1991-11-18

Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley) moved: that Bill C-236, an act respecting National Heritage Day, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G;
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and indeed an honour to rise in the House today to speak on the presentation of my private member's bill, Bill C-236, an act respecting national heritage day.
I would like to thank the seconder of my bill today, the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. He is supportive of the bill and members of my caucus have been offering their comments in support on this legislation.
It is an important bill and I would like to take the opportunity to lay out some of the brief history of the concept behind national heritage day. I would like to talk a bit about some of the previous efforts that have taken place in this regard and to talk about why we want a national heritage day in Canada.
We want to address briefly and to recognize some of the debate around the concept idea. We then want to wrap up with what I hope is certainly an opportunity to hear from other members in the House what their views
are. I would hope that they would support the motion to send this bill to committee.
A number of members of Parliament in the past have presented legislation or private members' bills to this House to designate the third Monday in February as national heritage day. I had the opportunity in our previous session to present a bill as well. It came to the floor of the House but under the rules at that time it was not deemed votable. After a very interesting debate and discussion I think all members of the House had an opportunity to hear the ideas behind the bill and to express their views.
It is different in this second time around for me in any case because under our rules Bill C-236 is going to be subject to a vote in the Commons after some three hours of debate and discussion in the House. A positive vote would send the bill to a legislative committee as was mentioned.
That is an important difference to the previous effort on my bill and the fact that the House will have an opportunity to make a decision by way of a vote either for or against this particular concept of national heritage day.
Let us take a look at some of the ideas, material and comments that are around with regard to national heritage day. I talk about national heritage day really as a grass roots celebration of Canada. We have a number of important days in our country that we celebrate. Most recently is Remembrance Day when most members certainly would have participated in ceremonies in their ridings and home towns. Canada Day is also a very important day in our country. We have a chance to celebrate some of the institutions and symbols of our country such as the flag and other things.
I see heritage day as a concept that goes beyond simply the institutions that we have adopted on our own. It is really a chance to talk about what makes Canada to the average Canadian: our mountains, our forests, our architecture, our heritage and our communities. This is a way to try to achieve that kind of recognition.

November 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
In 1987 the then Secretary of State produced a paper that I think in many ways summed up a great deal about the discussion around heritage day.
I would just like to read into the record some of the information from this paper. I think it outlines to a certain degree my own particular views with respect to national heritage day. I am quoting here. It goes on to say:
Canadians in fact have relatively few occasions when we can come together to celebrate our heritage. We do so on Canada Day and with the recent proclamations of Environment Week and Citizenship Week by the federal government there will be growing opportunities to understand the shared aspects of being Canadian.
Yet it would still seem that the government has not caught up with the desire of Canadians to express their pride.
I think that is an important point in the government's own documents because on the third Monday of each February the government and many other people do recognize heritage day. I have some examples I would like to bring to your attention later, Mr. Speaker. There are many photo opportunities with the minister of the day. Members make comments and what have you. I think it is an opportunity that Parliament has now to vote on heritage day. It is an opportunity for all members and in particular the government to vote where its photo opportunity is.
If we take a look at other countries around the world there are a number of days that they hold as being special. This is in addition to the celebrations of their institutions. For example, the Americans have five national days devoted to their heritage, including the newest holiday honouring Martin Luther King. In Finland there are 12 such national days. Maybe we in Canada have missed out on a few of the advantages of celebration, recognition and putting aside some of our differences. I could not think of a better time in the current history of our country to try to find a way to bring all Canadians together at the grassroots level.
We are seeing many examples across the country of people who are spending their own money and taking their own time to talk to other Canadians about how important the unity of our country is.
Canada's 125th birthday is 1992. I would say to the government members that the recognition of national heritage day on the third Monday in February would go a long way to ensuring that it is a happy birthday in 1992.
If we could have an early vote on this proposed legislation as the debate moves along, it would mean that the government and other bodies would have an earlier opportunity to consider the idea and hear witnesses if the bill goes to committee so that things could be in place for
1992.
I am reading again:
A national heritage day celebrated nationally would enhance two vital aspects of Canadian identity. We would focus on those parts of our heritage which are truly the expression of what we have achieved together from our liveable cities to our artistic genius. We would reach out across our many cultures to learn about and savour the differences our heritage stands for. For many Canadians it is different. We come to see Canada in our own way, with our own particular views. In other words, a heritage day would be a uniquely Canadian occasion to celebrate both unity and diversity.
Those are the words from the government's own publication celebrating citizenship called Proud to be a Canadian. I am reading these comments into the record because I think it is important for government members to have some realization and recognition that their own government has already been leaning in the direction of designating a national heritage day. I hope that in this debate and the eventual vote to come we will actually be able to vote to support that concept.
I have mentioned 1992 and some of the comments there. Let us just see briefly across the country how heritage day and the concept of heritage day has been developed.
I mentioned the opportunity that at least one minister of the government uses to take advantage of national heritage day. The Secretary of State asked young people to participate in the 125th anniversary of Canada by entering the Canada Day poster challenge in reference to heritage day.
The province of Alberta has already designated the third Monday of February as family day. I do not think that is inconsistent with the concept of a national heritage day. Certainly I could see that being worked into the proposal behind national heritage day. If the bill were referred to committee I think it would be valuable to hear witnesses from Alberta talking about how family day in their particular province has worked and how that particular day would fit into a concept of national heritage day.
November 18, 1991

These are some newspaper reports of national heritage day across the country. Here is one from Yarmouth. The Yarmouth County Historical Museum won a national heritage day and kicked off heritage week in style, celebrating the museum's accomplishments.
The member for Kingston would be honoured to see that the Kingston area municipal offices are closed on heritage day. They have made recognition of that.
In British Columbia heritage week is recognized. I know from discussions with local governments and community groups in my riding through Prince George and other areas they are very eager and interested to see that the concept of national heritage day proceeds.
In this particular news report there is talk of the members for Carleton-Charlotte and Fredericton unveiling the plaque on heritage day in recognition of a very important mill in the Cochrane area. I think this is important.
The former premier of Nova Scotia, now Senator Buchanan, officially declared heritage day in the province. Monctonians are celebrating their heritage.
The purpose of making reference to these documents so that you can see and hear them is to illustrate that in many ways Canadians all across the country are already celebrating national heritage day. As the government's own document said, perhaps it is time for the federal government to catch up to the rest of Canada and what Canadians are doing throughout the country to celebrate this important time of the year.
I want to touch just briefly on a couple of points of concern that have been raised by people about the concept of national heritage day. In all cases I think it is important to note that if there is a positive vote, which I hope there is on this bill, we can hear from some of the witnesses who have expressed some concerns. I think when the evidence is put out their concerns can be met.
The first thing is the role of the provinces in this. My bill only really declares for a federal situation. That is our jurisdiction. That is all that Parliament can do. It amends a number of federal acts. It would be up to the provinces then to decide what their role is in a national heritage day. That may not happen immediately. In some cases it has already happened and I do not think that
Private Members' Business
what these provinces have done is necessarily inconsistent at all with a national heritage day. I think we would certainly want to invite witnesses from those provinces where heritage day has already been declared on a provincial level.
The other comment is regarding productivity, whether the nation will suffer economically because of heritage day. I would just make a few brief comments in that regard. First, I do not have all of the information here with me today, but I would suggest that injuries on the job and other problems in the work place such as alcoholism and other issues are likely to be of much greater concern to the productivity of our nation than a national heritage day would be. Illiteracy is a growing and recognizable problem. I do not want to suggest that people who are opposed to the concept of national heritage day on grounds of productivity that it is a red herring but I do not think you can comment about it in isolation without considering those other comments.
Second, I would suggest in some particular instances that some parts of our economy in fact could be improved due to national heritage day. It may be inconsistent with the concept but there are now massive heritage day blow-out sales across the country on the third Monday in February. At that time of the year the outdoor recreation sports such as snowmobiling, skiing and what have you are important sports in Canada. In fact they may see a boost to their economies and their business due to a national heritage day at that time of year.
The third point I guess is perhaps an argument for a national heritage day during the third week of February. It is a long haul from the first part of the year into March or early April when Easter comes. There is one particular article I have which suggests we do need a break from time to time. I will not read it at length because it was a little cynical I guess. It is an article from the Toronto Star commenting about a break from all the bad news: VIA Rail cuts, the Atlantic fishery, et cetera.
I would say that Canadians would like an opportunity to celebrate their country and to be given a break. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that even in this Chamber after a bit of a break there is certainly a great deal more energy and more productivity in this place and

November 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
I am sure the same goes for many other work places. It is not such a bad idea after all.
We would ask government members in particular to give strong support to this particular bill. As I mentioned earlier and certainly from reading the documents here, I know the government has considered this before. The government should take advantage of the day to make a number of announcements and do a number of things. I guess it is time to make the decision about whether we are serious about a national heritage day in the country or whether it is something that we should really drop as an idea and give up on it, which of course I hope we do not.
I have two other comments to make. I want to give credit to Heritage Canada which has done a lot of the lobbying work in this regard. It is interested in this particular bill. At some of my meetings there one example that was cited of a private member's bill that has moved through the system and has now become law and has turned out to be very successful is the private member's legislation regarding historic railway stations.
I bet if one looks back at some of the debate prior to that legislation being passed, there may have been some of the same criticisms that there are of national heritage day. The reason for citing the historic railway stations legislation is because it was a private member's bill that was developed carefully and logically and has produced some positive benefits. In my riding in McBride the railway station has been designated. It is an example of a private member's initiative that has been received enthusiastically and responsibly.
I hope that members will support the motion and that they will agree to send the bill to committee so that we might have February 17, 1992 as our first national heritage day in Canada.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and to Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for giving us in Bill C-236, an act respecting National Heritage Day, an opportunity to consider the nature of our national heritage and the possibility of designating a statutory holiday.
In 1992, we celebrate the 125th anniversary of Confederation. A national heritage day would give us an opportunity to reflect on what binds us together as Canadians. However, I cannot support Bill C-236 in its present form because it would have the effect of depriving 92 per cent of Canadians of a chance to fully participate in heritage day. Clause 4 of Bill C-236 says, and I quote:
4. The definition "general holiday" in section 166 of the Canada
Labour Code is repealed - to allow the inclusion of National Heritage
Day on the list of statutory holidays in Canada.
The Canada Labour Code applies only to federal employees and workers in certain sectors, such as banks and railway companies, which are federally regulated. The vast majority of Canadians are subject to the labour laws of their respective provinces and would therefore be unable to participate fully in this formal recognition of our heritage.
Our government believes that our heritage is too important to be celebrated by only a small fraction of the population. We must ensure that national heritage day is not an empty shell. In fact, the concept of designating a heritage day has gained acceptance among Canadians in recent years, and rightly so, because it is an excellent concept. However, we must give some careful consideration to taking both a fair and effective approach to national heritage day.
We must also consider the concerns of all Canadians that have an abiding interest in their heritage. It is a fact that Canadians are becoming more and more aware of their heritage. Perhaps I may give a few examples, Mr. Speaker.
In Alberta, the first Monday in August is officially recognized as Heritage Day. In the same province, the third Monday of February, the day proposed by Bill C-236 as national heritage day, is already designated as Family Day. Canadians also have an interesting range of historical sites, monuments and historical communities such as Upper Canada Village in Morrisburg, Ontario. We also have our national and provincial parks, which are a major resource for this country.
They are a major resource because the environment is also part of our collective heritage, With respect to architectural conservation, Canadians have adopted some major legislation. All provinces now have laws
November 18, 1991

aimed at preserving buildings and neighbourhoods with historic and heritage value.
Increasingly, municipalities are showing an interest in preserving their heritage in the course of town planning, housing and development activities. These concerns are alive and well from St. John's, Newfoundland to Vancouver; from Dawson City, Yukon, to Windsor, Ontario. They are reflected in the restoration of city cores, streets, main streets, and residential and public buildings designated as having symbolic and historical heritage value.
Many municipalities, including Ottawa, have established awards to recognize excellence in architectural preservation. Municipalities have been influenced and guided by hundreds of associations involving members of the community, volunteers, heritage societies, and local and regional historical societies.
Canadians have a keen interest in our urban heritage. They are also very interested in the culture they have created in this country, and of course the federal government is involved in this sector as well. The National Museums, the National Library, the National Archives and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada are a few examples of the government's commitment.
However, the concern goes even further. Canadians are doing more and more to conserve their various cultures, religions and languages-such an amazing diversity makes Canada unique in the world.
Our colleague, the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, seeks to have this reality and its implications for all Canadians recognized and acknowledged.
Canadians belong to a multicultural country. Therefore every effort made to highlight and recognize the heritage of this country must reflect this reality.
Let me share some of my thinking with you, Mr. Speaker. As I see it, celebrating Canada's heritage means travelling through time and different cultures. But what do we gain from that exercise? We see that there is not just one version of history, but several. This
Private Members' Business
obvious fact is reflected more and more in the way that history is taught, in our schools and universities, as well as in popular histories.
When we go into Canadian history, we should be aware of the history of women, workers, the various ethnocultural groups, of economic, social, cultural and regional history. The various cultural groups that make up our country each see historical reality their own way.
There is no official, duly recognized history that reflects Canadian reality. Understanding this point is essential to understanding both our past and our future. When we consider our heritage, we must not neglect any aspect of our great Canadian culture.
A day officially recognized as national heritage day must include all Canadians, whatever their language or religion and regardless of the work they do or the ethnic and cultural group to which they belong. I think that such a day must remind us of our common successes and pay tribute to our astonishing diversity. In sum, it must give us an opportunity to pay tribute to ourselves.
A statutory holiday limited to those governed by the Canada Labour Code, that is to 8 per cent of the labour force, would not pay fair or adequate tribute to our heritage. We want a national heritage day that will be celebrated by all Canadians.
In closing, I would just like to congratulate my hon. colleague, since I had the honour to work in that department a few years ago and to think about a heritage day. Only the date was to be determined. I thought that February was the right month. What I like less, though, is that we always make the same mistake of favouring only a small percentage of the population, since we are all supposed to be equal as Canadians, regardless of our colour or our culture. That is the way it is with problems in our country, Mr. Speaker, as you know.
In general, I support my hon. colleague's bill. The only thing that I would like to see changed or modified is that it not be limited solely to those under the Canada Labour Code, or a privileged 8 per cent of this country's population. I would like it to apply to all Canadians.

November 18, 1991
Private Members' Business


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to stand in this House today to address this particular bill. I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing it forward.
There are four points I want to raise and talk briefly about, what we were as a nation and what we can be, and then examine how we might go forward from here.

What were we? At first, we were a very vast country with all sorts of natural resources. Of course, there was no pollution then, or very little. Our country had immense potential. I must say with pride that we have accomplished a lot so far, but we still have a long way to go-

Initially, as people know, Canada was inhabited by our aboriginal peoples. They had a system of government, an economic system that looked after their needs in a rather significant kind of way, a system of values, of norms, sharing respect for the environment that is to be envied. Perhaps one of our greatest losses is that we have not been sufficiently sensitive to what it is that our aboriginal peoples have established in this great land.
What have we become? We are very shortly going to be 125 years old. We shall soon be, if we are not already, the largest country in the world. We are roughly thirtieth from a population perspective in terms of numbers on the whole planet. If my memory serves me correctly, we have the eighth largest economy in the world.
There are over one million people who are of aboriginal ancestry. There are roughly seven million French speaking Canadians of French ancestry. According to the most recent estimates there are roughly 10 million people who are of British or English heritage. Then there are those Canadians from backgrounds other than aboriginal, French or English, who number eight million or nine million. Very often we refer to them as new Canadians. These people who came after the aboriginal, the French and the English, have made immense contributions to this whole country and, indeed, some major, major contributions to particular areas in Canada.

We have 10 provinces that are quite unique when you consider, for instance, that Ontario is huge and has almost 10 million inhabitants, whereas Prince Edward Island is a lot smaller and has only about 125,000 people. The territories account for roughly one third of Canada's surface. Fifty-five thousand people, including many aboriginal people, live in the Northwest Territories. The Yukon has about half as many and also a large number of native people.
Canadians are respected throughout the world for a number of reasons, such as-

-when we are involved in peacekeeping missions, when we attempt to show leadership in the field of human rights and our leadership is often acknowledged internationally. It is something I would like to see more of.
What is it that we can be? What is it that we might be that we have not accomplished thus far? I believe we can be first in a number of areas. First, I would like to be able to claim in a very short while that in terms of developing a society that can accommodate to a great deal of diversity, we are first in the world, that we have somehow been able to work out relationships that are sensible and sensitive to all Canadians, men and women from all parts of this country, no matter what their backgrounds happen to be, no matter what their socioeconomic status happens to be.
I would like Canada to become a model of great understanding in terms of tremendous diversity in terms of its people and, obviously, the country itself. I would like to see a buoyant economy develop, one that is sensitive not only to the business people, which is obviously important. We must not neglect them. It must be one which is primarily concerned about responding to the needs of Canadians to ensure that wealth is distributed in a fair kind of way, to ensure that in Canada today we are no longer able to talk about the 5 million poor, the majority of whom are women, where we have one million children who are counted among that number, where we do not have two million people on social welfare, where we do not have almost 1.5 million people
November 18, 1991

unemployed and where we do not have 1.8 million Canadians who will be fed by food banks this year.
I would not only like to see a buoyant economy that responds to the needs of each province and each of the two territories, but to all Canadians no matter what their status. I definitely want to see a redistribution of wealth in such a way that we can eradicate this tremendously debilitating poverty which is impinging upon roughly five million Canadians.
We have been peacekeepers and I would like to see that role strengthened.
We have given leadership in the area of human rights although we are not unblemished. I want us to be able to help other people who have less than we have to look after themselves.
I know that when we talk about heritage day we could in fact be looking at that which we have done, that which we do not recognize often enough. I have spoken about some of the things such as the accomplishments of the past, some of the accomplishments of today and a vision for tomorrow.

