight to continue the debate.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I must say that I am surprised by some of the comments of the House leader for the New Democratic Party who implies to this House-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.
Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: I am sorry. I listened quietly and patiently while your member spoke. Please do me the same courtesy.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If negotiations between parties have to be done on the floor of the House of Commons, maybe we should do it with courtesy.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am surprised when the House leader of the New Democratic Party rises and says that he was surprised by the motion put by the minister. He, of course, was not. I had advised him that that was going to happen and that we were quite prepared to discuss and negotiate any terms and, in fact, we have been carrying on those discussions since early this morning.
In fact, Madam Speaker, you will know that this side co-operated as did all members of the House, in making sure that the New Democratic Party had an opportunity to move a subamendment when its first subamendment had been ruled out of order. We do not need to take any lessons in terms of co-operation and fairness on this side of the House, and in fact I think all members of the House.
We are quite prepared to sit until two, three, four or five in the morning. We are prepared to sit all night because we would like every member of this House to have an opportunity to participate in the debate, including the independent members with whom I have spoken and who have indicated that they are prepared to sit through the night to have an opportunity to participate in this important debate as well. We are prepared to do that.
I do want to signal, Madam Speaker, that we are prepared to sit until midnight in the hopes that the New Democratic Party members will co-operate not just with the government side, but with all members of this House who wish to speak tonight and that they will reconsider their position and allow this House to sit beyond twelve o'clock this evening because, as they know and all of us know, we have a large number of members who wish to participate in this debate.


Miss Grey:: Madam Speaker, I would just like to intervene briefly to say that it was my impression, especially from the NDP, that this House was called back to debate the gulf issue. I find it very ironic-and many other people do too, I am sure-to say: Why would we then cut it off at midnight?

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
If we are here to debate the gulf issue-and it is in fact that important-I would certainly recommend that the NDP reconsider and say: if this that important, let us continue and not just break at midnight.


Mr. Manley:: Madam Speaker, I would like to say as an ordinary member of Parliament that I do not know what the House leaders have talked about or what agreements or disagreements have occurred.
I want to speak before the fighting starts. I am prepared, and I dearly hope that opportunity is afforded to me. I will come at midnight. I will come at three in the morning. I will come at five in the morning. But I want to speak about what is in my heart and what my constituents want to hear in the House of Commons before it is too late.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, one of the responsibilities of Whips in all three parties is to determine the amount of time needed for all members to speak. If every member is to be given 10 minutes, we will need at least 60 hours of debating time.
I would like to suggest that part of the reason for negotiations is the fact that we do not want the government to stop debate arbitrarily, whether it is tomorrow or Friday, and move on to government business not having brought the motion to a vote, while at the same time working to ensure that our members, Liberal members, government members, and Independent members of the House have the full opportunity to speak. We do not want to take a chance on the government giving extended hours with unlimited time and having the vote collapse, or arriving tomorrow at Question Period and finding that the government does not bring the motion forward. We want some guarantees that the people of Canada will have the right to hear from every member of Parliament on this issue.


Mr. Nowlan:: Madam Speaker, I share the views of my friend from Beaver River. This is a special session called to debate this issue. I have listened to my hon. friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan. He is a very interesting individual and very ingenious.
I find it passing strange that we are debating such a fundamental issue in such a very serious way. We are going to work the clock, push the clock in at twelve o'clock and then adjourn and come back and back and back, when the people we are talking about who are very involved in this explosive situation are not working any clock.
I find it even more passing strange that the United States had a two-day debate with extended hours. The American senators and congressmen who found time to go until two and three o'clock on at least one night, if not two, all had a chance to speak.
I say to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that I cannot understand why there would be any objection, since we are here on the second day when the Americans who have a heck of a lot more involved in this than we have were able to conclude their debate within two days, and since we do not have the extended hours to go all the way and fit the desires of all members to make sure that we all have a chance to speak, end it, and get the vote over before the whole thing is totally redundant.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It seems one thing is quite clear. All members in this House seem to agree that this issue should be debated.
In fact, we are now involved in negotiations which would normally take place behind the curtains.
If I am not mistaken, there seems to be consent, at least for now, for continuing debate until midnight. I suggest that we first accept this motion and members will then have a chance to discuss it. Any additions or other arrangements will be taken care of at that time.
Do I have unanimous consent of the House for extending this sitting until midnight?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will therefore proceed with the period for questions and comments following the speech of the Minister of Defence.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Minister of National Defence.
The Minister of National Defence said: "We seek justice for Kuwait." The minister continued by stating that we cannot continue to let this aggression go unchallenged and by indicating the amount of tanks and the amount of personnel that Saddam Hussein unleashed on Kuwait. The minister kept on reminding the Canadian public what Canada has to do.
January 16, 1991

However, I am finding very disturbing this government's statements. It condemned the action against Kuwait, and yet this same government does not condemn actions against other such nations that are small and weak and wherein aggression has happened.
I found it very disturbing that the Ontario caucus chair of this government suggested that the United Nations peacekeeping forces should be withdrawn from Cyprus. Where is the justice? This government sends 2,000 men, 24 planes, and 3 ships. It is going to cost us over $400 million, and yet the government wants to cut 600 soldiers out of Cyprus. When that is done, the whole balance of Cyprus will collapse. The minister said that we lost two lives in Cyprus. I wonder how many lives we are going to lose in Kuwait.
My question for the minister is: Why the double standard? Does the minister not consider the aggression of Thrkey toward Cyprus similar to the aggression of Iraq toward Kuwait? What is the difference here? Is it oil that is the difference? Or, is it that our bosses down in the states say that Cyprus should be divided so that we can have the status quo and the Embassy of Russia can be right across from the Embassy of the United States and they can look at each other?
My question is very simple, and I hope the minister will answer it without any rhetoric. Will he indicate today that the United Nations peacekeeping forces of Canadians will stay in Cyprus at their present strength of 600 men, that he will not move them out of there regardless of what suggestions come from his party? Yes or no?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concern, and I understand why it would appear that he was maybe putting his case in a more forceful manner than would be necessary.
What I said in my address was that the leader of his party had said that Canada did nothing when Cyprus was attacked in 1974. In 1974, Canada had a small contingent of peacekeepers in Cyprus when lUrkey attacked-


An hon. member:: They moved to the south.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The hon. member says that they moved to the south. I will inform the hon. member that they received fire from both sides, both Turkish and Greek Cypriots. Canadians who were there at that time attempting to keep the peace received fire from both Turks
Government Orders
and Greeks on the Isle of Cyprus. During that time, two Canadian soldiers were killed, not by Canadians, I can assure the member, but by the people who were on the island at the time.
The Canadian peacekeeping commitment in Cyprus, I remind the hon. member, is not assessed through the United Nations as are other peacekeeping commitments under the UN auspices. Canada has been supporting that peacekeeping effort for 27 years. That is a commitment to peace. It is a commitment to peace that Canada will carry throughout the world.
The member is asking a question. They are there now. There is another rotation scheduled and there may be another rotation scheduled at that time. I tell the hon. member-I know he must know this-that the mandate is renewed every six months. Therefore there can be a change. But, there is another rotation scheduled, and there is another rotation scheduled, and there may be a change. There may be a change in the United Nations.
The hon. member is asking us now to act outside the authority of the United Nations. I know he does not mean that, and I will sit down at this time.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I missed the first part of the minister's speech. I will read it carefully in Hansard. There was certainly excitement in the speaker preceding him which attracted certain attention out in the lobby. I apologize to him for that.
There are many issues we could discuss in this brief period. Let me raise two, the first being the field hospital. I am frankly a bit disappointed that the government did not announce this in the House or provide us with the background information in advance of the announcement. I do have, therefore, a couple of questions about it.
First of all, could the minister indicate to what extent there remained, after the disposition of the field hospital resources in response to the British request, other field hospital resources available to the Canadian forces? What alternatives were explored, in particular, in view of the anticipated casualties among civilians on both sides, among the nationals on all sides in this matter? Is Canada looking at any other requests, or is it considering any other disposition? Will it be able to respond to these?

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
We see the situation of the refugees, the situation of the migrant workers. Many civilians will be hurt in this war. What exploration did the government make of the possibility of UN supervision or organization of this, or the International Red Cross? The International Red Cross has generally in the past been involved in these kinds of activities.
It seems to us that the accession to the request, humanitarian though that may be, is another step, another escalation of this government's involvement in the assault on the Iraqi positions in Kuwait and Iraq. We understand the government believes that is important, but the government creeps toward this commitment and it gives us great concern.
I may have asked too many questions to be answered in a brief period of time. It may be the minister will find some other opportunity to do it. I guess as I framed the questions I realized it was probably impractical to ask the minister the second question, but I wdll give him notice that I hope at some point to discuss with him the government's understanding of what is to happen after the forces go into Kuwait and assuming they are successful. What regime will be established afterward? What steps are being taken? What estimates are being made of the future?
If he gets a chance to answer those last questions, I would appreciate it now, but basically I would appreciate it if he would focus on the field hospital first.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is accurate. He asked several questions, and I was not able to write them all down. If I forget to answer some, I am sure that he will remind me.
We received a request from the United Kingdom originally for some 600 beds for a surgical hospital. We had to staff it. We did not have that capacity in Canada.
As we staffed the request, it became apparent that we would be able to assemble a field hospital of some 100 beds, totally self-contained and totally sustained by a complement of 550 Canadians.
We were able to find the transportation methods. We were able to acquire a Ro-Ro ship, and we made the announcement today because it was important it be made as early as possible. I made it via press release prior to Question Period, but I was certainly prepared to answer questions in the House.
The hon. member can inquire but I am not sure of how many other countries were approached by the United Kingdom to provide field surgical hospital support, but I would assume that it was not just Canada that they made that request of.
As to whether we consulted with the International Red Cross, no, we had not. When the International Red Cross feels a need to call upon countries, it initiates requests to countries if it believes it could receive the contribution it desires. We did not receive a request from the International Red Cross.
We received a request from members of the Government of the United Kingdom. Because of their increased commitment and their increased complement they did not feel they would be able to handle anticipated casualties. They would not be able to handle what they anticipated would be the prisoners of war who would need medical attention. Under the Geneva Convention they have a responsibility as do other nations. Therefore, they put out a request. We were pleased to be able to comply with that request.
It is, as the hon. member says, something we have not been doing because we believed that by January 15, Saddam Hussein would listen to the United Nations, listen to the resolutions, and remove himself.
The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday said that if he had not complied by midnight last night, Canada would use every effort, including force, to have him removed, along with the other collaborating nations. That, unfortunately, is where we are today. But Canada has made every effort. Other countries have made every effort. I have listened to two days of debate in the House and I have not heard any suggestion that I had not heard before.
I will conclude, Madam Speaker, as I know it is six o'clock. My colleagues should put forward suggestions. There are suggestions that sanctions have been working. I just want to tell the House that air sorties by Iraq from November to now have increased steadily by some 30 per cent. So there is no shortage of military parts and there is no shortage of aviation fuel.
January 16, 1991