My greatest hope is that, when we proclaim that day-and I hope that we will do so-we make sure that we talk about our achievements.
In the United States, five days are devoted to celebrating what an American is, what it is to be part of that country. Finland has about 12 days for honouring its nationality. Here in Canada-

-we have Canada Day which is a wonderful opportunity. We also have Environmental Week and Citizenship Week. In my own province of Manitoba we have the wonderful week called Kermis Week in February when the Belgian community talks about itself, its roots and its role in Manitoba and in the country.
It talks about the accomplishments that its people have been able to make not only in their country of origin, but also today in Manitoba, in Canada.
Following that particular celebration we have le Festival du voyageur which is in fact a French-speaking theme but has increasingly become sensitive to our aboriginal first peoples and to the diversity in Canada, the multicultural element without losing the importance of its
Private Members' Business
original intent, that is to celebrate what Canadians of French-speaking ancestry contributed to Manitoba and to the country.
We also have this tremendous celebration called Folkorama when we have 50-some pavilions that celebrate the diversity of our province and indeed of our country. We also, of course, celebrate Multicultural and Citizenship Week.

I would conclude by saying that we have a unique opportunity to better celebrate what we have been, what we are and what we can become as a country. I hope that we will not miss that opportunity.

Let us support this bill. If there are difficulties, and there are bound to be in any particular piece of legislation brought forth, let us work them out.

We have a golden opportunity.

Let us not miss this opportunity to talk about the tremendous accomplishments of our nation and what we can still accomplish as a strong, united country.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about Bill C-236. I want to commend the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley for bringing this forward in the House.
What he has introduced is by no means new to this House, but the concept reflected serves to represent an important and continuing effort to give Canadians the best kind of opportunity to celebrate our heritage.
It has been more than 18 years since the idea for such a day was proposed by Heritage Canada. Since that time it has gained increasing recognition from parliamentarians, agencies of the federal government, and provincial and local governments, voluntary societies and the public.
Four years ago, the Secretary of State at the time, the Hon. David Crombie called heritage day a uniquely Canadian occasion to celebrate both unity and diversity. In a 1987 booklet put out by his department Proud to be Canadian, he observed that Canadians in fact have relatively few occasions when we can come together to celebrate our heritage.

Private Members' Business
We certainly do so on Canada Day. With the recent proclamations of Environment Week and Citizenship Week by the federal government, there are growing opportunities to understand the shared aspects of being Canadian.
I think what we have heard today are many other aspects of how Canadians can come together to celebrate and acknowledge our heritage. Sometimes we do it without formal holidays such as Mother's Day and Father's Day. Heritage day itself has been celebrated for 18 years this way.
However, historical societies, architectural conservationists and many other volunteer societies hold special celebrations, usually in February. School teachers and municipalities across this country also have activities which are all part of our heritage. I think it is important that we recognize that there are many competing interests in the observance of days for special causes. Some are of commercial intent, some promote health and others support local and international causes.
Our heritage must have a special place, a priority in our thoughts and in our words. At no other time has an understanding and respect for our heritage been so important as we try to shape our future. I know that respect for our diverse heritage does not simply depend on a heritage holiday. Of course our great July 1 holiday celebrates our achievements as a nation, but a heritage day could also be special. It could celebrate what we have achieved as a people living and working together in this multicultural society. It could celebrate our potential as a people to build a better and more united Canada for the future.
There is another simpler distinction between Canada and heritage day. One falls at a time when primary and secondary schools in this nation are not open and the other falls in the midst of the traditional school year.
Of course our heritage is important to all of us, but who can deny that the understanding of it is especially important to the young. Mr. Speaker, you have heard about the special programs being called upon to celebrate our 125th birthday in 1992, asking the schools of Canada and their teachers and young Canadians to become involved and write about how important our
heritage is and what it should do to help shape our future.
I think that as this generation becomes knowledgeable about the past achievements of Canadians, it will no doubt lead to a finer future of this country.
These things have to be brought together. The first Prime Minister of this country, Sir John A. Macdonald, who was notable in leading Canadians at the time to believe in the formation of a country. Indeed, as our first Prime Minister, I could think of no better name for a holiday in February than his name even if it is not his birthday, because exceptions have always been made. Even the holiday for the Queen's birthday is not celebrated on her birthday. I think heritage day could permit flexibility to the community, organizations and to individual citizens in what they may celebrate. Again, to name it after Sir John A. Macdonald would be fitting of all Canadians and would be supported by all sides of this House.
I have said that there is nothing exclusive about celebrating a heritage day. We could pay tribute to our cultural past whose roots grow in many places. We could give a specific time to achieving a greater understanding of the contribution of aboriginal peoples. We could review Canada's contribution to better living in the world at large. A heritage day would also cast new light on the need for national unity, an issue of the utmost importance at this point in our nation's history.
One intriguing suggestion would have a central theme proposed annually for each year's celebration. That theme would naturally attract a great deal of special attention from the media, but it would not exclude other kinds of community or individual celebrations as well.
I think the opportunity of a heritage day would be tremendous in all the different ridings and constituencies of Canada. These communities would have the opportunity to celebrate and to bring knowledge for oncoming generations about their community's past and where it is going to go in the future.
I hope I have underlined our opportunities for celebrating our heritage. Undue modesty about our legacy of achievement by gifted earlier Canadians may have seemed a charming aberration in the Canadian character. It could also be considered a humility we can no longer afford. Without a realization of what we have already accomplished, we miss the essential element in our will to do more. Never has our future been more
November 18, 1991

uncertain, never have we needed more urgently the perspective of our heritage.
The idea for a heritage day is most commendable. It would focus on our rich inheritance from any cultural, architectural and geographical perspective. Above all, it could lay the groundwork for greater national unity.
However, we must have a heritage day that all Canadians can participate in and be part of. From what I have heard in the House today and from what we have heard in the past 18 years since it was first proposed, it would indicate to me that the government of the day should take a lot of the points made in this debate this morning to heart, in particular the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
I think the signals are veiy clear from this House that the government should bring forward a bill that will reflect heritage day as it has been described here. I am sure this is supported by all 27 million Canadians, no matter what their origin. I say bring forth a bill in which all 27 million Canadians can participate. That has to be the question. Although I support the hon. member for what he is doing in bringing this forward for a renewed opportunity for debate, I want to say to him that we cannot support a bill which does not offer equal opportunity for all 27 million Canadians.
I urge the government of the day to bring forward to this House at its earliest opportunity a bill that we can all support, one which the 27 million Canadians will be proud of and one which will give an opportunity for new Canadians and young Canadians to learn more about their country's traditions and past. I urge the government to bring it forward so that united all 27 million Canadians can provide a better country, a more noble country and a world leader.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-236, the bill presented by my colleague, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, to create a national heritage day on the third Monday of February as a legal holiday.
Private Members' Business
I am particularly pleased because my home community of Nelson, British Columbia is popularly known in that province as the heritage capital of British Columbia. It was second only to Perth, Ontario on being designated by the federal government a number of years ago for a great deal of special assistance and deserved assistance in order to restore many of the buildings and areas within the city of Nelson and certainly in some of the surrounding areas.
Many of the communities in my own constituency will be celebrating their 100th anniversaries in the next two to three years. Speaking for my own constituents in my own community, they would see it as very fitting if all parties in this House of Commons could come to an agreement some time very soon to designate a national heritage day.
There have been some questions and comments raised as to what heritage we would be celebrating on this day. There are communities which have long standing in Canada with very interesting histories and which have contributed to the fabric of our society. There are many ethnic communities as well. I know in my own area the Russian Doukhobor community has contributed greatly to the fabric of society, as has the Italian community.
Trail is the home of the oldest Italian Canadian society in Canada. The city of Rossland, which is another community about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, has an Italian community within it which is in large part responsible for the creation of one example of the eight-hour day in North America which set a pattern for working conditions for working people throughout the world.
That was accomplished at the end of the last century. It took a while before it was put into practice everywhere else, but again not many people even within that community recognized the very major part they and their neighbours had in shaping the kind of working conditions and other conditions many of us have enjoyed ever since.
The matter of whether we want another statutory holiday has also been raised in discussion. We are wondering if we can afford another holiday for which we pay people within the federal sector to have another day off in celebration.

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
At a time when Canada is facing what all of us recognize as being a very serious crisis in terms of its own identity and its own acknowledgement of its own heritage and the importance of the heritage of our various communities across Canada, I would simply ask the question: Can we afford not to give special attention in this way to the history and the heritage of all of our communities, be they ethnic, regional or local, and the contribution we have all made regardless of our language or our own background to the fabric of Canada?
I am pleased to have had a very brief opportunity to support the bill put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. I would hope that in the very near future we will have the kind of agreement that is necessary in order to see this implemented into law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean Corbeil (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee B.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring forward legislation which will amend the Canada Pension Plan, the CPP.
The amendments which we are discussing today represent solid progress in the ongoing reform of social policy and illustrate the government's sensitivity in balancing complex social and fiscal priorities. The proposed
changes also underline the government's investment in children. This proposed legislation demonstrates the very strong spirit of federal and provincial co-operation in Canada.
Since its inception in 1966 the Canada Pension Plan has played an important role in providing retirement income for Canadian workers and their families, protecting them against the sudden loss of earnings arising from the disability or the death of a wage earner or self-employed person. Within Quebec a parallel plan, the Quebec Pension Plan, provides similar protection.
Together with the Old Age Security program these two pension plans ensure a basic level of income protection to Canadians throughout our country. It is particularly satisfying to bring forward this legislation as Canadians this year celebrate the 25th anniversaries of the Canada and Quebec pension plans.
Once again, as in numerous times since 1966, federal and provincial governments with foresight and with co-operation have agreed upon improvements to this major component of our social fabric. Major changes to the Canada Pension Plan require the consent of the federal government and two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the Canadian population.
The Canada Pension Plan has served Canadians well over the last 25 years and the changes we are introducing today will ensure that Canadians have every confidence in their plan for themselves and for their children.
Canadian society like many societies world over has undergone fundamental social and economical changes over the past few decades. The Canada Pension Plan has evolved with those changes. As hon. members will recall this government introduced major improvements to the CPP in 1987 under Bill C-116 including greater flexibility in the age of eligibility for retirement benefits under the plan, a substantial increase of close to $150 monthly in CPP disability benefits, the easing of eligibility requirements for these benefits, the continued payment of survivor benefits to widows and widowers on remarriage, the sharing of CPP retirement pensions between spouses, the enhancement and extension of credit splitting to separations and common law situations, the payment of two children's benefits where both the contributor parents either die or become disabled, and

improvements to combine disability-survivor benefits as well as to combine survivor-retirement benefits.
In addition, following extensive federal-provincial discussions a mechanism was created in Bill C-116 to ensure the long-term financial health of the plan. A 25-year schedule of CPP contribution rates was created with increases beginning in 1987. That legislation also required that the federal and provincial finance ministers review the contribution rates every five years and extend the contribution rate schedule by an additional five years. This would ensure that the financing of the CPP plan is always on track and would allow for adjustments in contribution rates in a fair and a minimally disruptive way.
I am pleased to inform hon. members that the first five-year review of CPP contribution rates by the provincial and federal finance ministers has been successfully concluded. The spirit of collaboration and strong desire to maintain the plan on solid footing for the future has resulted in an agreement on revisions to the rate structure which takes into account the most recent actuarial projections.
The bill proposed today contains a provision to amend the 25-year current schedule of CPP contribution rates and extend the schedule by an additional five years. These adjustments will ensure that one of the most important elements of our social security system continues to be financially sound.
In addition to the 1987 Canada Pension Plan changes, federal and provincial governments have been giving very serious thought to fundamental reform of the Canada Pension Plan survivor benefit structure, including an increase in Canada Pension Plan children's benefits. Accordingly I am pleased to confirm that this bill contains an amendment to increase the monthly flat rate benefit for children of deceased or disabled Canada Pension Plan contributors by $35.
The proposed measure represents an important initiative in the reform of CPP survivor benefits. As well, the provision of enhanced income support through Canada Pension Plan children's benefits underlines this government's investment in children.
The amending bill also provides the opportunity to introduce a number of minor administrative and technical amendments to the plan which are of insignificant cost. Many of these are housekeeping matters are
Government Orders
necessary from time to time in a plan of this size. Others address the important issues, and I am going to talk about these later on.
I have briefly stated the nature of the proposed amendments to the CPP and now I would like to talk about each of them in a little more depth.
First, I would like to talk about the amendments that are going to affect the children. Social changes since the 1960s have had a dramatic impact on the family and, in particular, on children. These changes include an increase in family breakdown through marital separation and divorce. There has been a marked increase in single parent families and family situations where the dependent children of a deceased contributor may not live in the same household as the surviving spouse. In view of these developments, it is desirable that the Canada Pension Plan do its part to target more assistance to children who are often the true dependants.
The proposed $35 CPP children's benefit increase also recognizes the difficult circumstances faced by many survivors with dependent children as well as by severely disabled contributors with dependent children.
We know that children in such situations often have lower incomes than children as a whole. Therefore the increase will provide additional support to a particularly vulnerable group. The proposed children's benefit increase represents a 30 per cent increase over the current benefit of $113 per month. The increase is approximately equal to an extra monthly family allowance payment.
Through this benefit increase some 170,000 children of deceased or disabled CPP contributors will be better off. The increase will apply to children under the age of 18 and to those 18 to 25 who are in full-time attendance at school. However, it is important to note that this increase will not add significantly to the short or long term costs of the plan.
The children's benefit increase was initially put forward in the federal government's 1987 consultation paper on Canada Pension Plan survivor benefit reform. It is also in line with the recommendations of the parliamentary committee to which the consultation paper was referred. During the parliamentary committee's consultation process such an increase received support from major interest groups such as the National Action

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Labour Congress and the National Association of Women and the Law. The children's benefit increase was whole-heartedly supported by a variety of interest groups and is in line with the thinking of the parliamentary committee as well.
The proposed improvement in the children's benefit is an important follow-up to Canada's co-sponsorship of the World Summit for Children.
As hon. members will recall, a children's bureau with responsibilities concerning all matters relating to children was recently created within the Department of National Health and Welfare. Speaking on behalf of the federal cabinet spokesperson for children, I believe this measure which provides for a greater investment in children is not only good for children but is good for all of us.
Certain minor proposed amendments are also of particular importance to children. One such amendment will provide for the conversion from a CPP disabled contributor's child benefit to a CPP orphan's benefit without application. The requirement under the existing legislation for making an orphan's benefit application on the death of a CPP disabled contributor can result in the interruption of payment for children at a very difficult time. The proposal that we are debating here today will ensure that there will be uninterrupted payments.
The legislation will also provide CPP children's benefits to a child who comes under the care and custody of a CPP contributor after the contributor becomes disabled. Under the existing legislation only a natural child born after the month of a disability and a child legally adopted after that month can receive the benefit. The proposed measures ensure the equal treatment of children under this program.
Now I would like to turn to the matter of financing the Canada Pension Plan. As part of the 1987 provincial agreement on financing a 25-year schedule of CPP contribution rates was established with a view of ensuring the long-term stability of the plan.
Federal and provincial finance ministers are required to review this schedule every five years on the basis of updated actuarial protections. The legislation requires the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to prepare an actuarial report on the financial state of the plan every three years.
In preparing this report myriad factors including death rates, life expectancies, wage growth, inflation, labour force participation and so on are considered in order to arrive at an educated best guess estimate of the plan's projected revenues and expenditures. This information is an important input into the review process. Hence the stable, sound and long-term financing of the plan.
According to the latest CPP actuarial report which was tabled in this House on January 22, 1990, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade today and former Minister of Finance, stated: "The CPP expenditures are expected to be higher than previously estimated both now and in the future". Finance ministers have therefore recommended that higher contribution rates are necessary to ensure sufficient revenues to pay for the higher estimated expenditures.
I would like to take this opportunity to enlighten hon. members as to the reasons behind the proposed increases. Major reasons behind the higher expenditures are that Canadians are having fewer children today and are living longer than expected in the previous actuarial reports. Expenditures are also expected to be higher because the expectations of increases in Canadian productivity over time has been lowered from the previous report.
When we take all these things into account these are the reasons behind the change in the scheduled rates, as well as a higher than expected take-up of the early retirement feature which became available in 1987. There has been some effectiveness in the short-term expenditure estimates.
However I really want to emphasize today that the actuarial report continues to indicate that the long-term impact of early retirement is truly cost neutral to the plan.
Under the existing 25-year schedule of rates the combined contribution rate for employers and employees is scheduled to increase in steps up to 7.6 per cent in the year 2011. Under the new legislation the combined contribution rate will increase annually in steps from 4.6 per cent in 1991 to 9.1 per cent in 2011 and to 10.1 per cent in 2016. The contribution rates are to be increased in stages. The first stage of rate increases is in the process of being implemented by regulation. The second stage of increases is to be implemented by this
November 18, 1991

new legislation. The two-step process is intended to ensure that the new rates will be in effect by January 1,
1992.
The proposed adjustment in the contribution rate increases and the extension of the rate schedule by five more years ensures the continued soundness and financial viability of the Canada Pension Plan.
The Quebec Pension Plan contribution rates will be increased by identical amounts over the next five years. This will ensure that the important principle of parallelism in contribution rates between the two plans will be maintained.
The required amending bill for the children's benefit increase and the revision to the rate schedule provides an opportunity to include a number of minor amendments to the CPP. These minor amendments are an insignificant cost. At the same time they would improve administration, make limited improvements to eligibility rules and clarify certain sections of the legislation.
I would like, however, to direct hon. members' attention to certain amendments which may be of particular interest to CPP beneficiaries. We are proposing to amend the legislation so that the benefit eligibility of CPP contributors who are unable to apply for benefits in time because of incapacity would be protected. This amendment will ensure that protection is provided to those who are simply unable to meet the eligibility requirements through no fault of their own.
The Canada Pension Plan would also be amended to improve service through the sharing of information among the Old Age Security, the Canada Pension Plan and family allowance programs.
People expect when they advise staff of one of our programs of an address change that this information is then shared with either of the other two programs. The existing legislation that we have today does not provide for the sharing of this information. As a result people must provide the same information to each benefit program. This can be frustrating for all Canadians. We intend to meet the expectations of our clients by eliminating this requirement through the proposed amendment.
Government Orders
There is already a good precedent in the legislation for this in that information can be shared between Health and Welfare Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada to serve better the interests of veterans, most of whom are also receiving the Old Age Security benefits. The overlap between OAS and CPP retirement beneficiaries is even greater in terms of numbers. In fact a majority of Canada's seniors receive both of these benefits.
The proposed bill would also enable information sharing between these three income security programs and provincial administrations in limited circumstances. Provinces provide various benefits and forms of assistance to persons who are also CPP, OAS and family allowance clients. The existing legislation limits the sharing of personal information regardless of the extent to which the welfare of the client could be enhanced by the provision of such information. Our clients, Canadians, expect more from us. The proposed measure would allow a faster provision of provincial benefits and services for these dual clients. In short, information sharing is going to streamline the application and approval process and ensure payments are issued to our clients more quickly. The result, as I said, is going to be faster, better, more efficient service.
The proposed legislation will allow the reimbursement of CPP disability benefits to the administrator of a disability income plan under approved conditions at the beneficiary's request. Currently some long-term disability insurance plans withhold a portion of the disability benefit from clients while they wait for the CPP determination to be made. This can cause financial difficulty for the disabled individual.
The proposed change would allow disability benefit applicants to avoid this problem and ensure that the large majority of disability plans will be willing to guarantee payment of the full amount of the disability entitlement between the onset of a private benefit and the award of the CPP disability benefit. Clients will be assured of receiving their full entitlement immediately from the company plan.
Since the CPP's inception, social changes such as the increased diversity of family structures and the greater participation of women in the labour force have rendered the survival benefits structure increasingly inappropriate. Given these social changes, many of us have

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
questioned whether a low lifetime survivor benefit is the most appropriate way of assisting a surviving spouse.
In 1986 finance ministers had mandated a federal-provincial working group to develop a new approach to survivor benefits more appropriate to meeting the social needs. In September 1987 a new approach was outlined in a federal consultation paper entitled "Survivor Benefits Under the Canada Pension Plan". Essentially it aimed at facilitating the independence of a survivor rather than encouraging dependence.
The paper was tabled in the House of Commons and referred to a parliamentary committee. The parliamentary committee consulted Canadians on the future of the CPP survivor benefits. After public consultations the committee issued its report in April 1988. The views and the concerns expressed by the committee were taken into consideration by the federal and provincial governments in further discussions.
On January 28, 1991 federal and provincial finance ministers reached an agreement on the CPP children's benefit increase and on the CPP financing we are discussing here today in the House. They were not able to arrive at a consensus on an over-all reform of CPP survivor benefits at that particular time.
The federal and provincial finance ministers generally agreed on the need to reform the CPP survivor benefit structure. However, the changes that were under consideration would have required contribution rate increases beyond the schedule now agreed upon.
I believe that there is a need to pursue the modernization of the CPP survivor benefit structure and the Minister of National Health and Welfare has conveyed this message to all his provincial counterparts.
This government remains sensitive to the concerns and opinions expressed thus far by all interested groups across Canada. It remains committed to this important issue and the Department of National Health and Welfare will vigorously pursue it in order to reach a federal-provincial consensus.
The government has introduced a number of initiatives which have strengthened the income situation of Canadian families who are most in need. Changes to the CPP in 1987 included a substantial increase in disability benefits. The increase in the flat rate component of the payment is of greater benefit to lower income families. As well, the 1987 CPP changes included the payment of two benefits where the earnings of both parents were lost due to death or disability and allowed the payment regardless of the child's marital status. Prior to that change, only the highest of the two benefits was payable.
The federal government also introduced important amendments to the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act which governs employer sponsored pension plans in federally regulated industries. The provisions improved the portability of pensions, increased flexibility in the eligibility age for retirement pensions and provided for the earlier vesting of pension credits. Many provinces have subsequently amended their pension standards legislation in similar ways.
As part of income tax reform, the federal government amended the income tax regulation to introduce higher maximum contribution limits for Registered Retirement Savings Plan contributions. The maximum contribution limit, which is $11,500, in 1991 will increase by $1,000 per year to $15,500 in 1995. This will enable Canadians to better provide for their own retirement.
Important changes have also been made to a number of federal income supplementary programs. The refundable child tax credit, which is paid to low and middle income families, has been substantially increased. It has been substantially enriched during this government's mandate. The maximum benefit was increased from $384 per child in 1985 to $585 per child in 1991. A new supplement to the child tax credit was introduced in 1988 for children aged sue years or under. The government introduced a prepayment of both benefits in November of each year in order to enhance the benefits' responsiveness to the needs of Canadian families.
As well, the refundable goods and service tax credit replaced the federal sales tax credit and provides enhanced benefits to lower income Canadians.
The child tax exemption, which was of greatest value to the higher income families, was replaced in 1988 by a new dependent child credit that increases for third and subsequent children in a family. The conversion of this and other personal tax exemptions to tax credits under
November 18, 1991

federal tax reform directs more resources to those in need. It gives more benefit and more resources to the lower and middle income earners. As well, higher limits on the child care expenses deduction for children six years of age and under and children with special needs came into effect in 1988.
As this brief summary reveals, the government has acted in a variety of ways to improve the income situation of those who are most vulnerable and in greatest need.
The proposed changes contained in this CPP bill, as with other similar initiatives, respect the government's desire to put its fiscal house in order. The children's benefit increase and revised contribution rate schedule will not directly affect the government's budgetary position since they are part of a separate CPP account. However, higher contribution rates will affect this position to some extent as contributions to the plan are creditable for the purpose of calculating your personal income tax. The changes are also fiscally responsible within the financing context of the plan itself.
The amendments to the contribution rate schedule will ensure that the Canada Pension Plan will continue to play the fundamental role in the Canadian income security system that was envisioned decades ago. While there are many competing interests in the area of social policy, the government believes it is essential to pay special regard to the interests and concerns of contributors and taxpayers alike.
As I indicated earlier, the legislative changes of which we speak will require the approval of two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the population after the bill has received royal assent. As hon. members will note, there is a limited time to ensure that the benefit improvements this bill contains can be delivered in time for the proposed effective date of January 1, 1992.
With this in mind, I would really like to express my deep appreciation to hon. members in advance for the co-operative spirit which I hope and which I am sure they will exhibit in the examination of the legislation that is before us here today.
Government Orders
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this occasion to reassure all the members of the House and to reassure the 9.5 million Canadians who contribute to the plan, and their families, that the Canada Pension Plan will continue to meet its obligations to Canadians both today and in the future.
The creation of the Canada and Quebec pension plans was accomplished through remarkable foresight and tremendous determination on behalf of 11 governments and millions and millions of Canadians in the early 1960s. Today the Canada Pension Plan is not only healthy, it is thriving. It continues to grow and evolve as Canadians themselves grow and evolve. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to state that the entire Canadian pension system is based to a great extent on the continued strength and vitality of these plans. They are the key elements of the Canadian retirement income system. The federal Old Age Security program provides a basic income to senior Canadians. Canada and Quebec pension plans provide earnings related support to contributors and their families above that provided by the basic OAS. A private pension system includes the provisions individuals make for themselves in the event of retirement, disability or even death.
The CPP and the QPP are key elements in the evolution of this country's social policy and are in their own way important symbols of our nationhood. They are prime examples of our ability to find unique solutions to common problems. In a more practical everyday sense they are a concrete reminder of our long-standing obligations to one another. Let us take this to heart as we begin the plans for the next quarter century.
Let me go over the proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan once again so that all of us in the House have it clear in our minds. We have to keep the plan on a sound financial basis. We are also going to increase the benefits to children of deceased and disabled persons by $35 to close to $150 per month.
There is a 25-year schedule agreed upon by the federal and provincial ministers which is reviewed and updated every five years so that we will always have the 25-year schedule in front of us to make the CPP financially and fiscally viable. The actuarial projections indicate the complete possibility, what the rate increases would be,

Government Orders
and that the proposed increases are gradually going to raise the combined employer-employee rate, as I mentioned before, from 4.6 per cent in 1991 to 9.1 per cent in 2011 and 10.1 per cent in 2016.
I want to thank the House. I look forward to discussing the major changes as well as the minor changes to make the system more efficient and more effective and sharing the information between our security assistance, CPP, OAS and family allowance, with the provinces. It is certainly well overdue.
I want to tell my colleagues on all sides of the House that I will work with them diligently to make sure we have the best plan possible for Canadians to support the CPP.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would allow a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the floor to the hon. member to ask a question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for allowing me to ask this question of the member who has just spoken on behalf of the minister. I will make it very brief.
The question is regarding the Canada Pension Plan. It is one we are all faced with when we are dealing with the plan, that of disability. The current definition has two components. The applicant's disability has to be severe and prolonged. I am sure we all know that the interpretation of that within our Canada Pension Plan is something we all find very hard to deal with. That interpretation is one that we do not always get the same answer to when people are applying for a disability pension.
When we are looking at these proposed changes I wonder if this is not the time for us to find a way of defining what that means specifically. When applicants are faced with a disability and feel that they are entitled to their disability claim there is no way of interpreting that definition. I wonder if the member would respond to that.
Another difficult clause relating to the Canada Pension Plan is the part about disability pension when someone passes away and the survivor makes a claim under the survivor's benefit. If it is a disability claim it is
not handled by the provinces. It has to be processed through Ottawa with delay and it causes pain to the survivor.
I have a case in mind in which a person had passed away and the survivor submitted her claim. The cheque kept coming month in and month out, four or five months after the person had passed away. He had passed away in May and the survivor's benefits came through in September. I find some problems within the Canada Pension Act in the disability claim. When it comes to a survivor it is much harder to process.
I would just like to ask the member if the government would look at those two areas as areas in which some changes could be made.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the two questions my colleague has raised in the House with regard to defining a disability. It is certainly a grey area for what is a complete severe disability and the inability of the person to hold down employment. With regard to that there certainly is the minister's discretion in certain areas. Within the bill we are changing the timing from a 12-month to a 9-month turnaround time with regard to this. The minister does have the right to review this, but setting down the terms of true disability obviously is one area that we could debate.
Within the department we do have a very detailed and well precedented definition. More information needs to get out to Canadians as to what is put down in this detailed definition. I certainly will provide the member with this if perhaps he has not had the opportunity to review the definition.
The second question had to do with the disability pension for the survivor. There is a time difference there. Within this particular bill the Government of Canada, working through the provinces and private insurance companies or workers' compensation, realizes that there can be hardship on people. We hope, through this legislation, to have the private insurance companies or workers' compensation paying the full rates and then a portion of the benefit would have to be paid back.
The orphan's benefit provision in the bill is going to allow more continuity, and I referred to this in my speech. With regard to children we will be able to facilitate that much faster and not have that long-term period in which there is financial difficulty.

November 18, 1991

I certainly will provide my colleague with a copy of the definition of disability and refer him to that part where we can provide the benefits faster and sooner for people so they do not suffer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. This is not a question and comment period, unless hon. members again unanimously agree to allow another member to ask a question.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to ask a question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member has the floor.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Calgary Southwest on her remarks this morning.
In the area of disability pensions I welcome the changes in bringing the system back up to date.
I find that in most of the disability cases that we are presented with as members of Parliament, the people who are on disability pensions have very few resources and have great difficulty in the processing of these disability pensions.
Quite frankly from time to time I have found that the departments have been short in resources. It seems to me that in an area like disability we should make sure that particular division within the department is really given the kind of public service support so that those people who are applying get a sense of comfort and a speedy response.
When someone with a family of two or three children who is eligible for a disability pension has to wait sometimes two or three years to get it, it causes tension and frustration not only for a marriage but for the children and everything. It really causes a lot of pain.
I know that the act is not designed to cause that kind of frustration, but it would seem to me that we should somehow suggest to the public servants who process these claims that we have to go out of our way to make
Government Orders
sure those disability pensions are processed in an expeditious manner.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.
I know that he has always in this House spoken very deeply and sincerely with regard to people in need and people at the lower end of the income scale. I certainly share his concerns for people with disabilities and the time lag with regard to the processing of the claims. I certainly will take his words to heart and through the minister discuss this with the department.
Claims of people with disabilities should be processed as quickly as possible. I think this is something that the department has been kept apprised of with regard to needing the medical evidence that is necessary. Sometimes it is slow for the disabled person to provide and get it through. It is perhaps a long appeal period and there are some delays, but that is why we have one amendment within the bill with regard to reducing that first appeal period of time from one year down to 90 days.
Unfortunately the disabled person may lag out that time and not appeal for the year. It hurts. Financially they are hurt, there could be marriage break-ups, and indeed the youngsters suffer.
One of the amendments within the bill is to reduce that appeal period down to the 90 days so we can process faster and get the funds into the hands of the disabled.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on second reading of Bill C-39.
Constituents of Winnipeg North would like to see me debate this very important piece of legislation, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act.
Why then would I the other night wake up from a sound sleep engulfed in a feeling of dread? Why have I been troubled for days about this upcoming debate which I, as critic for health and welfare for my Liberal caucus, am to lead?
On the surface this is a necessary bill. It will do two things. First, it will raise the Canada Pension Plan contribution rate which the government says is necessary to keep the plan solvent. Second, it will give more money to the survivors of the plan's participants.
Who could argue against it? Who could argue against good health for the Canada Pension Plan and for the

Government Orders
financial security of children whose parents have died? No one would argue against such objectives.
I still remained troubled for a while. The other night it fell into place as I was reading my clipping files. The London Free Press on June 30,1990 said: "Pension poker: The Canada Pension Plan is billions of dollars in debt. How much should you rely on it to support you in your old age? That depends on how much you trust governments".
The Ottawa Citizen on November 29 last year said: "Canada Pension Plan fund faces shortage". The St. John's Evening Telegram, February 1 this year, said: "Payroll tax big money raiser. The hike in Canada Pension Plan payments proposed by the finance minister won't likely produce the bellyaching that comes with most tax increases", indicating that this is a form of indirect taxation.
On February 10 of this year The Calgary Herald, a voice from the west said: "Tax in all but name". The Ottawa Citizen on October 25 of this year said: "CPP contributions to double. Levy rising over 20 years to prevent plan's insolvency".
As I read my clipping files on this issue I really remained troubled. Then on November 15 of this year The Globe and Mail said: "Panel", referring to the cross country video-conference panel, "pleads for survival of medicare. The cross-country video conference blasts government health care cuts". On November 15, this month, The Toronto Star said: "More federal cuts loom".
I truly remain troubled about this bill, about what this government has done.
Last year the government introduced Bill C-69 followed by Bill C-20. Both these bills froze transfer payments to the provinces. Bill C-32 put a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan. Furthermore, a Supreme Court decision determined that the government has carte blanche to further cap, cut and freeze.
It is my hope that the government does not take the Supreme Court ruling as an open door for its policy that truly has hit the social conscience of Canadians and has damaged the social conscience of this country.
Provinces are dying from lack of funds. They cannot pay their civil servants. Hospitals are running up record deficits. The future looks more grim than ever.
Last January the former Minister of Finance when meeting with his provincial counterparts in Toronto struck a provincial agreement on the Canada Pension Plan. We heard the parliamentary secretary tell us about it too. I believe there are two parts to that deal: to provide for the solvency of the plan and to raise the credit limit of the provinces. I repeat, to raise the credit limit of the provinces.
In light of the reduction in transfer payments the federal government would raise rates for the Canada Pension Plan. All or most of the surplus money in the pay as you go plan would be lent to the provinces on top of the $42 billion in plan money provinces already have in loans. The provinces in turn pay interest which pays for current needs of CPP participants.
It is no secret that the CPP is being used by the provinces for their own needs. Nor is it a secret that it is highly unlikely the provinces will ever be able to repay the money borrowed.
Is it right for the federal government intent on lowering its own federal deficit to aid the provinces in running up their deficits? Is it right for the federal government to cut funds to the provinces and then to throw another tax on workers and businesses because it has pushed the provinces into debt?
I fear this bill is not about the Canada Pension Plan and orphans per se. It is about taxing employers and employees in order to have more money to lend the provinces quietly. Will that money be safe in 10 years when transfer payments according to the health coalition called HEAL will have been reduced to zero? I fear this bill is about reducing the federal debt at the expense of Canadian businesses and our workers. It is about halftruths and money that rightfully belongs to the workers of our country. It is about holding the Canada Pension Plan and children for ransom.
Politicians come and go. How many of the people here today will be here in 20 years when the baby boom generation is ready to retire and needs pension funds? Who will they turn to when the coffers are bare and the provinces cannot return the interest much less the principal on massive CPP loans?
Bill C-39 is the act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act. These are three acts which even this government has said in debate define the commitment to care for the
November 18, 1991