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We will be offering the minister some comments on his comments tonight. I am sure that he will appreciate-if he stays around-that we have made suggestions. We will make some more suggestions.
In that context, my caucus members would like to speak on this motion and therefore we would like to split our 20-minute allocation of time when the time comes around to the Liberal caucus into two 10-minute speeches, followed by a period of 5 minutes for comments and questions. In that way, we will get twice as many members of the Liberal caucus to speak. We hope the minister will stay around and listen to us because we have a lot of good suggestions to make to him.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to address the House on this most critical issue that is before us today.
For months we members of the opposition party have been trying to find the answers to many questions from this government, but to no avail.
We agreed with many things that they did. We agreed with the government's imposition of mandatory, economic sanctions against Iraq. We supported the use of military forces under the authority of the UN, to ensure sanctions are upheld but we strongly disagreed with this government's decision to dispatch these forces before the UN authorized such action.
The government announced the dispatch of forces on August 10 and the UN Security Council only authorized such action by its member states on August 25. In addition, this was done without the recall of Parliament.
We called on the government to recall to Parliament so that this crisis and Canada's role in it could be debated. The government refused to do so. We now have the dubious honour, in the Parliament of Canada, of being the only western democracy not to have recalled its national legislative body or to have otherwise extensively consulted with legislators.
Government Orders
What does this mean, besides being an embarrassment to all Canadians? It means that Canadians were not granted the democratic freedom of having their elected officials bring their very real concerns to the floor of this House on an issue of this magnitude. We in this party believe that the government should have made an explicit commitment to Parliament not only to consult it but to also allow the House to decide, by way of a vote, whether or not Canada should actively participate in or otherwise support, an offensive military action against Iraq, before such action occurs.
This did not happen, nor is it happening with this debate on this particular motion. About the only thing the government motion before the House and its subsequent debate are allowing is, quite literally, an eleventh and a half hour airing of feelings.
Thousands upon thousands of people have collectively written or phoned their members of Parliament to show that they want peace. We keep talking about war. What is wrong with talking about peace? They are sending a message to this government that Canadians do not want war.
Of the dozens of constituents who have contacted my office in the past few days, only two have said they support the motion of this government. All the others are saying: give diplomacy, give sanctions and, therefore, peace a chance; we do not want war.
I would like to read from a few of the letters which came to my office. From a letter to the Prime Minister, I read: "Dear Mr. Mulroney: We would like to encourage you to continue a peaceful, non-military settlement in the Middle East. We believe the enforcement of sanctions must be given a chance to work. Canada must be courageous for peace". This letter was signed by 150 parishioners of the City View United Church, in the city of Nepean.
The second letter comes from a person, whose name I will not give, for obvious reasons. He says: "Canada has built a strong reputation with the United Nations as a country of peacekeepers. Let's keep the reputation; we are not aggressors. As a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I am proud to be a peacekeeper and that doesn't mean being on the offensive. Have we given enough time for the sanctions imposed to work? I don't think so. Do we have to be American followers? I don't think so. Let us be a country that believes in peace and not commit ourselves to war".

Government Orders
I have a letter from another gentleman and, again, I will not give his name, starts off by saying, "While the leaders play ego, the innocent pay with their lives in the Arabian gulf. What I am seeing and hearing in the news has driven me to come out of my silence and share a side of the story of Iraq that has been totally ignored. I will speak for the innocent Iraqis. I defected from Iraq over 10 years ago and came to Canada. I do not have any empathy with the ruling regime but I certain do for the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people have barely survived, over 20 years, under the oppression of the ruthless leadership of Saddam Hussein. I have chosen Canada as my homeland for it represents the principles I hold dear. I feel that those ideals are being betrayed by the present Canadian government. One of the reasons I chose Canada was because of its even-handed approach and tolerance in dealing with international problems but, by aligning ourselves in a wartime stance, Canada and the Government of Canada is violating that stand".
This is from a Ken Toews from Nepean. "I am writing to express my dismay at our involvement in the escalating war in the Middle East. I agree that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. There have been many invasions in the past 10 years where more people were killed and brutalized worse than the Kuwaitis. The Americans did not get involved. The reason? They did not have an economic reason for it. Perhaps if we had not sold the Middle East so many arms they would not be fighting this war today."
This is from Jean Godt, also from Nepean. She says: "Eventually we are going to have a peace conference in the Middle East and we will have to address many of the demands Hussein and his supporters are making. So, why not bypass the war and have the peace conference now rather than satisfying the war-mongering hawks in the U.S." Doesn't that make sense? It is so simplistic. Let's have peace, forget about the war and sit around a table and talk.
This is from Caroline Fitzpatrick of Nepean would like to have more talks about peace and less about war. She says: "The resolution of the UN did not say go to war. Give sanctions a longer try." "Appalled at the thought of going to war", comes from Isabelle Muir. Leslie Arnold says: "Only supportive of war if UN votes to go to war and the UN has not voted to go to war". This is contrary to what someone said earlier here today.
Having prepared a 20-minute speech and now being told I have to make a 10-minute speech, I am having to jump a few pages. I would like to speak about who is going to win in this war. I do not think that anybody is going to win. Surely, it is not going to be us as Canadians.
There has been no clearly defined national Canadian interest in attacking Iraq. Iraq is not the winner, not with the military build-up that is set against it. It would be obliterated. Israel would not be the winner in a war if Iraq is attacked. Saddam Hussein has promised to launch a massive strike against Israel. Surely Kuwait is not the big winner if a war breaks out because it would, in all likelihood, be the scene of the hard fought, bloody trench warfare.
The Secretary of State and other government members opposite have suggested that we should participate in war against Iraq because of the human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein against the people of Kuwait and indeed his own people. We have seen this man wage one of the bloodiest wars in history against Iran. We have seen him conduct ruthless experiments with biological and chemical weaponry on his own people. We have seen him mercilessly gas the Kurds. The international community has been hesitant in the past to condemn his actions, perhaps because members of the international , community have had an agenda in which Saddam Hussein and his oil played the major role.
As my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, so eloquently pointed out in an earlier speech, all of us can carry some of the blame for the present situation. The world community has helped supply Saddam Hussein with the very weapons which he could well turn back on to us. What goes around comes around. What is the hurry now for Canada to enter a war without first giving sanctions and diplomacy a proper chance.
The government has suggested that sanctions, if given proper time, will not affect Hussein, because he will starve his own people before shortages would ever be allowed to reach his troops. They like to use the imagery of starving children. I have heard this argument over and over again. In other words they say, rather than starve the people, let's go in there and blow them all to kingdom come. I guess this is going to be a more humane way for these children of Iraq to die. This is absolute nonsense.
January 16, 1991

I say peace begotten of peace would be lasting and that future generations of children in the Middle East would benefit from a peaceful approach as profoundly and wonderfully as would this generation of children from the Middle East.
As Senate majority leader, George Mitchell, said: "War is such a grave undertaking, with such serious consequences, we must make certain that war is employed only as a last resort."
In closing, I would like to quote an excerpt from a November The Ottawa Citizen editorial, as well as yesterday's: "The resolution that Canada is considering voting for would be a double tragedy.
Not only would it start a war that is totally unnecessary, it would also administer a major defeat to the United Nations. The sanctions program is strictly a UN operation, controlled and directed by the Security Council. The military action under the proposed resolution would not be a UN operation. It would be an independent operation authorized by the Security Council but not supervised by it. Any war fought essentially by the U.S. and its allies would not be a UN war. There would be no blue helmets and no direction from the UN.
A peaceful resolution of this crisis will produce complications, granted, but not so many complications as would a war. We should not be fighting a war not of our own making, a war that might have been prevented and a war that may well create as many problems as it solves.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we are finally debating this issue in Parliament. We have been calling upon the Government of Canada to recall Parliament since last fall, since last summer in fact. I am glad that we are finally having this debate. Since the beginning when the Canadian forces were committed to the gulf initially to enforce sanctions, the government has treated Parliament as a rubber stamp, treated it with something close to contempt. I am glad that we are finally having this debate so that parliamentarians can express their views.
Government Orders
The resolution that we are debating today is really not the issue. The issue before Canadians now is should Canada be going to war or not. I think that it is worth reading into the record, as I have 10 minutes only, and as this makes many of the points that we had been making on this side of the House, the position of the United Nations Association in Canada, because what Mr. Geoffrey Grenville-Wood is saying, as the national President of the United Nations Association in Canada, is exactly what this party has been saying all along. I am going to read it into the record:
The world awaits, with increasing trepidation, the expiry of the deadline imposed by the United Nations Security Council for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait
I believe that the Security Council Resolution, number 678 of November 29, giving the authority to use force was a bad resolution, bad for the United Nations and bad for world peace. In my view, it was not necessary. Sanctions should have been given a chance to have an effect.
He says further:
Also, the resolution was arguably wrong in law in that it did not comply with the requirement in the United Nations Charter that sanctions had "proven to be inadequate", before force could be used.
As recently as last month, the Director of the CIA told the U.S. Congress that given a reasonable time sanctions would have a crippling effect on the Iraqi economy.
This resolution is bad also because it permits the United States and the others in the coalition to consider that the UN has now authorized them, in George Bush's words, to "kick arse". Well, the UN is not about (that). The organization was created at the end of the Second World War to save the peoples of the world from, in the words of the UN Charter, "the scourge of war". The Charter sets out a very clear step by step process that is to be followed to suppress aggression. The emphasis throughout this document is on the non-violent resolution of disputes.
His statement goes on:
It is important to remember that any offensive action that might be undertaken will not be taken on behalf of the United Nations. This will not be a United Nations war.
Yes, the Charter does permit the use of force, but only in very restricted circumstances and only as a last resort. I do not believe-
He says, as head of the United Nations Association in Canada:
-we were at that stage when this resolution was passed, in November. And, in fact we are still not there.