majority of Canadians, children and parents, our workers and our seniors. How could anyone not reach out a hand to help these groups to keep the Canada Pension Plan in good health and to raise survivors' benefits?
If only it were that simple. I am frustrated with the workings of this government which makes bills like this necessary because of poor management. I feel as though I am in the middle of a war zone with Canada being attacked from within. If all Canadians could hide in bunkers underground until the end of this Tory rule, until the next election, I am sure we would all emerge to find they left us a country in ruin. But at least we would not have had to watch it happen, watch it dismantled piece by piece.
For all Canadians at least until November 1993 at the latest there is no escape from the Tory bungling and bruising of the Canadian economy and the Canadian people. Why is a bill like this necessary? Why must the government raise contributions to the Canada Pension Plan? This is the crux of this bill. Raising contributions is the crucial question.
I submit that the other clauses that affect children and benefit children are necessary. However I regret to say they are not the main concern of this government.
If the Tories really wanted to help children they would not have waited until one year or so before the federal election to dip into slush funds and flood news-rooms with press releases on their generosity toward the youth of this country.
Do not misunderstand me. I want survivors' benefits raised. I would like to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare for finally bringing this part of the amendment into the House of Commons.
Let us now deal with raising contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. That is the crucial question as defined in this bill. Departmental officials of health and welfare say that miscalculations were made on birth and death rates 20 years ago when the CPP was implemented. At that time it was estimated that six workers would be available to provide for each retired worker in the future. Because of declining birth rates, diminishing worker productivity and early retirement there will be only three workers supporting each retiree in the next 20 years.
Government Orders
The government in contrast to the health and welfare officials claims that the CPP has not been mismanaged. The changes in the economy have little effect on the CPP because the unemployed do not receive benefits. However my concern would be that neither do the unemployed make contributions. This provides less support for today's retired and disabled workers and for the future.
By the government's own reckoning "short-term increases and expenditures are due to a higher than expected take-up of early retirement and lower than expected productivity increases in the Canadian economy". I repeat: "lower than expected productivity in the Canadian economy". These are the government's own words. The government has failed in managing the Canadian economy.
On January 30, 1991, the Winnipeg Free Press, a publication in my home province of Manitoba, printed an editorial headlined "Making the Pensions Sound". Let me quote some of the statements in this editorial. It opened with:
Finance Minister Michael Wilson had a reassuring message for Canadian wage earners this week. Because he and the provincial ministers have courageously raised the Canada and Quebec pension plan premiums-again-the working people of Canada can rest easy in the knowledge that their government pensions are safe.
That was the end of the opening paragraph. The editorial then went on to indicate what what the former finance minister was quoted as saying:
Canadians can now be assured, he said, "that their pension benefits are secure and the fund is sound and is financially able to meet its
obligations".
Those were the words of the former finance minister of this government. The editorial then went on to ask in the third paragraph: "Sound familiar?"
I will quote from another paragraph of this editorial:
Mr. Epp had persuaded Parliament in 1986 to write an early retirement option into the CPP, promising that it would not cost a penny.
It continued, and I would like to quote the minister as he was quoted in the editorial:
- Mr. Epp told the Commons June 11, 1986 -"that the implementation of this provision for flexible retirement will not add to the long term costs of the plan".
This morning we heard that this is one of the arguments being used by this government today. That is why we are raising rates. The editorial rightly said that the

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
announcement made by this government today truly is a disagreeable surprise. In other words the government has made a wrong calculation.
The government has made a wrong calculation in the past and has squandered so quickly the premium increases imposed four years ago, how can we then trust the many bases and reasons it offered for why it would like to increase the CPP rates to make it solvent? It is no wonder I was troubled for many nights and I remained troubled as I prepared for this debate.
It is my belief that early retirement has become synonymous with troubled economic times. Employees are told to retire instead of facing layoffs. It is not a joyous occasion when husband and wife pack the station wagon and head for warmer climates. It is often a shock for women and men with years of productive service ahead of them who may not be financially prepared for early retirement and who would much rather be contributors to the CPP than beneficiaries.
All over Canada mid-sized and large businesses are downsizing in the face of increased costs arising from a slow economy, crushing taxes and diminishing returns. These taxes include next week's planned surprise for business. It is the increase in unemployment insurance premiums by another six to twelve per cent.
The government says this recession that we now have in the country is on the wane. People from all sectors of the work force have lost their jobs. Many middle managers and selectively skilled workers found their industries pulled out from under them like a rug and shipped to another country.
The government now says that a decline in the birth rate and increasing longevity have also led to the need for an increase in CPP contributions. Interestingly enough a recent national child symposium in Ottawa held less than a month ago pointed out something the government has known for years. This generation of children is becoming the lost generation. It will be tumbled in a cycle of poverty.
I would like to quote from an excellent document to paint the picture of poverty so that this government hopefully one day may truly feel and realize that it has failed to address this issue of child poverty. This document is called Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda
for Children and Families, the final report of the National Commission on Children south of the border. It was published this year. Let me read the following:
Although many children grow up healthy and happy and strong in stable families, far too many do not. They are children whose parents are too stressed and busy to provide caring attention and guidance. They are children who grow up without the material support and personal involvement of their mothers and fathers. They are children who are poor, whose families cannot adequately feed and clothe them and provide safe secure homes. They are children who are victims of abuse and neglect at the hands of adults they love and trust, as well as those they do not even know. They are children who are bom too early and too small, who face a lifetime of chronic illness and disability.
They are children who enter school ill prepared for the rigours of learning, who fail to develop the skills and attitudes needed to get good jobs and become responsible members of adult society. They are children who lack hope for what their lives can become, who believe they have little to lose by dropping out of school, having a baby as unmarried teenagers, committing violent crimes, or taking their own lives.
If this government cannot act on a vital issue of child poverty with a national blueprint, I do not know whether I can ever say that this government has a social conscience. Perhaps the government would say: "Well that is a document from the United States, that is a document from south of the border". Before the government is tempted to make that argument public, let me say as I alluded to earlier that on October 27 to 30, 1991 the symposium "Canada's Children-The Priority for the 90s" was held in Ottawa by a coalition of people, a coalition of organizations, some 15 of them, all concerned for Canada's children. They have pointed out the identical picture of the plight of Canada's poor children.
How many of today's youth, with an unemployment rate of 17 per cent and with over one million living in poverty, will become lasting contributors to the Canada Pension Plan? History shows most will become chronically unemployed and underemployed, suffer poor health and beget children who follow in their sad footsteps. I hope and pray, for the sake of all Canada, that this prophecy never comes to be.
Is the government quizzical about lower birth rates? Let me explain some facts of life. In lean times people are afraid to have children. They fear not being able to raise them to a standard of decency because they are afraid of job losses, of rising taxes, of crime, of drugs, of environmental disaster and of poverty. I believe parents today are worried about the future. Many cannot afford
November 18, 1991

to have children, the most precious aspiration of humanity.
Men and women of my generation often had four children, as my wife and I do, but today most families can afford no more than two children on a middle class income. Less than 20 years ago, I would like to remind this government, one partner working 48 hours per week on minimum wage earned as much as today's husband and wife working together 46 hours per week on a minimum wage. That is a very sad commentary on the Canadian social conscience. I think the government must take the brunt of that failure when trying to convince Canadians it truly had a commitment. Is it any wonder then that the birth rate is declining and that there are fewer contributors to the CPP?
The government claims that the Canada Pension Plan has not been mismanaged, but the advice of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce was not sought before these new contribution rates were decided. In future I would recommend the government seek the counsel of said group before making major decisions about the CPP unless it has something to hide.
Why do I say that?
Why do I make this recommendation to the government? In February of last year the National Council on Welfare in its report entitled Pension Reform said: "We believe it is fundamentally wrong that a public pension program set up to cover the entire paid labour force is incapable of producing benefits large enough to keep most of its beneficiaries out of poverty". To me that means that this government needs some help. This government needs some sound financial advisers. This Liberal caucus is ready to provide that advice.
There are other aspects of this bill I do not like. The government has the perfect opportunity here to address the problem of people who have lost disability benefits because they waited too long to file a claim. My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood alluded to that in his earlier questions.
Most of these people with disabilities, those who may have suffered from cerebral palsy as a consequence of problems during birth, chronic fatigue syndrome, a
Government Orders
disease we are still trying to elucidate in the medical profession, environmental illnesses, migraines or other often little understood diseases, have refused to admit they are ill. Many Canadians would not like to admit that they are disabled because they would like to work. When they finally admit they cannot work because it is physically impossible, the time has passed to apply for disability. They appeal and the appeals are often rejected. They will get no help from the government proposal to reduce the time limit for its first level appeals from one year to 90 days.
Government studies have shown that if people are given 90 days they will take 90 days. This is the reasoning behind the cut in the appeal time proposed by this government. If they are given a year they will take a year, the government contends.
I think one of the major problems with the system is not truly the amount of time given. It is the amount of compassion and understanding shown. I wish the government would legislate that into this bill.
I believe many people fall through the cracks, as dozens of letters to my office attest. The government's move, I must say, to remove a provision that prevented payment of a disabled contributor's child benefit on behalf of a child who is adopted or comes under the custody and control of a contributor after the onset of disability is truly welcome. I commend this and although it applies to only a handful of children, they too need this assistance that they were once denied.
I have another concern about this bill. It relates to the seemingly harmless information sharing process proposed in this bill. Let me set before the House a possible scenario involving federal-provincial information sharing.
Let us take, for example, my home province of Manitoba. A cash strapped province like mine that has suffered from federal cutbacks in transfer payments needs money for social services. Therefore the province looks to British Columbia as an example or to Quebec. British Columbia charges medicare premiums for health care and Quebec charges user fees for emergency room services.
Premiums are discouraged and user fees are outlawed by the Canada Health Act. Have we seen any steps on the part of this government to provide leadership and to ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act,

Government Orders
including the prohibitions in the Canada Health Act, are truly enforced?
Manitoba perhaps could then be tempted to bring in user fees and premiums, knowing there would be no repercussions. I must say that one member of this government from my city of Winnipeg and her riding had passed a resolution favouring the imposition of user fees.
If there is federal-provincial government information sharing, the arrangements that could be made may not be known later by the public. Therefore there could be no public outcry when such things as the imposition of user fees is applied unknowingly. Had the government already thought of that? With the new information sharing between federal and provincial governments those who cannot afford to pay will not have to pay, they can contend. Therefore one of the greatest arguments against user fees could disappear.
With federal records of family allowance, Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan, provinces will know exactly who can and who cannot afford to pay for health services. They can cross reference these people with those on their own welfare rolls and perhaps send them poverty cards to exempt them from user fees or premiums.
This may seem Orwellian in nature, but it is not so incredible. I have seen this government make deals that are even more sly than the one I am suggesting may be afoot. Not only does the federal government not enforce the Canada Health Act. It also wants to give provinces information that could help them establish user fees.
Let me conclude by saying that despite some good points in this bill, especially regarding the increase in benefits for survivors, I want clarification of other clauses. The National Council on Welfare suggested that increases in contributions can go hand in hand with increased benefits. I think they should be explored. Furthermore, I will be suggesting amendments when this bill reaches committee stage as I am sure most of my colleagues in our caucus will do in the hope of ironing out some of its threats and flaws.
In conclusion, while we support the principle of this bill, while we support that this bill should go to the committee stage for closer scrutiny and examination, I would like to send signals to this government that it should not use this bill as a barrier, as a scapegoat for
what this government has failed to do for the Canadian economy, and the Canadian people.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowance Act and the Old Age Security Act.
We on this side of the House feel we must support this bill. It is an increase of $35 a month for the children of the disabled and for orphans.
I am also pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-39 because I feel we have a real opportunity to make some meaningful progress on issues affecting the Canada Pension Plan. I also believe that we as parliamentarians now have an opportunity to focus on the state of our support for seniors in general. I hope that we all use this opportunity to consider a wider range of issues.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the increased benefits for children of the disabled and orphans contained in the bill. I believe this is a step in the right direction. There are a number of questions I have concerning the proposed legislation and a number of suggestions that I will put forward to improve Bill C-39.
As I have already stated, I believe we now have an opportunity to address some of the long-standing shortcomings of the CPP. As pension critic for the New Democratic Party I have seen first hand some of the problems with the CPP disability scheme.
I would like to see some progress made on the definition of the term "disability". The current definition has two components. The applicant's disability has to be severe and prolonged. I know of no one who has ever been able to describe or to give a definition of "severe" and "prolonged". Many doctors examining applicants are finding it harder and harder to define in a way that really describes the problem that the individual has when applying for a disability pension.
Some of the things that we see as parliamentarians are really discouraging. To see a family member, the breadwinner of a family, come into the office in some cases with arthritis so bad that he or she can hardly move, using a cane and being denied and having to go through the appeal process is discouraging. After lengthy appeals

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
and a lot of hardships they are finally able to convince believe that it is an area that every member of this House authorities that they have a disability.	has to deal with at one time or another.
I feel that term must be looked at. We must look at it in very serious terms. In real terms the interpretation has often disqualified people working on a very part-time basis or people attending a training program or pursuing other educational opportunities.
What we are left with is a system in which people are penalized for making any attempt to remain independent and self-sufficient following their disability. By the simple act of pursuing part-time employment or training, a person takes the risk of losing their pension forever. The current system is not only unfair, but it is also counterproductive.
The disincentive has to be removed. We have to look at a system in which the training can take place and the extra opportunity to try to work themselves back into the system must be made available.
As it now stands, the CPP has pilot projects which allow for training and re-employment. It is important that we fully incorporate these programs into the system as a whole. It makes more sense to encourage retraining and reintegration into the work force than to present obstacles to people with disabilities.
The second test currently used is that the disability must be prolonged. I see cases daily in which people are legitimately disabled through serious accidents or illness and are caught in a trap. Their unemployment insurance sickness benefits run out after four months and they do not qualify for CPP disability benefits.
I would like to suggest that the definition of disability be changed in three ways to help the system work better. First, the definition should be changed from "severe" and "prolonged" to "significant" and "extended". Second, "significant" should be defined in such a way as to allow for limited employment opportunities as a first step to reintegration back into the work force.
Finally "prolonged" should be defined as at least four months so people are not impoverished because of unfortunate circumstances. There is another major flaw in existing legislation not addressed in Bill C-39. I
It concerns the 15-month limitation on applying for CPP disability. Bill C-39 addresses only one case: the mental incapacity of the contributor. We all have at least one constituent who has been ruled as ineligible because he or she applied too late. We are also unaware that there are many legitimate reasons for not applying in the first 15 months.
The number one reason that I have had to deal with is a simple lack of information. Many people are simply not aware that CPP has a disability component. Many people feel that they pay into their Canada Pension Plan and are not aware that there are provisions for disability claims and they do not claim them right away. When they do find out, they find themselves in a very unfortunate situation.
Even if a person has a little information the complexities of the system often create confusion as to whether they are eligible. Many people do not apply immediately.
Because they are receiving temporary benefits from workers' compensation or maybe a motor vehicle insurance or long-term disability insurance, they do not realize at the time that they are disqualifying themselves from CPP disability pensions. The problems are compounded for Canadians with low literacy skills and Canadians without access to advocacies.
I would be surprised if any of my colleagues have not experienced the frustration and anger of finding constituents disentitled forever because of the 15-month provision. I have been asked far too many times why the time frame exists at all. All I can say is I really have no idea why this time frame is there.
We now have an opportunity to get rid of this archaic provision which has hurt so many disabled Canadians. If a person was disabled two years ago, why should it matter that they are nine months late? If they are disabled, they are disabled and why should it matter that they are nine months late? If the government is worried about retroactive settlements, I can say it is my impression that most of the people I have dealt with would be more than happy with a limitation of retroactive settlements in exchange for benefits now.