Government Orders
Ibday, our House of Commons will be meeting to debate Canada's response to the latest turn of events. I ask all Members of Parliament to examine very carefully their position
In light of the dubious validity of Resolution 678, Canada should confine itself to continuing sanctions enforcement at sea and in the air, to providing emergency humanitarian assistance to the refugees inevitably created by the commencement of hostilities and to the provision of a field hospital, as recently requested by the United Kingdom.
Let Canada join with others in continuing the search for diplomatic solutions.
He concludes:
War is not necessary. Ask yourself, what will have been gained if literally tens of thousands of lives are lost in order to remove Iraq from Kuwait? Will the price be seen as worthwhile, if we can not be certain that the same objective could have been achieved without the loss of any lives?
Perhaps the time has come for a pause of good sense, for all our sakes.
That is the position of the United Nations Association in Canada and indeed, the position of this party. The government is not proposing to send us to war as part of a UN force. My colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has made that point repeatedly in the House of Commons.
We have, as Canadians, fought under the UN flag before. We have fought under the NATO flag before. But this is not a NATO flag. This is not a UN flag. The time now is not the same as we have seen in the past. We believe that sanctions have not had time to work. There was an article in The New York Times as recently as two days ago which said that sanctions will bite, and soon, and referred to evidence presented to the President of the United States by the CIA recently.
We believe that sanctions can work given time and that they should be given that time to work. We support those sanctions and have from the beginning. We have supported the presence of the Canadian forces in the Gulf. As one of those who has visited the Canadian forces, I want to say that we are proud on this side of the competence and the professionalism that the Canadian forces are showing in the gulf. Three per cent of the ships are ours, are Canadian ships, and yet we are doing 25 per cent of the interceptions.
We believe this is the course of action that we should continue and that the Canadian forces should not be put on a different footing at this time, that war is not inevitable. The position of this party is not that there
should be peace at any cost, but that at this time it is not necessary to commit this country to war.
Indeed, the Government of Canada has not made the case for Canada going to war, not made the case that it is in Canada's best interest to go to war at this time. That appears also to be the public opinion in this country. We have seen a Gallup poll within the past day or so that shows that 56 per cent of Canadians believe that war is wrong for Canada at this time. Those figures change across the country. They are very strong in my part of the country and they are very strong in the province of Quebec. But 56 per cent of all Canadians feel that now is not the time for Canada to go to war.
I suspect that one of the reasons they feel this way is that they feel that historically the role of this country has been peacekeeper and not war-maker, and that inevitably when the conflict, if it should come, is over then there will be a need for peacekeeping and Canada will have a role to play. Canada will undoubtedly have lost a great deal of the credibility that we have had in the past and therefore we will have diminished our capability of playing the role of peacekeeper.
The position of this party is clear. We believe that war is an option always and we cannot rule out forever the option of war. But we believe this is not the time for this country to commit itself and its forces to war. We believe there is another course of action. We believe sanctions should be given more time to have their effect and that is the course of action that the government should be following. That is why we oppose this resolution.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the member would really categorize Canada's contribution as warlike.
We have three ships in the gulf patrolling to make sure that an embargo is enforced. We have 24 airplanes that will be patrolling air space over the gulf itself, according to the Minister of National Defence, to make sure that the military assets of the alliance are not attacked. We are possibly going to have a hospital there of which the hon. member approves.
Where is the warlike action by Canada that the member does not approve of? Where is the warlike activity that Canada is undertaking? Does the member not agree that as a peacekeeping group we ought to enforce an embargo, that we ought to make sure that those who are enforcing the embargo are protected from the air and that those who may be involved in hostilities are looked after in hospitals and protected with respect to their health and their physical being?

Is that not the kind of thing he ought to stand up and say: "Hear, hear. Canada ought to do this"?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the position is quite clear.
This party supports what the Canadian forces are doing in the gulf now, and has. It supports the ships, the role of the aircraft in patrolling for those ships and the presence of a field hospital. We have no problems with enforcing the sanctions and with Canadian forces helping to do that.
What we object to is the course of action that the government is on. The course of action the government is on is quite clear. I quote from the Prime Minister's speech: "Canada will join in expelling Hussein by force."
In those words, it is quite clear to all of us that the Prime Minister has committed the country to the course of war. This party is saying we do not agree with that. We think there are other options. We think there are other ways in which the Government of Canada should be acting. We do not agree with the words of the Prime Minister: "Canada will join in expelling Hussein by force."
That is not the position for Canada to be taking at this time. That is why this party objects.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am most interested.
Is it the view of this member, then, if the 30-odd countries that have forces there-including Britain, France and the United States-start hostilities in accordance with the UN resolution, that Canada should pick up its hospital if it is there and take it home, pick up its ships and take them home and send its aircraft home because we do not want to be part of what might be evicting Saddam Hussein by force?
Or, is it his view that simply being there as we clearly intend to be if force is used by our colleagues in the alliance, and enforcing and making sure that hostile actions do not take place against our allies in a defensive manner is in fact the kind of thing that we should not be involved in, that we should turn tail and run home? Is that the way he would have us support the United Nations?
Government Orders


Bill Rompkey: First of all, Madam Speaker, the hon. member may have information that I do not have, but I do not have information that 30 countries are going to go to war against Iraq.
If that is what he is saying, he obviously has information that I do not have. I have no information that 30 countries are going to go to war against Iraq. If he can tell me which countries have declared war against Iraq, or which countries are going to, then I would listen to that argument.
From our point of view, we do not know which countries have taken those decisions.
Furthermore, it is our position that if we were to use that course of action it should be under a UN flag. We have no objection at all to supporting a UN force, as we have in the past Canadians have supported UN forces, but there is no UN flag here. There is no UN force at the moment, and therefore nothing for Canada to join.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I presume the member has an objection to the Canadian flag; the Canadian flag should not fly over our forces but a UN flag, or a NATO flag, or somebody else's flag, but not our flag.
Is it the position of the Liberal Party that we should take our Canadian flag home, make sure it does not fly when there are hazards in the world enforcing UN resolutions? Is that the position of the Liberal Party?


Bill Rompkey: I was happy to reply to the other two interventions because at least they had some substance but I am afraid that that particular intervention is just too silly to warrant a response.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Coopen Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House that we on this side would now like to break our speeches into the tens and of course the fives. However, I am sure that the House would agree, in the event there are no questions that perhaps what we could do at that point would be to move the third speaker into that third 10 minute spot in the normal 30 minutes allotted to our side.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: On a point of clarification, what the parliamentary secretary is proposing is not to do away with the 10 minute question and comment period but if there are no questions or comments, simply to expedite the debate by using it for another speaker. That is fine, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is adopted. Resuming debate. The Associate Minister of National Defence.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, as I rise today to participate in this most grave debate, I think we are all aware that the situation in the gulf has become very serious indeed. The Canadian government joins with all Canadians in sadness that a peaceful solution to the Persian Gulf crisis now appears improbable.
The questions that we are discussing during this debate, and the questions that obviously need to be answered are: Why is Canada involved? What is the Canadian interest? What are, if any, the opportunities for diplomacy or sanctions to work? If hostilities break out, what would be the role and the participation of the Canadians who are serving there with the Canadian Armed Forces?
Let me make it clear. In terms of the Canadian interest and why Canadians are involved, in my mind there is only one course. The only course is for Canada as in our tradition, as in our history, to stand with the world community in our resolute opposition to the brutal invasion of Kuwait and the disruption of order and stability in the Middle East that has followed.
Yes, such resolve does bring the risk of armed conflict, but in my mind the failure to stand as one with the world community would stand not only as a tragic betrayal of our history and of our collective security but would also devastate the United Nations as an instrument of global security.
I would ask my colleagues to reflect on the nature of the Hussein regime. We have heard others speak of this as well. This is a government, as we all know, that has not hesitated to use chemical weapons against its own population. It has promised to do the same if not worse, to Israel and Saudi Arabia. This breaches all international protocols and shows a complete disregard for the civilian populations of the region.
Iraq's quests for weapons of mass destruction is unhappily married to an approach to foreign policy that could only be called duplicitous.
If we in Canada do not oppose this callous use of force, I really fear that we will condemn the world to an environment where weapons will have triumphed over law, and the security and the well-being of all countries will be left to the forbearance of other men like Saddam Hussein. We will have turned from the rule of law to the rule of the jungle. This ominous future is simply unacceptable and must be spumed.
In trying to resolve this crisis since August 2, there has been more diplomacy, more symmetry, than we have probably seen ever, certainly in the history of this century. It has all come to naught.
It has come to naught for one reason because Saddam Hussein has slammed the door on every effort to try to find a peaceful resolution to force him to withdraw from Kuwait in a peaceful manner.
I congratulate all those who have been involved in those efforts. We heard last night from the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the role that he and the Prime Minister have played, along with other world leaders in making these efforts. But it all appears to have been to no avail.
Perhaps not surprisingly, because when I was in the gulf region just over the last 10-day period, I met with leaders in the gulf countries. They reminded me of one elemental thing that perhaps sitting back here in Canada we may find hard to believe. They said: "You can't treat Saddam Hussein like a statesman. You can't deal with him as you would with rational leaders and try to negotiate. He is not motivated by statesmanship. He is only motivated by terror and fear." That is the way that he has run his regime. So it is with sadness that we have seen that diplomacy has not worked.
What about sanctions? We have heard in this House so many members say that if we would just let sanctions work, that in and of itself would somehow persuade Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait. In my heart of hearts, I wish that were true, but wishing does not make it true. I think we have to look at the reality that we are faced with.
First of all, let us recall that when Saddam Hussein and his forces invaded Kuwait they pillaged that country. The savagery that they have displayed-the plundering, the executions of innocent people, the rape of women, and the murder of children-is something that quite honestly I never dreamed would exist in this century. I had really thought, naively perhaps, that the civilized world had come to a point that this would not happen.

It has been, I guess, one of the most shocking realities that I have had to come to grips with as I read the Amnesty International reports, read the publication "The Rape of Kuwait", and met with Kuwaiti refugees, as I did recently when I was in the Middle East. They said to me: "How can you let this continue, while you sit back comfortable in your own living rooms in your own countries saying let sanctions work? If this continues, our country is destroyed. Our people are being destroyed. We have asked for your help. Please help us now".
We know with our own participation in our naval forces, they have done an outstanding job. In fact, it is their assessment that they have blocked probably 95 per cent of all the traffic coming into the Persian Gulf. Our own ships, in fact, have done about 25 per cent of those interceptions.
We do know through other ways and other methods that certain goods have been able to get into Iraq. What we really do know is that it is not having an impact on Saddam Hussein's military might. Ordinary people may be suffering. They may not be getting through. Women and children are the victims of this brutality in Kuwait and in Iraq. The military is being looked after. They are getting food.
While I was there he announced a big increase in wages for the military and the officers were all going to get cars. The Minister of National Defence mentioned that the number of aircraft sorties has increased significantly. It is not having an impact on his will to support this military. Again, when I was there and talking to people in that region who have dealt with him, who know him and know that regime, they were quite honestly saying: "We appreciate the sanctions. We appreciate that that has brought together the international community, but they won't work". They were beyond any discussion about the possibility of sanctions having any impact.
I listened to them and I must admit that it was after that trip that I came back with a much different view about the possibilities of any kind of a peaceful resolution for the dispute in that region. Diplomacy has been tried and sanctions have been tried, but to no avail. We are now dealing with a situation where, through the United Nations, we have said that we are prepared to use
Government Orders
force, if necessary, in order to get Saddam Hussein to comply with all the other resolutions and perhaps now the time has come.
I believe that Canada has to back its words with action. We have over there over 1,800 Canadians, three ships, a squadron of CF-18. We have medical personnel on the U.S hospital ship Mercy, we have a headquarters in Bahrain. We have announced today that we will also be sending over a field hospital unit to support the United Kingdom. Those men and women there with whom I met are very proud of their professionalism. They do not want war any more than any of us want war but they know that they are capable of doing their jobs and they are prepared to do their jobs in the interests of Canada and in the interests of international peace and security.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think, in fairness to the House and to the associate minister, I should let her know that on television, live, right now, is a report from Baghdad that the American troops have started their offensive action in Baghdad. I think that it is fair to the minister to let her know that. Perhaps she may wish to reflect on that or perhaps change her remarks.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing that information to the House in this veiy timely way but, no, unfortunately that does not change my remarks because, quite honestly, I have been prepared for that eventuality as I think the men and women who serve in the forces have been. I in fact am not surprised, quite honestly, that it would happen at this time. I think what we all have to do now is hope and pray for our people and for their families. I know that they will do what they have to do, and we hope that they will come home safe and sound. I hope all members in the House will show support for our Canadians who are there.
When I was there, they told me that what was really important to them was receiving the good wishes and the letters from people across the country, and it was very important to them to know that they had the support. I know the hon. member, along with so many in his riding, has shown that support to them.

Government Orders
One can only hope, now that hostilities have broken out, that they will be able to achieve an end with minimal loss of life and that, as a result, we will be able to achieve the objective of restoring peace and restoring law and order, and that through the united action and the auspices of the United Nations and the countries that are involved, generations in the future will say to us: 'Yes, those were very difficult decisions for the leaders at that time but those, indeed, were the right decisions for the future security of the world".


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very difficult point in time for all members of the House, and in particular for me, because hostilities having commenced. I probably have 400 to 600 families in my riding with husbands, sons, daughters and wives serving with the Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf.
This is probably the most emotional moment of my life and I want to ask the minister this question, very clearly, because the level of anxiety is very high. We have over 1,800 Canadian personnel, I think it is, in the gulf. Can the minister please respond and tell me: what is the intention of the Canadian government? Could we kindly stop debating this senseless resolution about sanctions? I know that she is concerned about the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and she feels very strongly about the role of Canada. But, for God's sake, if war has broken out, will she stand in her place and tell us what is the role of the Canadian Armed Forces? Can she not drop this facade of talking about enforcing UN sanctions in the gulf, and tell the men and women, who are serving in the gulf and their families, what it means, if indeed it means that her government is now ordering them to be part of the war and what their role will be? Let us stop this nonsense of a debate on UN sanctions and debate the real thing, that is the role of the Canadian Armed Forces and the fate of our men and women who are serving this country so gallantly.


Mary Collins: With the permission of the Speaker, I hope I will be given the time to respond to that, because I was going to come to it in my remarks when I had the
opportunity. It is very important for members of the House to understand what we anticipate will be the role, not knowing when this will happen, and to be able to explain it to them.
We have ships and aircraft there. We have ships in the southern part of the Persian Gulf. They will continue to be in that area in support of the replenishment group, that is the ships that provide supplies. Our ships will provide escort to those ships. That is the role they have been involved in up to now and will continue in that role.
Our aircraft will continue with combat air patrols over the gulf. This is something they have been doing since they arrived. They will continue to protect the shipping and all assets in that region. As hostilities break out, that will continue to be what they will be asked to do. If there are other roles or tasks that they may be asked to do, that will be considered by cabinet. No other decisions have been made on that point at this particular time.
I have been asked if I could inform the House that cabinet will be meeting this evening at 8. I advise my colleagues and Canadians of that this evening. At the conclusion of my remarks, I have been asked to move:
That the question now be put.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, like the rest of my colleagues, I am in somewhat of a quandary to understand the events of the last few moments, what impact they will have on this debate and, indeed, what it means to the rest of the evening. However, I will begin my remarks by quoting from a speech in the House of Commons yesterday made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He stated that it is very easy to start a war, but it is very difficult to stop one.
In view of what has transpired, it becomes extremely apparent that the war the hon. gentleman was referring to started on August 2 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and, in view of what is happening now, it becomes even more meaningful. Obviously, those remarks would have been better directed at Saddam Hussein than to the House of Commons.
January 16, 1991

A war has been started and the complications of this war started by the Iraqis on August 2 obviously could be absolutely devastating. The complications of this war to the Iraqis themselves are incalculable.
It has become apparent by the events in the last few minutes that we now can assume that nothing less will be acceptable other than the total destruction of Saddam Hussein and his political apparatus. Apparently nothing else will suffice. What a tragedy.
The country of Iraq itself is beautiful. It is a land of historical significance that goes back to the Garden of Eden. Noah and his sons built the ark in that land. The ruins of the city of Babylon about 100 kilometres from Baghdad attest to the historical significance of the region. It is the land of Christ and Paul.
The city of Baghdad itself, which is apparently now under siege by the allied forces, played a significant and historical role in the development of world commerce and trade. It was the crossroads of civilization at one point. It played a key role in that part of our recent history when the Arab world was the most significant society known to the world encompassing much of Europe and the entire Middle East. It has a proud and noble history.
Baghdad's people are proud. The country has progressed by Arab standards significantly. The city of Baghdad itself is a modem city based on western technology.
I, along with a couple of my colleagues from the House of Commons, was in Baghdad not that many weeks ago. The first thing that struck us as we drove from the airport into Baghdad was how the country had suffered under the ravages of a costly war in terms of hundreds of thousands of lives of young men and also in economic terms. That war cost a lot.
It struck us how a country that had undergone such tremendous pressures could have developed throughout all of those eight long years of its war with Iran to the point where it was. The highways were immaculate. The infrastructure, the universities, the schools, the hospitals and the bridges are significant and impressive.
Government Orders
The country of Iraq maintained that rebuilding program throughout all those years, again at a significant cost to the society. A huge debt was built up.
That debt has contributed significantly to what we have seen today because, obviously, had the country been able to put the dollars that were available to it through its oil revenues to building even more of its society than to the war it had with Iran, then indeed it would have been even that much more significant today than it is.
I want to talk just about the enlightenment of the Iraqi society. Much of the movers and shakers, the people who are the doctors, the lawyers and the professors have been educated in western society. A lot of them have been educated in this country. A lot of them have been educated in the United States.
I feel confident by saying that what has transpired since August 2 has been a terrible embarrassment to these people to know that they are associated with a regime that could be as cold and calculating as it has been that would wrought such destruction on a neighbouring state.
How many times did I say during the period of time with the Iraqi-Iranian situation what a comfort it would be to know that those dollars and costs in terms of lives could be better expended in bringing peace and harmony to the region rather than sacrificing them in the manner that they were.
That apparently is the mentality of the people who Saddam Hussein has put in positions of authority under him.
I have met many Iraqis who are honest and good and sound and solid people. I have a great deal of respect for them. I have a great deal of respect for the ambassador to this country, Mr. A1 Shawi, whom I know to be a decent and honourable person. I would like to caution that we, as Canadians do not react to what is taking place now, categorizing all Iraqis and the people of Iraq because of the madness of one individual who is in power and is controlling the machinery of war in that nation.
Iraq has had some legitimacy. Iraqis do feel that they have had some legitimacy to do what they have done. Prior to 1916 Kuwait was a part of that country. It was only petitioned by the British.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
We have come to the point where those people who were in a position to know the difficulties of the sanctions that were passed and authorized by the United Nations in August, October and November, what impact they were, or, more important were not having. They took the decision to move ahead because they felt that the price we would have to bear would be too costly. It was my intention and it will be my intention to vote for this resolution that is before the House because I support the United Nations.
I support the United Nations in its role regardless of whether it is in the passage of resolutions to condemn the illegal occupation of Kuwait or whether, through resolutions of the United Nations, to condemn the illegal occupation by Israel in the occupied territories of the West Bank. I cannot be hypocritical about this matter. I will support Canada's decision, and rightfully so, to support the actions and activities of the United Nations. We are the fourth largest contributor to that body. We have no reason to believe that we should at this point abandon the principles of that organization.
When this is all over and said and done with, the fact of the matter is that we will have to look for new ways of ensuring that all the problems of the region are dealt with. Make no mistake about it, although Saddam Hussein had no legitimacy in linking his invasion of Kuwait with that particular issue, until the Palestinian issue is dealt with under the resolutions that have been passed which we as a country have supported, those being resolutions 242 and 338, there will be no lasting peace.
I leave this message with the people of this nation from my perspective and my constituency. I am supportive of the actions and the activities that have been undertaken by this government to support the United Nations resolutions. I want to give my assurances to the men and women serving in that theatre that we as Canadians have a grave concern for their future and must do everything we can to ensure their safety, and that they return home to a country and a world that have much better served because of their integrity and determination.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a comment and a question to the hon. member.
In my riding of Scarborough-Agincourt I had the opportunity to poll over 2,000 people. The vast majority of them were saying we should give sanctions more time to work. They were gravely concerned about our young men and women in the gulf. As we just witnessed, hostilities have erupted in the gulf. The theatre of operation and what will happen in the gulf bring a new perspective. This government will be asking our young men and women to put their lives on the line. My colleague is from Dartmouth which has roughly 600 families, of which 450 have men and women in the gulf. They are gravely concerned. The Canadian people are gravely concerned. The Canadian public wants to know what the is mandate of the Canadian forces, what is the engagement, and what are their orders.
Is the hon. member aware of any of those questions? Does he agree that the hostilities should cease and desist? Does he agree that the safety of our young men and women in the gulf is first and foremost in the mind of every Canadian?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment. I can only say that I am too much aware of what the circumstances are in the Middle East, what circumstances are in Iraq, what circumstances are in the entire region.
I have been a watcher of the Middle East for a good number of years. I am extremely and deeply conscientious of the role that we as Canadians have played as peacekeepers in the area and the reputation that we have developed throughout the years as a peacekeeper.
When I became aware that Canada was supporting the United Nations resolutions to impose sanctions against Iraq for its illegal occupation, its illegal invasion of Kuwait, I was extremely hopeful that indeed that would work, that the activities undertaken by the world community would have the desired effect of averting a war.
It has been said in this House many times during this debate that nobody wants a war. As the Minister of National Defence stated earlier, he has not met a single Canadian, nor have I, who is in favour of war.
The fact of the matter is we have a hostility that has erupted. There are declarations of war. Canada has a proud and noble tradition of supporting what is right. We are not in favour of aggression. We are not in favour of actions against fellow members of the United Nations. We have pledged ourselves by being a member, a full