Government Orders
I think that we could arrive at a cap that would address the government's fiscal concerns and also compensate disabled Canadians who have fallen victim to the 15-month deadline currently used.
A final area in which we could improve Bill C-39 involves amending the child rearing drop-out provisions which allow parents to exclude years from their contribution period when they are at home caring for a child under seven. I do not think it is unreasonable to extend this coverage to stay at home parents whose child is significantly disabled.
There are numerous other issues which involve the CPP system as well. Given the financial challenges facing CPP, can we still afford to lend pension fund surpluses to the provinces at preferred rates? Can we not close the gender gap that currently exists in CPP disability pensions?
I do not pretend to have addressed all of the concerns and suggested improvements Canadians have with this bill. I have tried to mention a number of areas in which the bill can be improved and I have tried to present them in a constructive manner. We have a real opportunity to reform pension legislation and I feel that we must take as much time as is needed. We must allow Canadians to put forward their views. In a country in which one-quarter of our seniors live below the poverty line, we cannot afford to waste this opportunity.
I would like to relate to some of the hardships that are taking place with regard to CPP. I think that it is an opportunity. I realize the deadline is January 1 so that these children can receive these moneys. The money is needed, but I do believe in all sincerity that our Canada pension scheme must be looked at in a more thorough manner. We must look at it in a serious way.
We cannot have a situation in which an elderly survivor is faced with having, after reporting the death of her spouse, that cheque coming to her home four months after and each month returning it and having that cheque coming back to her home. I find that very hard on those individuals.
Surely to goodness our legislation can be streamlined so that with survivor benefits, the bills concerning burial and so on are not received for as much as six months later because of the processing of these kinds of survivor
benefits. We cannot have the situation in which young people are disabled and their families and their wives and children are sitting at home worrying from day to day whether their husband is going to qualify for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan for month after month, hearing after hearing, and then finally coming forward and being able to qualify. Surely to goodness in a country in which we have the provisions in place we can streamline the mechanism to ensure that these types of cases are not going to be delayed and we are going to be able to meet the requirements of the people we are serving.
I am looking forward to this bill going to committee and I am looking forward to placing amendments on behalf of the New Democratic Party. We will do everything possible to tiy and improve this piece of legislation.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise on this debate and add a few comments to the discussion of Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Securities Act.
Before starting to talk specifically in this debate, I just want to add an observation. I had a meeting with some nurses on the weekend. They were discussing why when legislation comes up individual members of Parliament do not get out and discuss the ramifications of that legislation with absolutely everyone who is directly involved in it. It makes a lot of good sense, because philosophically that is what we should be doing as members of Parliament. Our job is to get out and talk to our constituents and let them know what is going on, solicit feedback and reflect their feelings to this House.
I thought this morning as I prepared a few notes on what to say on Bill C-39 what a difficult task it would be to talk to absolutely every worker in our constituency and ask how the changes to Bill C-39 affect them. It is something that we do have to reflect on people. I share the comments of the previous speaker that it is something we should be talking about to as many Canadians as possible.
I have appreciated a lot of the comments I have heard this morning so far in the debate from both sides of the House. It is very obvious from the tones of the comments that members of this House on both sides share a concern for the welfare of Canadians and for the fiscal viability of our national programs. However like all
November 18, 1991

programs everyone seems to find it easy to support improved benefits, but unfortunately it is a little more difficult to find support for the necessary mechanisms to pay for those improved benefits. The same thing holds for all government programs and today it is illustrated by the changes proposed for the Canada Pension Plan.
Since 1966 Canadian workers have contributed along with their employers into the Canada or Quebec pension plans. The Canada Pension Plan has provided workers and their families with income for retirement and with financial help if the workers die or become disabled. From the debate this morning it is obvious that there is considerable sympathy for the disabled and concerns in some cases over the bureaucratic hurdles that those people have had to face in applying for those benefits. Like the previous speakers, I am very sympathetic but I want to direct my comments to how the Canada Pension Plan is funded.
This plan is financed primarily by contributions: equal contributions from workers and their employers and from interest on the accumulated plan reserves. As expenditures under the plan have risen and continue to rise, the federal government, working in close co-operation with the provinces, has taken steps to ensure that Canadians will always be able to rely upon their Canada Pension Plan for retirement, survivor or disability benefits which they have earned or will earn.
The Canada Pension Plan was established in 1966 after extensive consultation and negotiation with the provinces. Many times in this House I have heard members of Parliament refer to a specific year as significant. I have often wondered how they can remember dates and years. I remember 1966 and the introduction of this plan very well. It was my first year in the work force and my first year as a taxpayer. I can remember having a discussion with my father. He pointed out to me that I was to be one of the first group of Canadians who was to be able to draw eventually on the Canada Pension Plan after having contributed to it every year of my working life.
The pages are smiling. Perhaps they think 1966 makes it a long time ago that I went to work. I think I have a responsibility, not just on behalf of the pages who are
Government Orders
starting and those of my generation that paid in 1966 and onward but to every working Canadian to make sure this plan does remain financially viable.
To finance this plan when it was introduced in 1966 the contribution rate was initially 3.6 per cent of contributory earnings. That was split evenly between the worker and the employer with 1.8 per cent being contributed by each. This rate remained in effect until 1986 which allowed a reserve of some $42 billion to be built up. That was built up because expenditures had been less than the plan's income from contributions and interests. From the start it was recognized that contribution rates would have to be reassessed in the mid-1980s as the plan began to mature. More recently it was recognized that the plan's financing requirements would have to change to reflect changing demographic conditions in Canada, including fertility and mortality rates.
We are all naturally pleased that Canadians are living longer, but the reality of the fact that Canadians are living longer means we have to recognize there are extra requirements on our social programs as people live longer and draw on this plan for a longer period of time.
It was this obvious reality that led the current government to undertake, as one of its first official functions after coming into office in 1984, to launch with the provinces a comprehensive review of the plan's financing. An agreement was reached in December 1985 with the provinces to put the Canada Pension Plan on a sound, long-term financial foundation and keep it there.
It is significant to note that it was not a unilateral federal decision. It was reached in consultation with the provinces. The member for Calgary Southwest mentioned this earlier in the debate this morning when she explained how these consultations were done and some of the steps that were involved in consulting with the provinces before the changes were proposed.
The Canada Pension Plan operates in all provinces except Quebec. I think we all know that. Quebec has a similar plan with similar benefits and identical contribution rates. There are currently some 10 million Canadians contributing to the Canada Pension Plan and 3 million more pay into the Quebec Pension Plan. Tbday there are more than 2.7 million people receiving pay-

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
merits from the Canada Pension Plan and some 800,000 receiving benefits from the Quebec plan.
As a fiscal Conservative sitting and thinking of this plan, I would rather back up 26 years and start over again. Unfortunately we cannot do that. I was just thinking of what great shape we would be in today if we could establish this plan on the same footing as private pension plans with the same requirements they have to face when they fund pension plans. This was not done and we cannot back up 26 years.
This plan is like public pension plans in virtually every industrial country. It was designed with a pay as you go approach. This means that each working age generation pays for the pensions of the previous generation. The security of the Canada Pension Plan benefit is therefore founded on the continuing commitment of the government and the people of Canada to maintain the plan.
In spite of the fact that I had some reservations about it there are also some advantages to this funding approach. They were able to pay benefits in the early days of the plan's lifetime without requiring extremely high rates of contribution. The problems of managing a large fund in the public domain are avoided.
We could argue at considerable length whether this is an advantage or disadvantage but currently the fund would need $400 billion to meet all of its liabilities, and a fund of that size would be difficult to manage. It is also a moot point to bring it up because we obviously do not have the funds to manage. Because Canada Pension Plan is essentially financed on a pay as you go basis the contributions must closely match the rising expenditures of the plan. Expenditures arise for three main reasons. First, the Canada Pension Plan is still maturing. That means more and more retired Canadians are receiving Canada Pension Plan benefits. Second, lower fertility and mortality rates have resulted in the aging of Canada's population. Third, benefits have been enriched on several occasions without corresponding increases in contribution rates to cover the additional costs such as benefits for the disabled.
Bill C-39 which we are currently debating would increase benefits to dependent children of deceased or disabled Canada Pension Plan contributors by $35 per
month. That would take it up to a total of $148 per month.
We cannot ignore the reality of future costs. Projections of future spending anticipate that Canada Pension Plan expenditures will double over the next 40 years. This reflects the fact that more contributors are retiring and more contributors are living longer and drawing on the account.
It is very difficult to make statistics sound interesting, but it is important to this discussion to illustrate just how the expenditures have grown. When this plan was still in its infancy in 1970, the expenditures represented one-half of one per cent of contributory earnings. That was because there were very few people retiring at that time who had been participating and those who had, had contributed for only a very few years.
By 1975 the expenditures had increased to represent 1.4 per cent of all contributory earnings. In 1980 they had gone up to 2.7 per cent. In 1985 it was up to 4.3 per cent and in 1990 the expenditures in the program had increased to 6.1 per cent of all contributory earnings.
From this point we look at projections. It is projected that by the turn of the century, in nine years' time, the expenditures under the program will represent 7.5 per cent of contributory earnings. By the year 2010 it will be up to 8.6 per cent and up to 13 per cent by the year 2030.
These projections anticipate that Canada Pension Plan expenditures are going to double over the next 40 years and contributions are going to have to rise accordingly if we are going to maintain the fund.
In 1985, after extensive review involving the provinces and the general public, the federal and provincial governments agreed to establish a long-term financing program for the plan. This was a long-term plan that would ensure that contribution rates move smoothly and gradually to the levels required to meet future benefit outlays.
The legislation which implemented the agreement set a 25-year schedule of contribution rates so that employees, employers and self-employed persons would be aware of future contribution rates and plan accordingly. Rates under this schedule were set to rise in annual steps from the 1986 level of 3.6 per cent to 7.6 per cent in the year 2011.
November 18, 1991

The legislation also required that the federal and provincial governments review the existing schedule every five years to ensure the contribution rates would continue to be set at appropriate levels in the light of new actuarial projections. Five more years must also be added to the schedule. If this is not done by agreement among finance ministers then it will happen automatically under a formula which incorporates the financing principles in the 1986 legislation.
According to these financing principles, the plan's reserve is to be maintained at approximately two years of benefits. This reserve would be used to smooth out the effects on contribution rates of both expected and unexpected changes in economic and demographic conditions.
As a result of the first five-year review required for the 1986 legislation, federal and provincial ministers of finance agreed in January 1991 to adjust the contribution rates in the schedule to reflect new information provided in the most recent actuarial report. This report is called the 11th Statutory Actuarial Report. It identified the following trends that would create a need for higher rates of contribution to the plan in both the short and the long term.
Lower rates of fertility and mortality are resulting in a population with relatively fewer workers and more retired Canadians receiving benefits. Second, a drop-off in the rate of growth of worker productivity is resulting in slower increases than previously projected in wages on which rates are calculated.
If contribution rates were not increased, the reserve would fall to less than one-half a year of benefits by the year 2011, a level inconsistent with the target of two years of benefits established by the 1986 legislation. As a result finance ministers agreed that the combined employer-employee contribution rate should rise in steeper annual steps from the current 4.6 per cent rate. Under the new arrangement the contribution rate rises to 9.1 per cent in 2011 compared to 7.6 per cent in the 1986 schedule. The ministers also agreed to extend the schedule so that contribution rates would rise to 10.1 per cent in the year 2016.
What is the impact on employers and employees across Canada? Under the new rates workers who earn the average wage of $30,500 in 1991 are going to have to pay
Government Orders
an additional $7 in 1992. The difference in contributions under the new rates will increase to $15 by 1993 and reach $42 by 1996. The net impact on worker's take home pay will be smaller since Canada Pension Plan is creditable under the personal income tax. I think it should be understood that employers pay the same amount in the plan as do employees.
Even with these increases the contribution rates compare favourably to those which currently exist under the public pension plans of most industrial countries. The future age structure of Canada's population in terms of the ratio of plan contributors to beneficiaries will be similar to those which already exist in many of the European countries today.
It is of great importance to Canadians particularly at this time that they see that their federal and provincial governments have a commitment to the long-term strength of our national institutions and respect for the viability of our economy. The Canada Pension Plan is one of the most important social security structures in our nation. I know that all members of this House are going to support the confirmation given by Bill C-39. The Canadian people are going to appreciate that confirmation knowing that governments are acting to keep their plan sound and secure now and in the future.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I want to share some concerns with my colleague from Red Deer with regard to disabilities. I also want to ask him more about the schedule and the contribution rates as they affect the working man and woman and the employer.
There is a reserve fund with regard to CPP of about $40 billion that gives a three-year trust there. Some people in the House today suggested that it is lent back to the provinces at preferred rates. That is not true. Those funds are lent back proportional to the contributions that are paid by the province. If the province of Alberta through the contributions pays x dollars into the fund and there is a surplus, that surplus is invested back in the province of Alberta at a very much lower rate than the market rates. It is taxpayers' money that is being invested back into the province where it came from at a much lower rate. I think this is good use of taxpayers' dollars and one that we should encourage.

The other was with regard to disabilities. My colleague from Red Deer knows quite well about people with disabilities perhaps not understanding the workings of the CPP. He knows that we have developed new manuals on disability provisions. They have gone to about 120 private insurance companies across Canada, plus every workers' compensation office across this country. Posters have been made and distributed. There are also kits for all MPs in this House with regard to CPP, especially the disability and the funding thereof. We have become far more pro-active with regard to helping those people so that they do not suffer too long.
The remarks of my colleague for Red Deer were extremely beneficial. He said that the schedule of rates was going to start to increase as of this January and then increase again in 1997.
For all the people across Canada, I wonder if he could reiterate just what those schedule rates will be. What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? I would like to ask the member for Red Deer what this means to the employer and to the employee. How much more is he or she going to be paying to keep this fund financially stable and viable right across the country?


Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I should have got together so I would have the right papers in front of me. She asked a great many questions. They were very good questions.
I mentioned how difficult it is to make a speech involving statistics that sounds interesting. Like the hon. member said, these charts and graphs are available and there have been extensive consultations across Canada.
I started my remarks by mentioning the story about the weekend and bringing one piece of legislation in front of a particular group and that particular group wanting to know why they had not been consulted in the earlier stages of the legislation.
We have in front of us today legislation that has involved extensive consultations with groups right across Canada. The member for Calgary Southwest mentioned the meetings with the workers' compensation groups and the insurance agencies. There have been employer groups and labour groups consulted. There has been
tremendous consultation because this does impact on Canadians from coast to coast.
Every Canadian wants to know if they have a sound program in place and that their pension funds are safe. They also need to know how to plan.
I will get to the point very quickly. The member asked about the contribution rates. A plan has been established that sets them for a 25-year period. They are set at a rate which is going to continue to be shared between employer and employee. The contribution rate will increase at about .02 per cent per year each year until 1996 and .025 per cent beyond that.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members Pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me first because I wish to mention to the House our First Nations who came last during the Remembrance Day ceremony at the War Memorial here in Ottawa.
According to the Assembly of First Nations Chief, Ovide Mercredi, the wreath he laid on behalf of aboriginal veterans came at the close of the ceremony almost as an afterthought.
The Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion which organized the November 11 program says the wreath it laid is on behalf of all Canadian veterans, native vets included. The federal government concedes that following the official party and the diplomatic corps, perhaps Canada's native people should be given a special spot since, as Ottawa puts it, Canada has always and will always be grateful to its native veterans.
This slight appears to be a classic case of perception being reality particularly at a critical moment in our nation's history. Canada's first citizens should not be treated last.
November 18, 1991


MEDICARE
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, recently an elderly Mississauga woman was being rushed to her local hospital. A short while later she was unloaded at a school parking lot because the ambulance has been told that there was no bed available for her anywhere in the city.
The Government of Ontario has since announced further bed closings and hospital cutbacks, blaming the ever-shrinking federal transfer payment. This is yet another example of how this government's assault on medicare is disabling health facilities across this country.
I call upon the government to acknowledge that its amputation of medicare funding is forcing the chronically ill to bear the human costs of federal economic mismanagement.


MINE TAILING SITES
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the French CBC program Le Point has just done three reports on environmental problems in Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
I hope that these reports, which emphasize the scope of the environmental problem due mainly to mine tailing sites in our region, will finally get some action from the governments, in particular the Government of Quebec which is responsible for several of these sites.
These mine tailing sites cover a surface of more than 40 square kilometres, which is the equivalent of the distance between Montreal and Quebec City. These sites threaten not only our lakes and our subsoil, but also public health.
I therefore ask both levels of government to act jointly to create an environmental research centre in our region in order to find solutions to this serious problem that threatens our environment. This issue has become a priority for all my constituents.


MEDICARE
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, Sunday marked the 30th anniversary of the introduction of medicare in Canada. The passage by the CCF of the Saskatchewan Medicare Insurance Act of 1961 brought to Saskatchewan universal accessible medicare. This was followed by a national program passed in the House of Commons in 1966. In Saskatchewan, the implementation of universal provincial medicare required a protracted struggle and the resolution of a 17 day strike by the doctors of the province that were backed by the Liberal opposition and doctors' organizations in Canada and the United States.
It is time to salute the vision and determination of Saskatchewan innovators like Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd. It is time that we reaffirm our commitment to a national health care program.
The federal government must cease its cutbacks to medicare and resume its fair share of funding or national medicare will not survive another 30 years.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday on CBC I heard a radio report claiming that the Leader of the Official Opposition blames this government for the constitutional pain Canadians are presently experiencing. He said that a constitution cannot be put together in a week and that the people of the country must be consulted.
It is incredible to me that these comments can be made by the person who is widely considered responsible for our present constitutional problems. The Leader of the Opposition and his party repatriated the BNA Act with entrenched changes that excluded any input from Canadians. He put together a constitutional agreement in the back room of a restaurant during the night while most Canadians slept.
Well, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not asleep now. If the opposition leader thinks he can fool the Canadian public with his attempts to rewrite or distort history, he has misjudged Canadians. Truth will win out and his

attempts at distortion will only make the public more aware of another truth. The Grits are willing to put partisan politics and their quest for power ahead-


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


POVERTY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, last week was a week of mourning for Montrealers, Quebecers and Canadians as well. With the demise of Cardinal Leger we lost a truly great man who had devoted his life to the poor. And that, Mr. Speaker, on the second anniversary of the death of our former colleague, Jean-Claude Malepart.
Members of all political parties gathered last Sunday in Montreal to attend a play called "Le Faucon' ' dedicated to Jean-Claude and his family in recognition of all the work they have accomplished.
I am happy to see, Mr. Speaker, that through the work of these men and women who, like Jean-Claude Malepart and certainly like Cardinal Leger, believe in the less fortunate, the Sainte-Marie CIDC is now $64,000 richer.
Jean-Claude has not been forgotten. His memory lives on through his widow, Pierrette, and their two daughters, Sylvie and Nathalie, and we are all very happy that the work of this great Canadian family allows this CIDC to keep operating. We are all losers now that Jean-Claude is gone.


CANADA SAFETY COUNCIL
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the third National Seniors' Safety Week was held this year from November 12 to November 18. I am proud to announce that the event was sponsored by the Canada Safety Council.
Since it was established in 1968, the Canada Safety Council has associated itself with nation-wide initiatives aimed at reducing injuries, deaths and financial losses caused by accidents as well as general health hazards.
With the support of the private sector, governments, businesses and community associations, the council draws attention to safety issues affecting all Canadians and the seniors in particular.
The theme of the event is "Safeguard the Best Years of Your Life". Thus, the council is making sure that our seniors continue to drive safely.
I applaud the Canada Safety Council for its active communicative role in promoting awareness amongst seniors.


EAST TIMOR
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, since 1975 Indonesia has illegally occupied the former Portuguese colony of East Timor and in that time at least
100,000	people out of a population of 600,000 have lost their lives to the brutal regime imposed by Indonesian forces.
Now the government of Indonesia has mounted a more pervasive assault on the East Timorese through such methods as aggressive birth control and forced resettlement programs.
The East Timorese must surely wonder how their situation could be so different from that of Kuwait or the countless other human injustices that have been tackled and won with the weight of the international community. In the past, East Timor's small size and remote location have served as a veil, permitting a horrible assault on an impoverished people who aspire to nothing more than a just and peaceful society.
As we contemplate an emerging new world order, I call on the government to make sure that Canada's voice is heard and that the plight of the people of East Timor is not overlooked in the rush of events elsewhere.

YM/YWCA PEACE WEEK PROGRAM


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to note the continuing stream of positive and constructive examples which help to reinforce both the image and the reality of Canada as a country of the world. I was recently proud to witness one such sterling example of Canadian outreach to new citizens of various nationalities and cultural origins

through the work of the international committee of the YM/YWCA in my own riding of Fredericton-York- Sunbury.
The Fredericton Y has played a key leadership role in developing the peace week initiative in Canada and, in fact, the peace medallions presented across the country were originally designed and produced in our city. Among its many dimensions, peace week includes the hosting and orientation of refugees and immigrants who have been selected to make their new homes in Canada. This year the local Y has presented the peace medallion to St. Paul's United Church for its impressive role model in sponsoring and welcoming refugee families over the past several years.
Let us hope that the YM/YWCA Peace Week Program will touch the hearts of all Canadians and inspire us to national pride in our identity as peacekeepers in the world.


CARDINAL LEGER, DR. MCCLURE
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, last week Canadians were saddened to learn of the deaths of two prominent Canadian humanitarians, Paul-Emile Cardinal Leger and Dr. Robert McClure.
These two men came to represent Canada as few others have. Cardinal Leger, an ordained Catholic priest, went on to attain the highest office in his church in Canada by being nominated a Cardinal in 1963. In 1967 he stepped down from his episcopal seat to work as a missionary with lepers and handicapped children in Africa.
Dr. Robert McClure also attained the highest office of his church when in 1968 he became the first lay Moderator of the United Church of Canada. Dr. McClure had a distinguished career as a medical missionary, serving primarily in China, Palestine and India.
Both Cardinal Leger and Dr. McClure exemplified the very best of the spirit of service to humanity and Canada is proud that they called this country their home. The world is immeasurably better for having had these two humanitarians in its midst.


THE LATE PAUL-EMILE CARDINAL LEGER
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Canada mourns the passing of one of its most illustrious sons, Paul-Emile Cardinal Leger, whose entire adult life was dedicated to serving others.
With his deeply religious thinking and his deeds driven by compassion, he affected the lives of several generations of men and women, on all continents and at all levels of society.
His innate kindness and profound wisdom made thousands of people who had the privilege of meeting him consider him as a father. However, he will remain best known as a member of the family of mankind who was a much loved brother to the poor, the sick and the forgotten.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Sidbec plant in Ville Emard had to close down part of its facilities. One hundred and forty more workers lost their jobs, making a total of nearly 400 this year. These lay-offs are the result of government policies that are having a disastrous impact on the steel industry.
Southwest Montreal has already been severely affected by an incredible rate of plant closings; general lay-offs; and a 50 per cent unemployment rate.
Last Monday I met the unions at Sidbec. They are putting pressure on the government to put the industry back on its feet and save these jobs in what used to be the industrial heart of Montreal and our country.
The only way to put southwest Montreal back on its feet is for the government to put a stop to economic policies that are having a devastating effect on workers.
If Jean-Claude Malepart were still alive, he would say: Zero per cent inflation is fine, but what's the use if we have 50 per cent unemployment?

Oral Questions
THE LATE PAUL-EMILE CARDINAL LeGER


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, the most famous prince of the Catholic Church, Paul-Emile Cardinal Leger, is no longer with us. His passing is mourned by all faithful Catholics in Canada and throughout the world. We have lost our beloved spiritual grandfather.
I remember Cardinal Leger's eloquence and incredible simplicity. Who else but the Cardinal, at the height of his episcopal career, would have dedicated his life to serving the lepers, the most forgotten people on this planet, thus teaching the whole world a great lesson in humility.
The charities of the Fondation Jules et Paul-Emile Leger will perpetuate his cause. I earnestly hope that his deeds will be an inspiration and an example to all those who continue his noble task.


P.E.I. FERRY SERVICE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in my province of Prince Edward Island, truck drivers and other users of Marine Atlantic Ferry to New Brunswick are bracing themselves for another winter of delays. Such delays add to the already high cost of doing business and make vital industries like tourism more vulnerable to disruption.
No one knows for sure, but it is estimated that 30 to 40 per cent of trucks will experience significant delays this winter. The problem of delays is also compounded by the age of the ships. Three out of four are over 20 years old. All the ships cost more to operate and break down more often.
I urge the government to approve the construction of a new ferry for Prince Edward Island regardless of a decision on the fixed link. The five to ten years it would take to build a bridge would only see more delays at the ferry, more costly repairs and more chances for disruption to the Prince Edward Island economy.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, a decision of the Treasury Board meeting of July 14, 1988, instructed the Ministers of Pubic Works, Environment and Transport to address the question of which department should be responsible for making expenditures on highways in national parks.
Three years and four months later no decision has been made. Accidents and fatalities are occurring at an alarming rate in Banff National Park.
It is imperative that the President of the Treasury Board set a deadline for the three ministers for resolving the question of custody so that we can proceed with the much needed construction of the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through Banff National Park.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We read in the newspapers that the government intends to announce a 6 per cent increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
The news has taken employers and employees completely by surprise. The general view is that this is the worst possible time to increase premiums, just as we are trying to get out of this very difficult recession.
My question to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister is this: Will he announce today that he does not really intend to follow through with this massive increase and that he will take steps to help Canadian employers and employees during this difficult period?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago we announced the government's decision to increase contributions to the unemployment insurance plan by from 2.8 to 3 per cent, because the unemployment insurance account's deficit will be much higher than was forecast. That is why the premium rate was increased. The purpose of this decision is to keep the unemployment

insurance account solvent and minimize any impact on the government's financial accounts. Canadians should realize that if we let the unemployment insurance deficit increase at will, unemployment insurance recipients will have to pay the price.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am terribly sorry to hear this news from the minister.
I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In the budget of 1989, when his predecessor announced the new policy that it was pulling out of funding for UI, he said: "The government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums". That is a quotation from the budget of 1989.
I would like to know why the Minister of Finance today has broken the promise of his predecessor in the budget of 1989. Will he reverse that decision which is contrary to the announced policy of this government by his predecessor in the budget in the spring of 1989?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does contribute to the UI fund in terms of providing advances. It has done so in 1991 to the tune of $2.1 billion and it will do so in 1992 by providing an additional $1.3 billion. So the government is acting consistently with the comments of the previous Minister of Finance.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why he does not withdraw this announcement because the intention of the government was clear that in a period of recession that we are in at this moment the last thing that the economy needs is an increase in taxes from employees and employers. What we need at this moment is some money in the industries and the consumers in Canada to buy the goods that are needed to get this country out of this recession that will be two years old very soon.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition would rather postpone the
Oral Questions
difficult decisions to a further day and place the burden of that responsibility on future generations.
The fact of the matter is that the government has a responsibility to establish a premium rate on the basis of three criterion. The first one is the preservation of the financial integrity of the UI account. Second, we have to take into consideration the impact upon the employees and the employers. That indeed was done in this particular case. Finally, we have to take into consideration the impact of the UI deficit on the over-all fiscal objectives of the government. We weighed all those considerations and we made the decision that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has just announced.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has just announced a 3 per cent increase in the contributions employees and employers make to the unemployment insurance plan.
This is the third increase since the 1988 election and apparently we will have a fourth one in the coming months. Does the minister not realize that Canadians cannot take this new tax? How will we get out of the recession when he always raises the premiums paid by employees and employers? How can workers get through the next winter with yet another tax increase?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the deficit of the unemployment insurance account were not increasing, there would be no need now to increase unemployment insurance premiums. But the situation is such that if we do not act, the deficit of the UI account will grow, putting its integrity in question.
As the Minister of Finance just pointed out, no doubt the hon. member would prefer to postpone the problem to another time, but the fact remains that we must live with reality and the reality is that we have chosen an in-between solution which will ensure over time that this account will again be viable and have a positive balance by 1995.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Just before the last election the government announced a reduction in UI premiums. Since then we have had two increases, with another two on the way. This means that Canadian

Oral Questions
workers and small businesses have seen the UI premium increased by over 50 per cent since the fall of 1988.
In the spirit of consultation, did the minister seek the advice of his commission of employers and his commission of workers before announcing just a few minutes ago the new increase in UI premiums? If he did get the advice, what was the nature of the advice of his commissioners?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, yes indeed the Minister of Finance and myself met with the commissioners. At issue is the financial health of the UI account and the additional burden on employers and employees. The difficulty of course was finding a balance between the two. I believe that we have achieved a reasonable balance.
I believe that Canadians realize there are no quick and easy solutions to the problems we face on this issue. The hon. member and his party may try to lead the people to believe that money will simply fall from the sky, but the unemployed and other Canadians who are quite anxious about their future know that money is not falling from the sky. That is why we have taken this responsible course.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. It concerns the government's proposal for a number of constitutional conferences and a national conference on the Constitution. The minister appears to have gone a fair way in meeting some of the concerns certainly that my party has had about a more inclusive process, a process that would be a constituent assembly or a process similar to that.
I would ask the minister to confirm that a national conference on the Constitution will be held with participation which balances region, language, gender and diversity of opinion.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that it is our intention to hold
a series of five conferences, plus an arrangement with aboriginal people that may depart because of the nature of aboriginal issues in its format from the other conferences. One of those conferences, the last one, would be in effect a summary conference that would help the special joint committee come to conclusions that may allow us to move forward the process of getting agreement on constitutional debate in the country.
We would certainly try to ensure that all of those conferences were representative. Five of them will focus upon particular aspects of the proposals, but we will ensure that they are representative of considered opinion in the country and that they are operated in a way that will allow not only parliamentarians but also other Canadians to move forward steadily toward a consensus on constitutional change.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister must know that the success of the constitutional conference depends entirely on the confidence Canadians have in it. It is not a partisan issue but a question of public trust. For him to obtain this trust, can the minister assure us that the views of all those excluded in the past like the unemployed, the poor and other groups will have as much weight this time as those of the traditional experts on the Constitution? Can he assure us that all viewpoints will be considered in discussions on the Constitution?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the government is seeking an effective balance among the legitimate perspectives on constitutional issues. Of course experts must be perceived in a traditional sense, but I agree that it is also important to have other groups whose interests are affected by the outcome of constitutional discussions. The exact balance must be determined in the future.
I hope to have an opportunity to discuss this balance with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, with the Leader or a representative of the Liberal Party, and with others who, I believe and trust, share our interest in a fair and balanced result.
November 18, 1991


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I will take the minister's point that he will consult with the other parties on the representation at these conferences because it will be very important that all points of view are brought together if we are to reach a consensus.
On March 14 last, following the issuing of a $400,000 grant to the Business Council on National Issues, I asked the Prime Minister if similar financial support would be made to other groups that would also want to do research and prepare their presentations on the Constitution and on the national unity debate.
I want to ask the minister if the government has considered the proposals of these other groups and if such resources will be made available to groups participating in the conference to ensure that all of the delegates arrive at the table on an equal footing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on constitutional matters and on others we are operating with some resource constraints. We have made some millions of dollars available to aboriginal groups, for example, to ensure that they can undertake extensive consultation of their own membership.
We are prepared to look at some limited funding of some other kinds of conferences. I think it is essential to the effective functioning of the conferences discussed earlier in this Question Period that there be a willingness on the part of the government to ensure that financial resources are not an obstacle to the attendance at those conferences of people who might have to travel some distances to get there.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might simply express my appreciation and that of the government for the leadership between opposition parties that the New Democratic Party has shown this morning in its agreement to take steps that will ensure that the special joint committee can get back into operation so that we can make progress on the constitutional-


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance,
Oral Questions
who will be aware that this government's high dollar policy is wiping out jobs right, left and centre. For every one cent increase in the value of the dollar, $2 billion worth of export business is lost to Canada. The 13 cent hike in the dollar since 1984 has triggered massive lay-offs in mining, forestry, and fishing, all of which are heavily dependent upon export sales.
I ask the minister why he persists in a policy which is wreaking such economic havoc and causing so much pain.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we do not have a high dollar policy. The exchange rate is established in the marketplace.
As far as exports are concerned, I would advise the House that the merchandise trade balance rose by $8.1 billion at an annual rate of $13.5 billion in the month of August. Contrary to what the hon. member suggests, we have a positive merchandise trade balance and our trade with the United States is improving.
There are other fundamentals that have to be dealt with and that is the basic competitiveness and productivity issues that we face as an economy. I know the hon. member does indeed welcome the initiative by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology to deal with this on a partnership basis.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that those statistics do not buy groceries for the 178,000 more Canadians that are out of work this year than last year, thanks to the policies of him and this government.
The jobless rate in Newfoundland is up to 18 per cent and bankruptcies there have skyrocketed by something over 71 per cent, not to mention the increase in the number of homeless and the hungry across this country.
I ask the minister how he can be so callous, so insensitive as to stand idly by and let the Bank of Canada hold the dollar at such an outrageous level, creating even more bedlam and misery.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, no one enjoys the fact that this country has gone through a recession in the process of restructuring and adjustment.

Oral Questions
No one enjoys the fact that there is high unemployment. The fact of the matter is that we must get the fundamentals right.
Our approach to revitalizing the economy is to bring down the pressures of inflation so that we can bring down interest rates on a long-term basis. That will provide the recipe for sustained recovery and price stability. That is our goal. That is our objective. It is quite obvious that while the indicators are somewhat volatile, there is every clear indication that the economy is strengthening.
There were 43,000 new full-time jobs created last month and 108,000 full-time jobs since August. That is certainly not good enough. There were 24,000 brand new jobs created last month. Certainly that is not good enough but it is pointing in the right direction.
Housing starts are up 202,000 on an annualized basis. Business confidence is not as robust and buoyant as we would like to see it but Canada does not stand alone. We have problems all around us. We are dealing with the fundamentals and when we get the fundamentals right, we will have long-term sustainable recovery.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Recent reports suggest that the United States government has decided to delay the conclusion of the U.S.-Canada-Mexico free trade agreement until after the U.S. presidential election in November 1992.
The Canadian government on the other hand has consistently insisted that it is in Canada's interest to have a rapid conclusion of the discussions of these negotiations.
Is it now the position of the Government of Canada that the negotiations will be delayed, that the conclusion will be delayed until 1993? Has that become the position of the Canadian government as well as of the U.S. government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is not my understanding.
My understanding is that the negotiations are continuing. Canada is involved in those negotiations and there has not been any delay, artificial or otherwise, established as far as I am concerned.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that the chief U.S. trade negotiator stated recently that she would not bet her salary on the fact of these negotiations being concluded before the U.S. presidential election.
If Canadian policy is being determined by U.S. trade policy, what confidence can the Canadian people have that when the U.S. government demands, as it has been doing, that the cultural industries and the auto pact be on the table, U.S. policy will not dominate the situation as well?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of ifs associated with that question and it is rather hypothetical.
I can assure the hon. member that we are not engaged in the North American free trade negotiations from the standpoint of improving and benefiting the United States or Mexico. We are there because we believe that it is appropriate for Canada to be there and to protect Canada's interests.
We are there because we want to expand trade, liberalize trade because trade has been good for Canada in the past and it will be good for Canada in the future.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the question of the 7 per cent increase in UI premiums.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration says that money these days is not flowing from the sky. That is right. Money is in fact being taken from people's pockets.
I want to make the point to the minister of employment that this is the same thing as a $1.3 billion tax increase. I want to ask the Minister of Finance how he can possibly justify a $1.3 billion increase from people's pockets at a time when the economy is limping, people are out of work and this economy is struggling, right across Canada.
November 18, 1991

Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very much aware that there are certain factors that have to be taken into consideration in establishing the premium rate. One is the financial integrity of the unemployment insurance account. If we did nothing, there would be a cumulative deficit of $4.6 billion by the end of 1992. By the end of 1993 it would be $6.2 billion and by the end of 1994 it would be in excess of $7 billion. That would certainly put the UI account on very shaking footing. Therefore, that has to be taken into consideration.
As well, we take into account the difficulties faced by the employee and the employer as well as the over-all fiscal impact upon the government accounts. All of those things having been taken into consideration. As the Minister of Employment and Immigration said, we hit what we consider to be a happy medium. If we had tried to balance the account sooner, the increase would have been $3.20 or 3.2 per cent. As it was, we came in between 2.8 and 3.2 per cent and established the rate at 3 per cent which we think is fair, reasonable and equitable.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact if the government was paying its fair share of the UI premiums which it used to pay and which it should be paying, there would be no need for this increase.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance how he can recognize, as he did a few minutes ago, that business confidence has fallen dramatically, that consumer confidence has decreased in the last quarter according to the Conference Board of Canada. How can the minister recognize that the confidence of business and consumers has fallen and then turn around and take this $1.3 billion out of people's pockets?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, you do not add confidence by adding to the deficit. Quite frankly, the issue of the deficit is as important as interest rates or the value of the dollar. All of these things are very, very important.
The hon. member wants to spend more money. Who does he want to tax? Before he asks the Government of Canada to spend more money, he should tell the
Government of Canada who he wants to tax and at what amount. Then we would be getting a fair recommendation from the hon. member.
I repeat what I said before. The Government of Canada will be advancing $2.1 billion in 1992 and $1.3 billion in 1993. That is an advance to cushion the effect of an otherwise severe draw on the UI account.