participating member, a first world nation, to support the United Nations in the efforts it has undertaken and in resolutions it undertakes.
Our history is one we should be proud of. The men and women of our Armed Forces are people who are first-class in the work they have determined they want to undertake. I have every confidence in their ability to deal with their activities from a professional standpoint. I am sure that they understand their duty to this country and their duty to the world. They are prepared to undertake those responsibilities in a very serious manner, anticipating that they will be returning to this country leaving the world in better condition than they found it because of their interest.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, as I rise tonight let me indicate that I have just received news that hostilities have in fact broken out in the Persian Gulf. That brings to mind a question as to the very nature of us as human beings. What perverse creatures we are if the first collective act after the end of the cold war is to make war. Our party has had a long history of support for the United Nations, the body that is there to prevent war.
The charter of the United Nations says that the purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security. As I said, we have a long history of support for the United Nations, and how perverse that the United Nations is now being used as an instrument to make war. How can we accomplish the goal of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security by making war? We must see the contradiction in that.
It can be argued that UN resolution 678 is a contradiction of the UN charter, because it is a licence to make war, but it could also be argued that in the very language of resolution 678 it says to use all necessary means. All necessary means have not yet been exhausted.
I hope those news reports that are just now coming in are wrong. I hope that it is just a test, another way of bringing the nerves of the Iraqi forces to the verge. If it is in fact true that the bombs are dropping, I remind this House there are human beings under those bombs.
Government Orders
The United States claims to be supporting international law and opposing aggression. That rings hollow when we look at the history of the United States concern for East Timor, Cyprus, Lebanon, the occupied territories, Grenada, Panama, and Nicaragua.
Canada must respect international law as embodied by UN Security Council resolution 660, but that respect cannot be selective. There has been a curious selectivity of outrage. I think that this House in this debate should be peeling away those levels of hypocrisy. To date this government has squandered Canada's historic opportunity as a member of the Security Council to play an independent peacekeeping role and peacemaking role in the gulf.
I want to turn my comments now to focus on reputations. Reputations either personal, business, organizational or national are the currency by which we are judged, are the currency by which we are held in esteem, are the currency by way we make progress.
Canada's international reputation-and I speak from experience because I have travelled internationally both as a member of Parliament and prior to becoming a member of Parliament-is enormous. Canada's international reputation is as a peacemaker, as a peacekeeper. Canada's Armed Forces have always been used to this effect.
Now this government has taken that role and perverted that historic role of the Canadian Armed Forces by engaging in this war. This resolution that we are debating here tonight, make no mistake about the kind of wishy-washy language of the resolution, is the government's way of asking for our permission to make war. That is not what we want to do.
I have just been handed a note, Mr. Speaker, and the White House has now confirmed the war has started.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Lynn Hunter: Canada's international reputation has just changed dramatically. I urge those government members, who feel as I do that this is a perversion of Canada's history, to vote against it.
I am going to focus my remarks now on the environmental consequences. The Secretary of State for External Affairs talked earlier today during Question Period

Government Orders
about environmental warfare. That apparently is what we are in. Iraq has proclaimed that it will destroy the Kuwaiti oilfields if attacked. Kuwait has over an estimated over 1,000 oil wells. I think I should be permitted an emotional digression here.
The International Council of Scientific Unions and other scientists estimate that 10 million barrels of oil a day could bum if Iraq carries through on its threat. Smoke produced from burning those oil wells could change global temperatures by several degrees, disrupt African and Asian monsoons, and devastate world harvests. Smoke would result in local and regionalized ozone holes. Temperatures in the area of burning wells could reach 160 degrees where human beings are, while temperatures underneath the massive smoke soot layers could plummet 68 degrees.
This is environmental warfare and we are part of it if this government goes ahead. Again I urge government members to remember Canada's role in history, to remember our peacekeeping and peacemaking role, and that we are the ones who act between combatants and we have done it with distinction.
Global warming could be accelerated by 30 years. This is not going to be a quick, surgical strike. Oh, no, what is going to happen is going to devastate our world environmentally.
A year long oilfield conflagration is quite possible because the oil wells in Kuwait pump up the oil automatically. They do not need a pump, so once they start burning we cannot put them out.
The onset, duration, intensity, and character of the monsoons in Asia will be affected. Failure of the monsoons could impact over one billion people. Those people depend on those rains for crops and for water. Even a partial monsoon failure would cause more deaths than the total populations of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia combined.
That is what we are into. That is the madness that we have embarked upon.
I know a lot has been said about the evil nature of Saddam Hussein. I think most of us in this House would absolutely agree. But, make no mistake: we are not doing a nice, quick, surgical strike against Saddam Hussein. We are going against a population. Some 45 per cent of the population of Iraq and Kuwait is made up of people
under the age of 15; children, Mr. Speaker. Those are the people those bombs are raining down on now; children.
I am not naive about war. I have seen it. I am one of the few members of Parliament who has seen it. I have been part of it in Africa when I was working for Oxfam Canada, so war is not an abstract thing to me. It is very real. Being part of a war is not like watching it on television, in movies like Apocalypse Now or Bom on the 4th of July, although those were hard-hitting and certainly brought forth very real emotions. When it is actually yourself in a bunker with the ground shaking and shells going off around you, it is real, it is not a movie. I have experienced that. I wish that more members of Parliament had, because I do not think they would go for any part of war if they had actually experienced it.
This is an historic day in the House. I urge government members again to please reconsider. Look into your souls and see if you want this on your conscience, for Canada to be part of this conflagration that we have begun tonight.
What we are contemplating here is not abstract. We have to realize that the environmental consequences of this war are extensive, the global warming is probably just the most benign consequence, that just the U.S. forces alone have over 1,000 nuclear warheads in the Persian Gulf. What happens if any of those nuclear warheads are hit even by accident? Do the so-called experts know what happens if the Iraqi nuclear generating station is hit? Do the experts know that? This again is not going to be a limited war. How can we be so sure that it will be a quick, sharp strike and then we will get rid of this brutal dictator? There are other brutal dictators in this world. I wonder why we have not focused our attentions on them before now. I think Canadians who are watching here tonight know dam well why, because it was not in the economic interests of the United States up to now. This is apparent.
This is why I go back to how I started my comments. It brings questions to my mind about the very perversity of human nature. How can we secure international peace and security by making war? It is obscene.
I will conclude my remarks by once again urging government members to look into their souls and consciences, to look into their pride of country. The historic development of Canada has been one of pride in being there between the combatants and to contribute to peace

in the world. By voting for this resolution they are departing from that history in a very tragic way. So please reconsider and vote against it. This war is too horrific to even contemplate, and apparently we are now in it. We must vote against this resolution. We must. Although the war has begun, our international reputation must be used to effect to stop it, to act as a mediator, to get us out of this horrible, horrible mess.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have two motions to put before the House. The first one rises from negotiations that have been ongoing throughout the day.
I move:
That this House continue to sit beyond the normal time of adjournment to continue the debate on Motion No. 27, that during this time no dilatory motions, no motions to adjourn this House, nor any quorum calls shall be accepted by the Chair.
And that when no member rises to speak, the question shall be deemed to have been put and the vote deferred until an agreed upon time by the three House leaders.
In the event that the House is still sitting at 10.59 a.m., Thursday, January 17,1991, it shall stand adjourned until 11 a.m. that day and resume debate on Government Order No. 27, after Routine Proceedings and continue until no member is rising for debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable to the first motion. I am happy that members will have a chance to speak to this very serious matter.
I would only hope that when this order is adopted that other arrangements will be made for all caucuses to meet prior to resuming debate on this most important question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe I understand the motion my hon. friend has put forward but, just to ensure that I understand him, we will continue to debate for as long as it takes, until all members of Parliament have had an opportunity to speak. Essentially what we are doing is breaking for Question Period, if necessary, on Thursday, or if the case may be, even for Friday, but we will continue to sit until the last member of Parliament has completed his or her remarks with the exception of Question Periods.
Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, without getting into the technicalities of all the procedural rules, yes, I can confirm that that is essentially what we are talking about.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do not want to rub it in, Mr. Speaker, but I take it the NDP House leader knows exactly what we are doing and agrees with what we are doing and will not change his mind.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, being one of the members who is not subject to party discipline, I would like to know before I either give or not give unanimous consent-I do not know what my colleague for Beaver River will do- whether the government, and I see there are several ministers here, has a statement it would like to make. I think the members are entitled to know before we give unanimous consent, at least those of us who can deny it, what the rationale is for not continuing the debate.


Albert Glen Cooper: May I indicate to the hon. member that the purpose of this motion is to continue the debate and to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to speak to the issue.
The second motion that I indicated I was going to suggest to the House is that the House suspend to the call of the Chair for a period of time to allow members to brief themselves on what has now happened in the Gulf to give them an opportunity to have a look at the issue, to be briefed among their caucuses and then at the call of the Chair, return to the House.
I do not know what amount of time we are talking about, about an hour and a half to two hours, perhaps an hour. But at that point I would expect a statement from this side of the House which would bring the entire House up to date on the latest developments. It would give all of us a chance to caucus and, in the hon. member's case, at least an opportunity to take some time to look at the news and see what has been happening.
It is not our intention in any way to stifle debate, but rather to give everyone an opportunity.
Mr. Kilgour. If that is the only explanation the member can give, I think that this debate can continue. I realize that basically we all have the same knowledge base. People like the member who just spoke so eloquently against the motion should be entitled to go on speaking.

Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: The hon. member was not in the House at, I believe, a few minutes to six.
I want to make sure he understands that unless we pass the motion I have just suggested to the House of Commons, in fact, the debate adjourns tonight at midnight. There would only be that amount of time and the hon. member, himself, would not likely get to participate.
The idea for this motion is to allow us to sit around the clock to make sure that members like himself and other members of this House have an opportunity to express themselves on this very important issue. It is not in any way, to shut down debate, but in fact by not adopting this motion that is what happens.
By the agreement earlier, the House would rise at midnight.


David Kilgour: With all due respect for the hon. member who just spoke, I must tell him that I was not bom yesterday.

The parliamentary secretary is perfectly capable of walking out and bringing in another motion that does exactly the same thing with respect to giving all members a chance to speak-there are many of us on all sides of the House-without the provision that we now have to go back to watch the television sets.
I would respectfully suggest that in the interests of giving everybody a chance to speak, supporting his view of letting him sit around the clock, if we simply continue to have the debate now he can go out and draft another motion that would allow those people who wish to speak to continue speaking for the next hour and a half. Then we have the right to speak after midnight.
On the basis of what I just said, I will not give unanimous consent to allow this to happen.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the hon. member that there is a rather simple solution to his concern.
First, why not agree to the motion to extend the sitting? That means we continue debating from that moment on.
The second part, which we have not yet discussed-I think we should give everybody in this House an opportunity to do so-is whether the House should suspend for a period of time to allow the caucuses to caucus.
That is the second element, and it has nothing to do with the first motion. If the member agrees to the first motion, he will in fact accomplish his goals, and then he can express himself on the second. If he fails to do that, I am afraid what he has done is put us in a position where debate may end at midnight tonight. I do not think anybody on either side of this House wants that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If I understand correctly, two motions have been introduced by the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps we might dispose of the first motion.
Does the House agree with the first motion pursuant to which the hours would be extended so the House would sit through the night if hon. members so wish?
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. I now would suggest to the House that we consider, in the light of what has just happened, that we suspend the House for a period of time to the call of the Chair to allow members to caucus, to discuss what has happened and, to give them an opportunity to reflect on it. Then we will come back to the House to continue the debate for whatever period of time we agree to.
I hesitate to put a time limit on it only because I know that cabinet is meeting. I would like to make sure that cabinet has an opportunity to complete the deliberations and report back to the House.
January 16, 1991

Government Orders
I personally would have no problem saying an hour and a half to two hours, but I simply do not know. I can give hon. members my personal assurance that our intention is not to adjourn the House and forget anything happened, but to give everyone an opportunity to be briefed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am following the conversations here quite carefully.
Our difficulty with the proposal before us is that I do not think Canadians watching the deliberations of the House tonight realize we are in a very tight spot.
War has started in the Middle East from the information we have from our TV. I would appreciate it very much if the government would come into the House in the next 15 or 20 minutes and make a statement confirming that fact for us and giving us the government's information as to what the situation is with regard to the 7.30, 7.45 or 8 p.m. situation in the Middle East at this time.
After that we will want to caucus with our members individually, collectively in our various caucuses, at which time we could suspend the House after the statement and come back later on for the debate. I do think it is very important, that the House be given the information officially from the government, not from CNN, not from the TV, but from the government. The world is struck with a very difficult situation called war and this House will have to deal with that situation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, simply I want to add my voice of support to the point just made by my hon. friend, the House leader of the Official Opposition. We are obviously at a very crucial moment.
We have also agreed to no dilatory motions, no quorum calls, in other words, virtually everyone from the House can go out and watch television to get an update on the proceedings or discuss with their caucus members without at this point adjourning. My suggestion is that we simply continue on and for those people who want to become updated as information becomes available, they will have an opportunity but we should not adjourn the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, there are times in life when one must have a very clear and very cold mind. This is one such occasion. I did not consult any of the leaders-but the government is meeting now to discuss the situation. If it is not doing so, it should, immediately.

It is a proposal that I think could meet all of the difficult times we are going through together.
It would seem to me more logical to allow the cabinet to meet, to ask the Prime Minister to come to the House and make a statement, and to suspend the House again, so that caucuses could meet for difficult discussions. Then fix an exact time, and I leave that to the Whips of each party to decide under the direction of the leadership of their party, to come back. But I cannot understand why, at this very unbelievable time in the life of the Parliament of Canada, members would keep talking while we should bow silently, suspend the House, agree that the Prime Minister could come back here at a certain hour, make a statement, suspend the House, and then come back for discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Saint-Denis, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we ought not to launch a debate. The parliamentary secretary has asked for unanimous consent. I agree that a number of members should be allowed to express their views, and again I recognize the parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the sentiments of the House and I think at the present time that it would be wise that we just continue with the debate. If the need arises we can revisit this question at a later point.


Marcel Prud'homme: And you know that I tried to get above partisanship.

Government Orders
I would like every colleague, the Canadian people and every colleague to watch what is going on. It is not enough for me as a responsible Member of Parliament to know that we can go on debating without knowing exactly at a certain time. Surely, the leadership of this Parliament, the leadership includes you, Monsieur, each of the parties and the Independent members, has to know. Can we not agree, in a cool fashion, because at this hour it is not time for emotion?
It is time for cool minds to prevail and to know at what time if possible we could be informed if the Prime Minister, my Prime Minister-because at this hour he is my Prime Minister-can come back and make a statement. Then we would debate with each other. Then we would come back and take our responsibility. I think it makes sense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think the messages got through on both sides. There seems to be agreement to continue the debate. After the intervention of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, we are now at the questions and comments period.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment. Perhaps the time I take to make this comment will be sufficient to enable some members to obtain more information and convey it to the House.

I heard and listened with tremendous attention to the speech made moments ago by a colleague, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. I want to congratulate her on her speech.
I would like to say that I share very much some of the concerns she has expressed. Many of the things she has said I agree with.
Perhaps what I want to say more than anything else is that I hope she is wrong, and I am wrong, because of the events that have occurred over the last few minutes.
It could very well be-as a matter of fact I understand it has now been confirmed by the White House-that the military intervention, call it for what it is, that war has begun. The very grim picture of that war that has been described by members so eloquently earlier on is in many ways an eventual situation that I also foresee as possible.
I want to reiterate how wrong I hope we both are in this view, not because politicians usually like to be wrong but, more important, because the lives of so many people are at stake and because those hostilities, that war has begun.
This is not really a question, but I would like to make a comment to which our colleague may add a further comment. I still believe this action that has been initiated was not the proper one, but that should not in any way be mistaken or misinterpreted to suggest that if our troops are in a war situation I would not support them.
This does not mean that I like them being there because I do not.
Hopefully within the next few minutes someone from the government side will be able to brief this House on the current situation.
I think you will appreciate that almost anything we say at this point without that briefing is academic. The question is no longer. Are we or are we not in favour of military action, if the action has already been authorized moments ago by this government? I hope that is not the case but, if it is, the debate will have to change.
I am very saddened about what has happened in the last few minutes and perhaps all Canadians over the next few minutes and hours should pray that at the very least the hostilities will be short-lived, if they are in fact occurring as we believe they are, and that as few human lives as possible will be lost in that process.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am saddened that presumably war has started in the Persian Gulf. We knew when we started this special session of the House of Commons that every Canadian in the country is familiar with the burden that the Canadian nation is faced with.
My leader, when he spoke on debate on this motion to persuade the government not to declare war, said that the "threat of death hangs over the Middle East and its people". Now that war has started, as reported, that fear is becoming even more real.
I am not a military expert but I have some idea what war can do to a human body. The human body is not made of steel or shatterproof glass or armour. It is living and fragile. I ask: How will the bodies of our young soldiers survive an attack of poison gas? Sources say our troops do not have enough protection and I hope that is wrong because, in the event of use of poison gas only a gas mask intervenes between the life of our Canadian
January 16, 1991

soldier and death. The skin will be penetrated by this gas.
I am truly saddened, and although I have prepared a series of arguments to convince this government not to go to war, I would like to end on a note of extreme sorrow. I share the sorrow of all Canadians that we have not been able to prevent the onset of war.
I am reminded of the great right hon. Lester Pearson who orchestrated peace at the Suez Canal in 1957. In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize he said: "The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants and for peace like retarded pygmies."
I am really saddened and I hope the devastation of war that I fear shall not come to pass.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, to conclude this question and comment period, I would like to respond. I think that it is important to note the obvious: that bombs do not distinguish between Canadians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis or Americans. They do not distinguish nationalities. They also do not distinguish between soldiers and civilians. They do not distinguish between adults and children.
This is a terrible day for the world.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, we obviously are at a very precarious moment in the history of Canada right now. Although I certainly had my remarks prepared long before my time was due to speak, right now we must be aware of what we have seen on TV in the preceding 20 minutes or half-hour or so.
This truly is the most difficult moment in my entire life. I was bom long after World War II ended. As a Canadian citizen right now seeing what is happening in our country, it is truly devastating and very frightening.
I certainly believe that all Canadians are in agreement with the world-wide condemnation of the unprovoked and unjustified invasion and subsequent annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. I think it is important that Canadians acknowledge and recognize that we support the United Nations Security Council and its objective of ensuring that Kuwait is re-established and that Iraqi troops are removed from it. It is necessary to assess adequately and exactly what requirements and sacrifices Canadians will be called upon to make in order to meet these objectives. I will just put a P.S. on my remarks here. We in fact are in
Government Orders
that conflict right now. I think that all of us in this House need rise above any partisan interests we may have and say, are, regardless of what our feelings are about this issue, and all of us have deeply held and very strong views about it-that we must band together and not pay any attention at this point, to what political party we belong or what our persuasion is. We are Canadian citizens. We know that this has in fact begun. We must stand together and say: "We are Canadians and we must abide by what is going on right now, whether we like it or not".
It is important that beyond the principle that Kuwait should be sovereign we as Canadians certainly are aware of what are these options to achieve Kuwait sovereignty. On the cost of these options, certainly we have to ask the question whether they are economic or military. I dare say that they are a combination of both.
Unfortunately, again, because of recent developments, we are speaking in the middle of this incident as it is in fact unfolding. We are aware, world-wide, that Saddam Hussein has not been influenced in any way to comply with the UN resolutions to leave Kuwait peacefully. Of course the main tool to date has been economic sanctions. Many will say that those sanctions have not had a chance to work.
Those of us who have been following the news hour by hour in these last several days, have seen Saddam Hussein and his entire Iraqi Parliament standing up and chanting: "With our blood and with our souls, we will die for this cause and go to death for Saddam". We are seeing the painful results of that tonight as we are participating in this debate at this very moment.
All of us would have wished that this would have resolved itself peacefully. Obviously nobody has wanted to or would continue to want to resort to force. But again, as I have thought about this personally and politically over the last few days, the question begged to be asked: How long do we keep economic sanctions going and when would we ever have broken Saddam Hussein? He acknowledged right up to the end, until we are in this position right now, that he would not back down and that he would carry on.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
There is the question about sanctions: What good have they done? What have been the costs of the economic sanctions? There certainly have been painful repercussions for Kuwaitis because they have been occupied for some five months now. There has also been the cost upon those nations which are enforcing the sanctions. We in Canada have felt the effects of it as well, as we saw budget cutbacks of government spending of about $350 million some weeks ago.
TUrkey has been facing $3 billion worth of direct assistance taken away. I read in a magazine recently that it has cancelled tourist bookings and is facing incredible problems because of the sanctions it has tried to impose and keep up with.
Jordan, of course, is in a very tenuous position right now as it is basically a supporter basically of the allied nations but is very frightened about what is happening in fact now, as we look at the clock at 7.50 p.m. on this night some eight hours ahead of us in the gulf.
I said again just a few minutes ago that we all would have wished this would have resolved itself in the most peaceful manner. In fact now that we have begun, we look forward to this being resolved with the least human cost possible.
I want to say as a Canadian citizen and as the member of Parliament who represents the riding of Beaver River in which we have two air force bases, CFB Edmonton at Namao as well as CFB Cold Lake, one hour north of my house where we deployed the CF-18s from, that we are very concerned about this. In fact, my neighbours are family members of those who have left CFB Cold Lake and are on active service now in the gulf. Many people in this House will have people for whom they feel directly responsible in terms of family members, friends, as well as members of Parliament, as this is the only place in this whole land that represents every square mile of this country. All of us in this Parliament of Canada will be touched in one way or another by this war which is now taking place.
There is no doubt in my mind as the member for Parliament for Beaver River representing these air force bases, that those people who are serving in the armed forces right now, all of whom are volunteers, joined the forces because they were proud to do so. They will do their duty and they will obey their orders regardless.
They will do what they are told to do no matter what process is followed. Unfortunately, it does little to enhance democracy and broaden public support when these decisions are made perhaps after the fact.
No one in the House tonight should get into any kind of partisan wrangling, which I mentioned earlier, and say what the government should have done or what we thought should have happened. We are at this point in our history, and in fact it has begun. We need to move forward now and say this is the position we are in, but nonetheless we have to ask those questions. I daresay we will be asking them of ourselves for years to come.
Military force is always a last resort after all other reasonable alternatives have been explored. Again, my remarks were prepared earlier. They are out of date because they were written only a few hours ago. We have crossed that boundary now in the world. The right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra earlier today said we are global citizens and we have now crossed that boundary and we are involved.
Let me just say in wrapping up my remarks that I believe at this point there is really very little that we actually can say in terms of what we should have done, could have done, or might have done. I have said that we have crossed that threshold. Whatever the motives are, or were, for this war, we could be critical and say it was just oil. We could also be critical as global citizens and say that we as human beings lust for money and power. I think that is a world-wide characteristic of the human condition.
Let us put that aside and say yes, perhaps oil was a factor. I daresay it was not the only factor, but certainly a factor that all of us have to agree, whether we like it or not, is a part of our life. If I may get really personal for a moment, I know how much gas I use, because my riding is 28,000 square kilometres and I am one of those people who uses a great amount of petroleum products. I appreciate that, because it enables me to travel the length and breadth of my constituency and get together with people.
The United Nations Security Council, as we are watching it now, is doing something that we have not seen happen for a very long time. We are seeing countries coming together, Russia and the United States for instance, where even a year ago or a year and a half ago such a thing would never have happened.

One year ago in this House we all celebrated the breakdown of the Berlin wall. What an exciting moment that was for us as Canadians as well as members of Parliament, to celebrate that freedom. No sooner do we turn around than we are facing another enemy in a different place. The people of Kuwait, the people of Iraq, in fact those forces that are now participating in the gulf are going to pay a cost, and I have to ask myself the question: Will it be worth it? Can we let these people go on unchecked? Earlier I mentioned briefly about the human condition. I think that analogy shows us it is, very difficult to assume that the world will get along as friends forever. Let us work toward world peace. Let us work together as global citizens to try to achieve those ends.
My final comment is to the people in this House whom I have come to respect as colleagues and many as friends. I am in a particularly unique position in this House because I sit independently as the only member of the Reform Party. As I alluded to earlier, we are Canadian citizens and we must band together as members of a country that is part of the UN. As hon. members speak tonight, I would encourage each and every one of them to be as non-partisan as possible and to remember the fact that we are not just facing each other on opposite sides of an aisle. We have a responsibility to our country and whether we like it or not that is our responsibility. No matter what position each of us takes, personally and politically, let us rise above that and be considered to be that nation which is peace loving and peacekeeping.
I would hope and pray for the safe return of all Canadian and UN forces and for a quick resolution of this situation. I would ask each and every one of us to search our hearts tonight, to respect each other, to respect all Canadian citizens and certainly the UN and to be very grateful for what the UN has stood for. I hope that we would support what is happening now and pray that we would have a speedy resolution to this, and that we will be able to look at and learn from the lessons this painful war has taught.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is truly a sombre moment in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada. I have listened with a great
Government Orders
deal of interest to the eloquence of my colleague, the hon. member for Beaver River. I commend her on her comments about the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who serve so proudly from her riding.
I think it is important at this point in time that all members in this place, and Canadians who must feel somewhat apprehensive as they watch what is unfolding, remember something. I want them to remember the tens of thousands of men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who have served this country so proudly in times of peace and now in what appears to be a time of war.
I am very lucky because I probably have one of the largest military constituencies in the country. We have a strong naval tradition in the riding of Dartmouth. I know the type of anxiety that has been felt up to this point by the families, the children, the friends and the neighbours of those men and women who are serving in the Canadian Armed Forces in the Persian Gulf. I cannot imagine that emotion that they are feeling right now, the feeling of helplessness, as they wait to see what is happening to their loved ones.
I think if there is anything important for Canadians who are watching now it is to remember, especially in my riding of Dartmouth. I hope that there are a lot watching. Look down your street and you are going to find a family of one of those people because there are about 600 of them. Look around your neighbourhood and offer support and compassion to those men and women and their families because they desperately need it tonight.
I am going to be selfish, Mr. Speaker. To my constituents in the riding of Dartmouth who believe very strongly in the role of the Canadian military in our riding, in our economy and in our country-and it is the same for the member for Beaver River-I urge those Canadians in this time of uncertainty, fear and anguish to reach out and to touch those families and to tell them, as best you can, that you care and that you understand what they are going through. But, most of all, give your support because the members of the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a great job for the people of Canada. The least we can do at this time of uncertainty is to give them the support that they deserve.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders


Mr, Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to second the comments of my colleague for Dartmouth. I also want to compliment the member for Beaver River on her remarks.
I think many of us came to this House tonight prepared for speeches, knowing that hope springs eternally for peace. There were members of my riding who came in as late as today from petitioning in church with hundreds of names signed. There were many others from the riding. None of us here in this House can really have the full sense of appreciation or imagination that is required to get the real feeling of what is going on right now.
Three years ago I spent half a summer in Riyadh and Kuwait. I spent three weeks in Kuwait. I have many friends there right now. I cannot imagine how they are feeling at this moment, but I think that the point the member for Beaver River made is that we are now global citizens and we as Canadians must all work together and hope that peace will return soon.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say my appreciation to my friend and colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who was very instrumental in making me feel comfortable in this place when I came down here as a bit of a loner.
I recall that we were part of the left-handed comer in the House. I would just like to say now that he has moved down to the other end of the House that I miss his support and his input.
I would like to affirm what these two members have said in terms of what we are now in. We do not have any option any more. Regardless of whether people thought they should be there or should not be there, it does not matter now. It is immaterial.
Let us stand behind these forces. Those people whom we see who have no experience in sending their husbands away to war. Young wives, my age, with young children, have no experience to draw on, about letting their husbands go away in an F-18, which is dangerous enough at best, on routine flights over northern Canada and CFB Cold Lake. We are in this now. The arguments that led up to it are irrelevant.
As I mentioned earlier, we must look forward and ask what will happen once this over. Let us pray that it is over quickly.
My friend talked about us being global citizens. Kuwait has not been a democratic nation. Kuwait needs to have democracy.
I would just like to put on the record that I believe, as a Canadian citizen, that once this war is over we should put pressure and encouragement on the United Nations for Kuwait to have a United Nations' sponsored and supervised elections, democratically held elections, and that we see it move from a non-democratic state toward democracy as we have seen all across eastern Europe in this last year and a half.
Let me recommend to my colleagues here and anybody watching from the galleries or across Canada: let us not be complacent, as I believe we Canadians have been for so long. Let us not be complacent and assume that things are going well all across the world. Let this be an example that we must be careful. We must initiate and pursue peace always and not just assume that it is going to happen without us putting all our energy toward those ends.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I find it my duty to bring some news to this House which I learned from my home. As we speak, right now, Thrkey has proceeded with three submarines against Cyprus. They have landed four divisions on the island and have four frigates offshore.
Mr. Speaker, that was heard live from Greece and if that continues, Greece and Thrkey could be drawn into a war and we could be in for a global conflict.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue in this debate.
On August 2 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. That was when the war began-


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to make a very brief statement if I might.
I want to confirm that after the failure of diplomacy an attack on Iraq began tonight. In accordance with discussions and extensive consultations that occurred over the last several months, the Prime Minister of Canada was informed by the President of the United States, before the Americans began their action of the American intentions.

The cabinet is meeting momentarily to discuss the situation. The Prime Minister of Canada will be in this House later tonight after that meeting to report to the House of Commons.

I would like to say a few words in French. I can confirm that an attack has begun against Iraq. The Prime Minister was informed before the attack by the president of the United States. The Canadian cabinet will meet a few minutes from now, and the Prime Minister intends to be here to address the House of Commons after the cabinet meeting.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that reason must prevail. We must have cool heads. It makes so much sense to me, and as I said personally to my friend, the hon. member of Edmonton Southeast, it would make so much more sense if we at this time adjourned the House, suspended the House, until a time when our Prime Minister would come and speak to the House. Then, again, suspend the House so that caucus could meet.
I do not know what the Prime Minister is going to say but we would at least like to have intelligent discussion with our colleagues from each party as to continued debate on this matter.
It would seem to be so logical to suspend the sitting of the House, get an indication as to what time the Prime Minister of Canada will come to the House and speak, then suspend again until an agreed-to time. The Whips and House leaders are here to discuss the matter and decide if we should come back to the House, and then decide the kind of speeches we might make.
I humbly say that on this occasion-
I submit, with respect, that in the circumstances this is the best and most intelligent way to proceed.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If I am not mistaken, and for the benefit of those who are listening, we seem to be reverting to the motion tabled earlier by the parliamentary secretary, namely that the House be allowed to suspend its business with unanimous consent. The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member just said. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has already made the announcement, and if the Prime Minister has something to add, I think it is very important that we should hear it.
I was told earlier that all caucuses are now meeting to discuss what may be the most important question we have ever debated in our lives. Although I think the debate can go on, I respect the opinions of members on both sides of the House. Since I am the only independent member present at this moment, except for my hon. colleague who will probably have a few words to add, I am quite prepared to accept the motion moved by my hon. friend.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that we as members on the government side had agreed to this earlier. In fact we encouraged it.
We want to suggest that probably what we should do is suspend the House to the call of the Chair, with a 15-minute bell to make sure that members have an opportunity to be alerted of the House coming back.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we agree, but we would like to have some indication as to approximately what time. I was told ten o'clock earlier this day. I was wondering if it could be confirmed that it would be around ten o'clock.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the House that it would be our intention to come back at approximately ten o'clock. I hope the House will forgive me using the word "approximately". Since cabinet is meeting, I have to have some allowances. Certainly it is our intention to come back around ten o'clock.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The sitting of the House will therefore be suspended until around 10 p.m. The bells will ring for 15 minutes to announce that the sitting has resumed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 8.13 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 10.10 p.m.
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will know that military action began in the Persian Gulf today, as announced at 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
President Bush called me beforehand to apprise me that he had authorized such action. We understand at the moment that the participants of this first wave included forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
The fighting is a direct consequence of Saddam Hussein's determination to maintain his brutal occupation and his illegal annexation of Kuwait in defiance of world opinion. He has chosen to ignore the numerous opportunities that were open to him to withdraw. He has had 167 days since his illegal and brutal invasion of Kuwait on August 2, and 48 full days since the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 678 on November 29.
In all of that time, with all of the requests, with all of the appeals from leaders around the world, his answer has been no. Resolution 678 provided a pause for peace and gave Saddam Hussein one final opportunity to comply with the will of the world community, as duly expressed through the United Nations. He refused again and again to take that opportunity. Diplomacy has been given every chance to end this conflict peacefully, but regrettably has failed in the face of Saddam Hussein's intransigence. That same intransigence and his indifference to the suffering of his own people, especially the children, made it clear that sanctions alone were not going to force him to leave Kuwait.
There has not been a single iota of interest on his part in complying with the United Nations directives. The time has regrettably come therefore to act in the
interests of preserving world order and in safeguarding the effectiveness of the United Nations. A failure by the world community to act would have undermined the United Nations, turned a blind eye to naked aggression, condoned violations of international law and encouraged other potential aggressors to defy world opinion in the pursuit of their own criminal ambitions. If Canada had stood aside, we would have betrayed our own national interests, repudiated our own responsibilities and dishonoured our own traditions.
Canada did not stand aside in two world wars and Korea. Canada, and in particular the Secretary of State for External Affairs, did not stand aside from the hard work of seeking a peaceful end to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and, Mr. Speaker, Canada is not standing aside tonight from giving effect to the United Nations resolutions.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have joined with other UN members in expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait by force. At this moment our CF-18s are flying combat air patrol in the northern Persian Gulf, protecting Canadian and allied ships and personnel in the gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. Canadian ships are now engaged in the company of others, in playing a vital role in assuring the support of the seaborn arm of the coalition in the Persian Gulf.
Earlier this evening, the cabinet met and gave the Chief of the Defence Staff, General de Chastelain, authority for the Canadian forces to carry out sweep and escort missions over Kuwait and Iraq, if necessary and appropriate. All Canadian forces in the gulf will nevertheless remain under Canadian command.
I profoundly regret, as I am sure, do all members of this House, that it has come to this. It is with no satisfaction that we take up arms, because war is always a tragedy, but the greater tragedy would have been for criminal aggression to go unchecked.
I am sure that the safety of the Canadian service men and women in the gulf is uppermost in the minds of all members. Our hearts go out tonight to those families with loved ones, fathers or mothers, sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters, on duty in the Persian Gulf. These courageous men and women are braving great danger in the defence of the values and the interests of their entire country. They have our gratitude and our respect, and especially tonight, our prayers.

Now is the time for all Canadians to put aside their differences and rally to their support. I am sure that all hon. members join me and all Canadians in praying that this war will end quickly and that all Canadians will welcome home our brave fellow citizens who defend freedom and the cause of peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House of Commons tonight, my heart is filled with a deep sense of foreboding. Like every Canadian, like the mothers and fathers of those men and women representing us in the Persian Gulf, I am worried. I had hoped that it would not come to this.

This evening, Canada is at war. Operation Desert Storm has begun. This evening, Canada is anxiously following the course of events in the Middle East. Canadian men and women are watching their TV sets, hoping the missiles will spare their families and friends.

While I am Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, I am also a father and a grandfather and, like the millions of Canadians now sitting clustered around their televisions and radios, I am trying to come to terms with all of this. Tonight, diplomacy and negotiations have given way to bullets and bombs and I am sad about that. But, as the Prime Minister said, I hope that this will be reversed very quickly. As all Canadians who have followed this crisis know, the Liberal Party has urged the government not to go to war. We urged the government to allow more time for the sanctions to work before putting the lives of thousands of Canadian troops at risk.

Unfortunately, diplomacy and negotiations have given way to armed intervention, and I regret this deeply. The Liberal Party has always been opposed to war. No one likes war and no one likes to go to war. All we can hope now is that Iraq will withdraw its troops from Kuwait and that there will be as few victims as possible. The war must not be allowed to go on forever.
Government Orders
On behalf of the families and relatives of our Canadian soldiers, those men and women who perform their duties so bravely and valiantly, we can only hope that this war will be a short one. The price of war is always far too high.

We regret that our request that a search be made for a peaceful solution has fallen on deaf ears but, at the same time, we will support the efforts of our men and women in the Persian Gulf. We are at war, but all of us have to make sure that we are not losing the Canadian ambition, our historic quest for peace. We hope that this war will be short. We hope that all efforts will be made to find avenues to have a cease-fire quickly, in order to make sure that not many men and women lose their lives in that process. We hope that this operation will be successful; we do not think it was necessary. Let us all hope and pray together that it will be short and that those valiant Canadians who are there will be able to come back to their families, as the Prime Minister has said, in good health.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to ask the Prime Minister and his cabinet to do everything in their power to restore peace in the Middle East as soon as possible. As we have said before, it is sometimes much more difficult to end a war than to start it. We hope that we will have peace again very soon, because we sincerely believed a few months ago that a new international order had been established.
The cold war being over, we felt that it would be possible to find peaceful solutions to world problems and now we find to our dismay that a real war can start so quickly.
We are all Canadians and we must support our brothers and sisters fighting for peace. I rise tonight to say that all Canadians have the obligation to stand united under such circumstances.

As Canadians, we have differences. I said that it was not the right way, but we are at war and we have to be united because Canadians are fighting right now. I hope that none go down in fighting. We have to back them up.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
It is a different way than the way we would have chosen, but they are fighting for peace. We hope that they will be very successful in a very short order.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, our first thought tonight, like all Canadians I am sure, is for the men and women who are in the Middle East and the families of those men and women.
It is surely, whatever one's opinion is, a great tragedy for Canada and for those people. It does not in any way undermine the fact that they are there, that war has become a reality and that our thoughts and prayers are with them.
[ Translation]
My party and I are proud of the contribution made by Canadian men and women in the Middle East to enforce the sanctions against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Tonight, our thoughts first of all go to them and their families.
Now a state of war exists. It demonstrates the full extent of our failure as politicians. The world has gone mad. We should not share Saddam Hussein's folly. One does not fight madness with madness.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, we agree that Saddam Hussein must be stopped. The new world order under which we thought we could thrive is being jeopardized by a tragic war. This is our first test since the last world war and we have failed miserably.

When I say "us", I do not just mean anyone in this House or any particular world leader, but as a world community. I think we can all agree that this is a failure.
It has been said that sometimes the first casualty of war is the truth. I have to say this with honesty, and perhaps others may share this feeling.
It is a feeling of betrayal for those of us who had hoped that economic sanctions would be given a chance, that there would be a true commitment by all world leaders, that all diplomatic efforts would be tried, and that war would be considered only as the last resort after all of these measures had been exhausted.
I have said it in other debates, Mr. Speaker, so I will not repeat it here, but we do not, as a party, agree that all those efforts were exhausted before this measure was taken-but, there is a war.
Today, in fact, our party unanimously supported an amendment to say that we should not participate in an offensive action against Iraq and we maintain that position.
I still believe that rather than saying Canadians should step aside, we should see what role we can really play-a role that would leave open the options not to not participate, but to participate in a meaningful way. Canada is a compassionate nation. We should exercise that compassion through our humanitarian work, through the kind of work that we see as being most useful to further the peace effort.
It is not a question of abdicating responsibility. It is a question of taking that responsibility in the most useful way possible, in the way that would lead to peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I share the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that we support our troops who are there. Of course we do. Of course our hearts are with those troops. Of course we feel that they are in danger and that we want to see the best for them. We want them to return home.
We hope the predictions that have been made about a long war will not be true. We would be quite happy to be proven wrong in this event.
The question is: how best do we support those troops? I would have to say, that in my view, the party's view, we support those troops by making sure that they are employed in actions that will truly show that Canada, as a compassionate nation, is prepared to participate, not within the theatre of war, but rather in a compassionate and humanitarian role for both civilians and non-civilians.
That is not non-participation, just as participating in economic sanctions was not non-participation. Let us be realistic that that view will not prevail. But I want to state clearly that that is our view.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I wish to speak directly to those men and women, those young people whose lives are so directly affected by this from coast to coast to coast. I speak to those people who have spoken out about their

concerns of a war, about Canada entering into a war and I say that you have not been defeated in your views tonight. I am sure that everyone in this House will work to bring about as quick a peace as is possible. But you must continue to express your views as all Canadians must, to give politicians the directions that we too need to reflect the best interest of Canada.
I say to these groups and individuals: we are with you. The New Democratic Party will continue to speak out against the madness of war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the choices have been made. They are not our choices. We will, each of us, live with the results of those choices. Each of us have taken, in our view, the most responsible position. We do not accuse those who disagree with us and we refuse to engage in debates about who has the greatest degree of morality.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Our disagreement is with the government's position. It is most assuredly not with the Canadian forces. We will be judged by history, but I want to assure Canadians and to assure this House that we will remain committed to a new world order, a genuinely new world order, and a new vision of a world in which war is no longer contemplated, a world of peace.
On the eve of war this may sound naive. This does not mean that Canada in any way abdicates its responsibility, but rather that Canada and the New Democratic Party will work for peace and international peace, to take our responsibilities seriously. We will not abandon the Canadian men and women in the Middle East. We will not engage in debates that are simply about who is right, but we will pursue that international vision based on a new world order, a new way to do things. We are committed to that.
In conclusion, I would simply like to say that I think everyone in Canada tonight is aware of the difficulty of this evening for everyone who must make decisions and those in particular who must bear the responsibility of our decisions. I say that our hearts are with them, our hearts are with their families. We, too, will work with the
Government Orders
government, with the Opposition, with any country, with any group to search for peace as soon as possible.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I had begun my comments just before the House suspended and we are now, I assume, continuing debate. With your guidance, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker The hon. member for Ottawa Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize to the House but I do think that most of us feel this moment to be one of momentous importance for the world and for Canadians in general.
We do not want at this time to engage in partisan debate on the motion before the House. I think the situation is very serious and we would like to have time to gather our thoughts, to really get the facts, come back to the House in due course and debate this very important situation tomorrow.
This for us is a momentous moment and I would ask the government to please adjourn the House which would give us a chance to get our facts together.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I understand the feelings of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, but I too would like to have an opportunity this evening to respond to the speeches of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party to say that, whether we like it or not, we are all at war regardless of our political affiliations. Our differences and nuances are theoretical and our alternatives are hypothetical.
In these times of great sadness I believe we all hope that the hostilities will end soon. We all hope that our sons and daughters, with the Iraqi civilians, will be able to avoid as many casualties as possible. We hope this war will not be for revenge but rather for the supremacy of international law. This evening we pray for all the men and women who are involved in this sad tragedy.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear any further points of order-and I will certainly hear the hon. leader of the government-I remind hon. members that we are bound by the rules here.

January 16, 1991
Government Orders
This is an extraordinary day. Perhaps hon. members will want to deal with the situation in their own way. However, what I am dealing with now is a suggestion made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. The House leader of the Government wishes to have the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, certainly the circumstances this evening have changed substantially, to put it mildly. The rules we had put in place and the special orders and so on may well have caused us to reconsider the procedures. There are of course not just the major parties but the Independents and people's desire to speak. I suggest to the House leader of the opposition Party and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party and other members that perhaps we can commence the continuation of the debate, use that time during the first speaker to discuss between ourselves and reach an accommodation that would allow us to meet.
Mr. Speaker I wonder if hon. members, keeping in mind what is taking place today, would give the House leader of the government a chance to respond fully.


Harvie Andre: I was suggesting this procedure as a result of not just the official parties but the Independents. Certainly, if you were to put the question and there was to be agreement, we would have no opposition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say that on behalf of the New Democratic Party we think that to proceed now with the debate would be not only inappropriate, but almost bizarre. I would like to suggest that we seek unanimous consent of the House to terminate the debates for tonight. The House leaders can meet early in the morning to decide on the process for the next day, but I suspect that to proceed now would be totally inappropriate.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the suggestion of the House leader of the Liberal Party.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be agreement. I notice some of the other members are nodding in the direction of the Chair. It is so ordered.
Accordingly the House is adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 17, 1991