CANADIAN MINT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the strike at the Canadian Mint in both Ottawa and Winnipeg, a strike which is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in revenue.
Once again under this government those at the top are getting fat increases while everybody else has to settle for the crumbs even though the Mint made a $10 million profit last year.
What is the government doing to get bargaining back on track, to get a fair settlement, to get revenues rolling into public coffers again?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the strike has been going on for some time and Labour Canada has offered mediation assistance to both parties. Tb my knowledge, as of today, neither of the parties has requested such assistance.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, working men and women at the Canadian Mint in Winnipeg in my riding have been offered a settlement of slightly over 2 per cent. The senior managers at the same Mint have been given-I repeat, given-a settlement of roughly 5 per cent which in some instances included huge bonuses. These men and women, these workers simply want a fair deal.
Will the minister do the honourable thing and call in a mediator today to settle this dispute?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of appointing mediators unless requested to do so by one of the parties. In this particular case neither management nor the union has asked for the mediation. I will look into it when one of them asks for it.
Oral Questions EAST TIMOR

November 18, 1991


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last week, several western governments, including the U.S. and the European Community, condemned outright an Indonesian army massacre of over 100 unarmed people of East Timor.
When will this government live up to its own rhetoric on human rights and finally support international efforts, including UN resolutions which demand an end to Indonesia's illegal occupation of East Timor and the right of the Timorese to self-determination?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I, on behalf of Canada, condemned the action of the Indonesians in East Timor the morning after the event in Seoul to the foreign minister directly. We had a long conversation about it in which I expressed the continuing concern of Canadians going back a long way over the situation in East Timor. I expressed our concern that the Indonesian government had not welcomed the Portuguese delegation that was to go in on behalf of the UN and look at conditions in East Timor and we urged them to accept the delegation from Portugal. Indeed, we are going to be in touch with the government of Portugal in that connection directly.
It is a tragic situation in East Timor and we condemn not only the violation of human rights in this particular instance, but also the ongoing situation for the people who live there.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, the minister's own press release stated her concern, a very weak word at best. Previously Canada has voted against United Nations resolutions calling for self-determination. Canada has lobbied to have the issues removed from the agenda. The Prime Minister has on numerous occasions linked foreign aid to human rights violations and Canada's foreign aid contributions to Indonesia has averaged $50 million annually in recent years.
In this case, will the minister take the Prime Minister at his word and conduct a full review of the foreign aid presently being allocated to Indonesia?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, although I have asked for an examination of our foreign aid to Indonesia, I should point out that it was $46 million and it is very much grassroots aid. It goes to environmental projects, water supply, human resources, women and development. It does not go through the government for the most part.
However, I have asked for a review of our foreign aid to Indonesia under these circumstances and I will be happy to report back to the House after I have completed that review.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question with respect to East Timor because, as the minister knows, last Tuesday the Indonesian army brutally attacked unarmed East Timorese mourners attending a funeral in Delhi which resulted in over 100 deaths and many injuries.
While the minister finally issued a statement late on Friday afternoon, three days after the violence, I want to ask the minister whether she is in fact prepared now to implement the policies that the Prime Minister of Canada is now preaching at the francophone summit in Paris? Is the minister prepared to say to the Canadian people, and particularly to the Indonesian government, that we take human rights seriously and that we are prepared to suspend aid to this brutal government that has been responsible for the murder of innocent civilians? Will this government practice what it preaches?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member was not listening to one word I said in response to the previous two questions.
I have already said that I am reviewing our aid to Indonesia. I have also said that much of that aid is not government to government but is done through nongovernmental agencies.
Yes, I am reviewing our aid. As I also said in response to the last question, and I am sorry to repeat myself but the question is very repetitive, I expressed our concern
November 18, 1991

and our condemnation directly to the Indonesian foreign minister the morning after it happened personally in Seoul.
We have also called in the ambassador and we have expressed our concerns through our ambassador in Djakarta.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
I would like to remind the minister that at this point there is no arms embargo on sales of Canadian arms to Indonesia and, in fact, there have been over the past couple of years sales of a number of arms. I hope the minister will review that question as well.
My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, relates to the issue of a parliamentary delegation. The minister has referred to the Portuguese parliamentary delegation which is trying to get into East Timor. I want to ask the minister whether she is prepared to show leadership on behalf of the people of Canada. Will she support the sending of a Canadian all-party parliamentary delegation to get a first-hand, fact-finding look at the very very serious human rights situation in Indonesia and East Timor?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no.
I think that the Portuguese have a strong role to play because of their history in the region. We are prepared to consider a number of steps at future stages, depending on what happens. But over time we have been very active in this situation in the UN and we have raised this issue continually in Djakarta.
I think the role of the Portuguese is an important one and I would hope that it would be allowed to continue. It has been ongoing since 1981. Whereas I recognize the hon. member's strong concern for what is going on in East Timor, I do believe that the role being played by Portugal is sufficient for now.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, having resigned, as you know, from the position of parliamentary secretary, I can ask a question. My
Oral Questions
question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister and all members of this House know full well that peace has not been restored to the part of my riding called Oka following the summer of 1990 incidents, and understandably so. The minister can also appreciate the hope and anxiety my constituents felt when they read in La Presse last Friday about the allocation of an extra $25 million for the purchase of properties in Kanesatake. Here is my question.
Can the minister confirm that he has requested a $25 million appropriation from Treasury Board to unify Mohawk land in Oka? If this request was granted, can he give this House details concerning the amount of that budget.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to compliment the hon. member for Argenteuil- Papineau for her strong conviction and the helpful advice that she has offered to the government in dealing with very difficult circumstances affecting her constituency. I think all members should take a cue from the hon. member in the way in which she has committed herself to this cause.
I can confirm that the government has given approval through Treasury Board for a budget for the negotiation and purchase of properties in the vicinity of Oka and Kanesatake. It would be inappropriate to reveal the total amount of that budget for reasons relating to the sensitive negotiations, but indeed Treasury Board has approved such a budget.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many problems in Oka and Kanesatake, I would like the minister to tell my constituents how soon they can expect to be made an offer so that the extremely difficult situation they have been faced with since the summer of 1990 crisis can finally be resolved.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the House that it was late last year when the hon. member who posed the question suggested that the negotiator for

November 18, 1991
Oral Questions
the matters remaining to be resolved at Kanesatake be mandated to also commence negotiations with a number of the residents who own property in the vicinity of the community of Kanesatake. In fact, Mr. Bernard Roy has commenced those negotiations. They have been under way for some months. Public Works has arranged to have appraisals completed and offers have been made and accepted by many of the residents.


RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the sale of the rail link between Truro and Sydney in Nova Scotia. On September 27 this year, his colleague stated in the House that no bids would be considered unless the same level of service was maintained. However, CN and the government have kept the public in the dark about the conditions of sale and the identity of potential buyers.
Now that all the bids are in, can the minister release this information so that we can see how the public interest is protected by this sale?
Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned several times before in the House, this is an initiative by Canadian National, and CN was given a mandate to operate on as commercial and profitable a basis as possible. The bids are now in and are being considered by CN which will subsequently make a decision that will be in the best interests of the communities involved.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is for the same minister. Nova Scotians do not trust this government. They believe that this proposed sale by CN is merely rail line abandonment by another route. That would spell economic catastrophe for a third of Nova Scotia where the three main employers, Sysco, Devco and Stora Forest Industries, all depend on this rail line from Truro to Sydney.
Why is the minister placing the future of thousands of Nova Scotians in jeopardy by allowing CN to sell this vital rail link?


Jean Corbeil: I will repeat again, Mr. Speaker, that the decision has not been taken. CN has requested bids. It is examining the situation at the present time and will make a decision.
I think that the people of Nova Scotia should rejoice in the fact that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, and myself awarded last week a contract of $42.6 million for the construction of a ferry to Pictou Industries Ltd. in Nova Scotia.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Credit card interest rates in Canada continue to be 10 to 12 points above prime. Yet the minister has steadfastly refused to take any action to protect Canadian consumers from unfair gouging by the big banks.
Given that every 1 per cent drop in credit card rates saves Canadian consumers over $10 million a month, will he follow the lead of the U.S. Congress and bring in legislation to cap credit card interest rates in Canada?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that the bill now before the U.S. Senate has not been ratified by the President of the United States and the U.S. administration. So far, the U.S. administration has been firmly opposed to any cap on interest rates.
However, I must say that we are watching the situation very closely, including the fact that the banks have not significantly reduced their credit card rates during the past year. I am monitoring this very closely, and I was pleased to hear that thanks to the signals we have been sending, both to consumers and the banks, one bank reduced its rate by 1.5 per cent a few days ago.
November 18, 1991

I am sure that, as a result of competitive forces and market pressures, we will be seeing further drops within the next few days, Mr. Speaker.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
It is cold comfort for the minister to tell Canadian consumers that they should only expect fair credit card rates when a Commons committee can embarrass the big banks into dropping their obscene rates. What we do not need is rhetoric. What we do need is a legislative remedy to stop consumers from being gouged.
My question is this: Will the minister finally accept the recommendations of the consumer and corporate affairs committee, follow the lead of the U.S. Senate and impose a legislative cap on credit card interest rates in Canada?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize there is a difference between credit card interest rates in the United States and the U.S. prime rate. The spread is much broader in the United States than it is here in Canada, considering that today there are significant differences between various credit cards in this country.
A few weeks ago, I personally invited Canadian consumers, of whom more than half who have credit cards don't pay interest because they pay their balance every month, Mr. Speaker. More than half the people don't pay a cent of interest on their cards. I asked the other half to check and shop around for lower rates-on a line of credit, for instance, or on personal loans-where they could save several percentage points. I invited all Canadians to do so, including members of this House. They could save a lot of money.


Mr. Garth Tiirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on what was being said by my hon. colleague across the way. I am wondering if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs might simply admit that there is concern about the level of
Oral Questions
credit card interest rates. Perhaps the minister could send an indication to the banks that the best way to avoid a Draconian law such as the one my hon. friend mentioned is to drop rates substantially and do it now.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
I have advised the banks, the trust companies and department stores, all of which have credit cards, that I am looking at this closely. I am going to meet with them in a few days. I am already in touch with them. My deputy minister is meeting with all the provincial deputy ministers because credit cards issued by department stores are under provincial jurisdiction.
We are looking at this matter because it is an important question. We have sent a signal to the banks and we will look forward to seeing the results.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of corporate and consumer affairs. Again it has to do with these usurious rates charged by financial institutions on credit cards and retail cards.
These rates range all the way from 18 per cent to 30 per cent.


An hon. member:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: We do not need George Bush to tell us what to do about usurious credit card rates.
My question is very straightforward. The Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs recommended a floating cap. Is this minister prepared to act like a pit bull terrier when dealing with financial institutions, rather than some sort of poodle.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Blais: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hon. member really wants me to be. He was cut off just in time. In any case, I know that the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs is now looking into this matter. I am sure the recommendation made some time ago to put a cap on interest rates was even turned down by the Consumers Association of Canada, because

Routine Proceedings
the measure was considered unlikely to maintain a competitive market.
I understand what the hon. member is trying to say, and I realize he is concerned. I am concerned as well. We have sent a signal to the financial community. We will see how it reacts. In fact, one of Canada's major banks lowered its rate by 1.5 per cent three days ago. I am sure that when President Bush referred to this last week, he probably repeated what I said in the House just two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the external affairs committee from the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 31 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to establish a national highways system and a national highways authority.


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


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present this private member's bill. The purpose of the
bill, as the title suggests, is to establish a national highway system and also a national highways authority.
A national highways authority would be represented by all the provinces of our fair land plus the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
The purpose of the bill and the authority is to acquire lands for the construction of national highways, and for constructing, maintaining, operating and upgrading the national highways that we have.
My belief in presenting this private member's bill is to allow the government to reflect on the need for a national highway system because of the fact that with a national highway system, we can enhance our competitiveness. It would enable us to be better prepared for defence purposes.
Most importantly, it would ensure that national highways meet national standards so that we would have equal access and ability to compete in all parts of Canada.


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


PETITIONS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by 125 residents of the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell. The petitioners call on this government to protect article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which is necessary for the continuance of supply managed agriculture in Canada.
I have several more such petitions that are presently being approved by the Clerk of the House. I urge the government to listen to the pleas of the electors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from a number of constituents from the Kamloops region of British Columbia that are calling upon the Government of Canada to ensure proper

Routine Proceedings
support financially for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police so they can fulfil their mandate as we all know it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, again from the citizens of a number of communities in British Columbia, the petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to state categorically that the fresh waters in our rivers will not be dammed and diverted into the United States for any reason, particularly in light of the proposal to dam and divert part of the North Thompson River at Belmont, British Columbia.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I present to the House a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners:
Whereas Croatia instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election conducted in April 1990;
Whereas 94 per cent of the population of Croatia voted for independence;
Whereas Croatians, like all other peoples are entitled to freedom and democracy and their right to self-determination;
Whereas Canada has an international reputation, has the moral authority and as such can initiate this democratic process without compromising world peace;
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the initiative in officially recognizing Croatia as an independent and sovereign democratic nation.
This was signed by several thousand petitioners in the last number of months that had hoped to avoid the bloody conflict we are now witnessing.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by 1,336 Canadians. It reads as follows:
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners: Whereas Croatia instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election in April 1990; whereas 94 per cent of the population of Croatia voted for independence; whereas anachronistic communism fuels the Yugoslav army-backed Serbian terrorists as they continue their brutal attack on thousands of unarmed Croatian civilians, women and children; whereas Croatians, like all other peoples, are entitled to freedom, democracy and their right to self-determination; and whereas Canada has an international reputation as a moral authority and as such can initiate this democratic process without compromising world peace; wherefore the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Canada to recognize the independence of Croatia, and I support them.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a number of petitions with thousands of signatures from various parts of Canada, including my own riding, Toronto, Timmins, and out west. These petitioners feel there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system and that there are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children and disabled persons are at particular risk.
These petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against persons are serious and abhorrent to society. They ask the government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to this House by fellow citizens from Montreal and Quebec.

November 18, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Whereas we believe that tribute must be paid to a great lady, Marie Sklodowska Curie, for her scientific contributions to humanity, we think that Mrs. Curie, who twice won the Nobel Prize for her discovery of radium and was the first woman to earn a place in the history of science, should be recognized by Canada. We believe that this illustrious Polish woman, a benefactor of humanity and scientist whose fame has never diminished, should be honoured by Canada as she has already been honoured by many countries.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour table a petition signed by hundreds of residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia who point out that Croatia instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election conducted in April 1990 and that 94 per cent of the population of Croatia voted for independence.
They point out that an anachronistic communism fuels the Yugoslav army-backed Serbian terrorists as they continue their brutal attack on thousands of unarmed Croatian civilians, women and children. They note that Croatians like all other peoples, are entitled to freedom, democracy and their right to self-determination.
Finally, they note that Canada has an international reputation as a moral authority and as such can initiate the democratic process without compromising world peace.
Therefore, they call upon Canada to take the initiative in officially recognizing Croatia as an independent and sovereign, democratic nation.
I table this petition on behalf of the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise also under Standing Order 36 to present petitions from many of the supply managed commodity farmers in my riding. They call on the government to stand firm at the GATT negotiations. They want to instruct the government to hold our Canadian system up as an example to the rest of the world and to protect it in its
entirety at all costs in the current round of GATT negotiations.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions signed by 1,260 Canadians.
The petitioners humbly show that the Croatian institute of the democratic government in a multi-party election conducted in April 1990, an election which I had the great pleasure of attending, found that 94 per cent voted for independence. Croatians are entitled like others to freedom, democracy and the right to self-determination.
The petitioners urge the government to take the initiative in officially recognizing Croatia as an independent, sovereign and democratic nation.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several dozen citizens of southwestern Ontario. They call on the government to provide emergency assistance this year as a result of the government's serious cutback of support programs last year for the grains and oilseeds and horticulture crops.
They are calling on the government to provide that assistance as if the safety net system, which will come into effect this coming year, had been in effect for 1990.
I know that the government will want to respond in a positive way and not in the half-hearted way in which it has responded already to this serious situation for Canadian fanners.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I also would like to present a petition from farmers and their representatives across this country that are also suffering great difficulties these days.
There was a special meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture in August of this year. The farmers in this petition request that the government live up to the resolution passed by that committee in August of this year in order that they can receive sufficient support in order to be able to survive.


Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to submit a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 in respect to the Nina de Villiers case.
These petitioners humbly request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the 1972 Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act accordingly.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of many Canadians whose signatures appear on these petitions who have been touched by the senseless murder of Nina de Villiers on August 9.
The petitioners would like to point out the deficiencies in the criminal justice system and therefore request Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against persons are serious and abhorrent to society and that there is necessity to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the 1972 Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act accordingly.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, question No. 132 will be answered today.


Mr. Young: With the exception of the multi-year operational plan (MYOP), does a department have the right to shift salary resources to other internal priorities without Treasury Board approval?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Under the current rules and procedures, a department may not adjust the amount of salary resources available to it without the approval of the Treasury Board. Even in the MYOP, while departments may propose internal reallocations to increase or decrease salary resources this ultimately will
Routine Proceedings
need to be considered and approved by the Treasury Board.
The PS 2000 initiative calling for the implementation of operating budgets in the 1993-94 fiscal year will fundamentally change the Treasury Board's approach to resource management. Under operating budgets, managers in the Public Service will be given budget flexibility to reallocate dollars between the salary and non-salary portions of the operating budget. This will enable managers to choose the most efficient and effective way of achieving program goals. This represents a change from the traditional approach of central controls to one of making the manager more responsible and accountable for resource management.
In summary, the current rules and procedures are as follows:
-Section 31 of the Financial Administration Act requires each deputy head to divide each appropriation granted by Parliament into allotments in the form prescribed by the Treasury Board. The allotments are approved by Treasury Board and cannot be varied or amended without the approval of the board.
-The basic allotment structure in use for most departments and agencies (excluding Crown corporations) within the Public Service is:
-Salary and wages-all personnel costs are charged to this allotment;
-Salary adjustment reserve allotment-funds set aside to offset all or a portion of the costs associated with salary increases expected in the next fiscal year; and
-Other operating costs-the balance of funds appropriated to a vote.
-In 1985 the Treasury Board assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury Board the duty of approving on its behalf certain allotment changes of an administrative nature including the authority to review and approve the reallocation of funds to or from salaries and wages.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 52 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the tragic situation in Yugoslavia.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the application which is for an emergency debate on the issue of Yugoslavia.
A number of applications have been taken. I know that discussions have taken place. I so order the debate to commence at eight o'clock tonight. I thank the hon. minister.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, now that you have ruled, I believe you will find unanimous consent, in light of the commencement of this special emergency discussion on Yugoslavia, for it to commence immediately following the adjournment debate around 6.30 p.m. rather than it commencing at eight o'clock p.m. In other words we would commence earlier than eight o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I would want to hear other members of the House.


Mr. Dingwall:: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to raise this matter with me prior to Question Period being terminated. I undertook at that time to consult with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, and due to the arrangement of schedules over the weekend and for today, I am afraid that we would not be able to consent to having the debate earlier and we would have to proceed in accordance with the Standing Orders of having the debate commence at eight o'clock.
I hope that does not cause my hon. colleague too much difficulty but I did discuss it with my critic and associate critics and some of them are flying in from Toronto and elsewhere to participate in the debate tonight.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to signal that we would not have had a problem with proceeding at 6.20 p.m. or whatever the time would have worked out to be. I think in light of the concerns of the Liberal House leader that fits our schedule probably better as well because the minister had a previous commitment that takes her away from the House and she would not be able to return until approximately 9.20 or 9.30 this evening.
This probably fits our schedule better commencing at eight o'clock as well.


Mr. Speaker:: If there had been agreement the debate could have started earlier, although probably at six o'clock, if not six-thirty. However, as the House has heard, there are reasons why consent cannot be given.
The motion will be put at eight o'clock this evening.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee B.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on second reading of this bill and look forward very much to this bill going to committee where it can be amended in the manner that is necessary to make it the kind of legislation that we need to have with regard to most particularly the Canada Pension Plan.
As we are all aware, the Canada Pension Plan has been in effect in this country and with its partner, the Quebec Pension Plan in the province of Quebec, since 1966. The purpose of this is to provide a measure of protection to Canadian workers and their families against loss of earnings due to death, disability or retirement.
November 18, 1991

It covers virtually all employed and self-employed persons between the ages of 18 and 65, and it is optional to the age of 70, who earn more than the year's basic exemption. It operates everywhere in the country, as I have said, including in the province of Quebec where the parallel Quebec Pension Plan is in force.
It is financed through contributions from employees, employers and self-employed persons and from the interest earned on those contributions.
Everyone who is employed has a contributory period which either began in 1966 or at the age of 18 and ends when the contributor takes his or her retirement pension or reaches the age of 70. A person who spends time out of the paid labour force caring for a child under seven for whom a family allowance benefit is payable can drop those years from the contributory period if it is to their advantage.
In other words, this is a good plan. It is a plan that Canadian workers and their families depend upon and it is a plan that is part and parcel of the social fabric of this country. But this plan, like many other financial institutions in our country, is under a form of assault due to inflation and other problems facing us as we come to the end of the 20th century.
Indeed, the most recent actuarial reports show that if contribution rates to the fund are not increased, the Canada Pension Plan risks insolvency. That is only sensible when you consider it, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly applies to a number of the people in this House, those of us who were bom in the famed post-war baby boom, creating the largest demographic bulge in this country. As we march onward to the years of retirement that increased number of people out of the paid work force who are receiving benefits will obviously increase to an insupportable level if the fund is not increased.
By the government's own reckoning, short term increases in expenditure are due to higher than expected take-up of early retirement, an idea than has been pushed a great deal because of unemployment problems in this country today, and a lower than expected productivity in the Canadian economy. In the long term, higher expenditures are due to lower assumptions for future fertility and mortality rates and lower assumptions for productivity increases.
Government Orders
The schedule for the increase in contribution rates will be $7 in 1992 for each person with an average wage of $30,500. This contribution increases to $42 by 1996 allowing for a combined employer-employee contribution rate of 4.6 per cent in 1991 to 9.1 per cent in 2011, as opposed to 7.6 per cent by 2011 if the current contributions schedules are maintained.
What are the good points of this bill? One good point is that the bill will ensure the continued good health of the Canada Pension Plan which is absolutely to the benefit of all Canadians. It will provide increased benefits for the 170,000 children of deceased plan participants and benefits will rise as of January 1992 to $148 per month from $113 per month.
A third reason to support this bill is the increased benefits for women. One of the things that is very close to my heart is the whole question of credit splitting in the Canada Pension Plan.
In 1978, the Canada Pension Plan was amended so that divorcing spouses could have pension credits earned during their marriage divided equally between them. Previously, women who stayed at home to raise their children received no pension entitlement. Either spouse could apply for the split within three years of the divorce, however, only 2 per cent of spouses did so. The major reason for this was that this particular benefit was not well known. I well recall some time in the early 1980s bringing this point to public attention in Halifax through a radio program and getting a lot of complaints from a number of my colleagues. The problem was that if you did not specify the splitting of pension credits in a marriage contract or a separation agreement, or in the minutes of settlement of a divorce case, then the wife claiming a split of the husband's benefits was out of luck because the contract precluded her claiming them.
The second thing was that most women would be unaware of this unless told so specifically by their lawyers. The tragic point was that very few lawyers practising in Canada were aware of this. If husbands were aware of it, they obviously were not going to tell their divorcing wives at the time in question.
In 1983, the Canada Pension Plan Appeal Board ruled that the standard clause in divorce settlements, that the parties would have no further claims, that all claims were exhausted by the particular contract or minute of settlement, precluded equalizing pension credits later. In other words it became more and more difficult for

Government Orders
women to seek this redress and to take this benefit, a small one in many cases, but it made a difference.
The difference that it made could be a significant difference particularly to wives and families in low income categories. In 1986, the Canada Pension Plan was amended again. At that time, for subsequent divorces, credit splitting rights were declared to be unrenouncable unless provincial family laws explicitly provided for it. In other words, unless there was a provincial statute saying that you could renounce this benefit, you could not renounce it. Even by signing a contract you could not give up this specific right. This received a fair amount of publicity and consequently a number of applications for credit splitting took place over the next four years throughout Canada. However, in the fall of 1990, the Ontario case that had gone before the Canada Pension Plan Appeal Board was appealed to the higher court in which it was ruled that "no court order may produce a result contrary to those of statutory arrangements". Again the credit splitting question was placed back into limbo.
The 1987 amendments to the Canada Pension Plan were designed to make the splitting of spouses' CPP credits automatic upon the notification of divorce. However, currently one or both parties must notify the department of the divorce and supply the necessary information so that the credit may be split. There are a great number of reasons why this does not happen: ignorance of the provision, apathy, a lack of awareness and the fact that a number of lawyers are unaware of the specific situation. The level of request is low.
It is absolutely necessary that the government find a way to integrate a provision in this bill so that the welfare of the non-contributing spouse is guaranteed. In other words, the appeal case in 1990 said that "no court order may produce a result contrary to those statutory arrangements". If the statutory arrangements specifically said that credit splitting will be automatic I suspect that the problem will be solved.
A study by National Health and Welfare shows that 94 out of every 100 women marry and that one in every three marriages ends in divorce. In 1988, 56 per cent of single mothers lived below the poverty line, many trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty which condemns not
only them but their children to live in dire circumstances. We are not suggesting that the credit splitting of Canada Pension Plans will solve this problem, but it will help. To the average mother living at or below the poverty line, having a very difficult time in collecting maintenance payments, child support payments, the automatic credit splitting of Canada Pension can make a difference.
We realize that this may seem small in the over-all scheme of financial matters, but I think there is a moral responsibility on every one of us here in terms of women who do not receive proper support from their former husbands, in terms of women who are in almost every case subject to some form of financial disadvantage and in terms of women who still make 60 cents for every dollar that men make.
I have said this so many times that it is almost like a record. I could just push a button and the record plays, but I am going to say it again to the hon. member from Algoma East. The figure of 60 cents for every dollar that men make includes women employed at salaries such as the women who sit in this House, female doctors, lawyers, managers, engineers, upper level public servants and so on. When you remove those women from the statistics the average woman in Canada who is employed makes 50 cents for every dollar that a man makes. The real tragedy of those statistics is that they have not changed in over 40 years. That was the statistic in the post-war era of the late forties and it is the statistic today. That becomes very personal to me because it means that in the year I was bom that was the statistic, and 43 years later there is no change. I think we should be ashamed of that as a country.
This particular bill is not going to solve all of that, but it at least creates some small redress which is necessary on the part of this government. The problem is that various governments, Liberal and Conservative, have tried to fix it and somehow each set of amendments to the bill has managed to fall down a rabbit hole and not solve the problem for women who need this problem solved.
There are a number of other good points about this bill. One is the question about a disabled contributor's child benefit. Up to now, only natural or legally adopted children could be paid a disabled contributor's child benefit if they became dependants of the contributor after the disability commenced.

Disabled contributors' child benefits would now also be paid for children who are adopted in fact or who come under the custody and control of the contributor after the start of the disability.
This is a very important addition as well. I do not want to get into the area of my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain who is very much on top of the situation, particularly with respect to the disabled. However, I do want to make some points with regard to the whole question of custody, care and control of children. Particularly in this day and age the breakdown of the family frequently puts a grandparent or an aunt-almost always a woman-in a situation in which a court will grant her the custody of a grandchild or a niece. It might be someone else who in the words of the legislation in the province of Nova Scotia "has an interest in the custody, care and control of the child". In other words, many children end up with a custodial care giver through the courts who is neither the parent by blood nor by adoption.
In the past these people who come forward in the vast majority of cases out of a deep sense of caring for the child and out of a deep sense of a moral obligation to look after the child are often left with an inability to take care of that child because the relevant legislation affecting parents and children has excluded them.
I suppose to a degree this is within the purview of the Law Reform Commission. It is within the purview of this House as well not just to look at this legislation we are amending now but to make an attempt to do some sort of wholesale review of legislation as it affects women and children generally to ensure small benefits which do not cost the government a huge amount of money but which can make a difference between a bare minimum form of existence and an existence that perhaps goes slightly above that to an existence that is the true birthright of all people who live in this country.
There is so much poverty and so much misery in this country because we are told we cannot find the proper dollars and channel them in the proper way so that the proper programs are in place to assist people. When people lose benefits because of mistakes in legislation that are tantamount to misprints then all of us bear a responsibility.
This is why I say that I look forward very much to going to the legislative committee that will deal with this bill
Government Orders
and talking about amendments that can clean it up further, tighten it up better, and can make sure that benefits for Canadians under the Canada Pension Plan are done in the manner in which they should be done. We must ensure that we do not allow certain people in certain circumstances to fall between two stools because the House of Commons is too large and we are too busy to notice the small mistakes that can engender misery for large numbers of people.
It is the kind of thing where each one of us on all sides of the House must make sure that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, particularly in this recessionary time when we are faced on every side with cutbacks. A piece of legislation like this can make a vast difference in my own Atlantic region. We are very concerned there with the cutbacks in transfer payments, with the death blows dealt to the unemployment insurance plan, with the skyrocketing bankruptcies and all of the attendant misery of a recession that has the four Atlantic provinces in a death grip.
Just this past week while I was at home in my riding I drove around and I saw the number of small businesses that have closed in small shopping areas around my city of Halifax and the outlying areas. I saw them closed. I saw barred windows and boarded up establishments. That tells me more clearly than any statistic anyone gives how people are suffering in Atlantic Canada. At the very least we must do what we can.
This bill in and of itself is a reasonable bill. It needs some fine tuning. It needs some cleaning up and it needs some amending. I know that my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North will be looking very closely at this, as will my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain.
I look forward to working with them and indeed with the government members. I suspect that this is one of the areas where we can show that we can work together on all sides of the House to make sure that we are putting in place a bill that is of maximum and optimum benefit to 11 Canadians.
I know the minister would agree that the people of Atlantic Canada have suffered a great deal and expect to see some respite from their government to make life a little better.

Government Orders
It may well be that this bill properly amended and brought back to the House at report stage will have at least a little good news. It is a very dark tunnel and this may be just one small candle at the end of the very dark tunnel.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-39.
As we all know in this House the primary role of this bill is to keep the Canada Pension Plan solvent through increases in contributions by employers and employees. We know under the current condition that if we did not amend this bill by the year 2001 our pension fund would basically only have a six-month period of funding for the plan claimants.
The departmental officials have made the claim that this is not really a mismanagement of the fund but it was basically an inability to calculate accurately the birth and death rates from a calculation of 20 years ago. I can understand that.
There is also the diminishing worker productivity and early retirement. We on this side of the House are going to support this bill because there is enough economic stress and depression in the country right now without us tampering or putting any cloud of doubt around our Canada Pension Plan and our disabled pension plan as well as the other funds such as family allowances, et cetera.
When we analyse the current economic climate that we are in we have still to face up to the reality that this is another tax on employees and on employers. Even though the numbers are small, for example in this particular bill, we are talking $7 per employee per month. In other words it is a $42 contribution by the employer over a six-month period.
It seems like a small amount of money, but it is a fact that there is a tax on our new bankruptcy bill coming in. Here is another added tax on our Canada Pension Plan. Think of all the tax increases that have happened with this government. I think there have been well over 40 now if we include legislation that is in first, second or third reading.
The people of Canada are frustrated with the current tax climate in this country. I had a bit of time on the weekend to go over this bill. As I was reflecting on it I
thought that rather than continue the debate on the specifics of the bill I would address the fact that maybe what we should be doing is talking a little about what we can do to try and create some more wealth and try to reverse the capital flows that are leaving this country right now. The flight of capital from this country right now because of the current tax designs that exist has reached a crisis proportion.
We know that in the province of Ontario alone in the last year foreign investment which usually goes into direct investment was down by close to 50 per cent. That is a tremendously high number. When we think of the number of jobs we are losing in this country it is no wonder we hear of the decrease in foreign capital. We need foreign capital in this country. I keep repeating myself in this House and sometimes I wonder if the government ever pays attention to anything said in this House. It always says: "Give us ideas in order to advance the debate". Very rarely do I ever see it take these ideas.
I have been campaigning in this House of Commons for the last two years to change the tax system. I believe that if we were to take a radical approach to changing the fundamental personal and corporate tax design in this country we would not be sitting here today debating this bill in the way we are. We are asking for a further indirect tax increase from employers and employees, not to mention the government's contribution.
The way to create wealth in this country is not by adding to the tax litany. The way to increase wealth is to lower the basic tax structure. When people make personal or corporate profit they do not tend to want to leave it in Canada. Because of the tax designs that we have they want to take this money and look for other places to put it. Most people who make large sums of money in this country today either want to put it in the islands or they want to put it in Switzerland or they want even to move it to the United States. We have over a million Canadians living in the state of California. One of the reasons these people are going there is that there is a tax incentive.
Why do people put money in the Bahamas, in Nice and in the islands? They put money there because there is a better tax rate. It is the same in Switzerland. They put money there because of a preferred tax rate.
Because of the lack of confidence in this country today and because the spirit of this country is depressed, we are seeing more than ever a flight of capital. It is not just shrinking foreign capital but also a lot of our own
November 18, 1991

domestic capital is looking to go either to the United States or the islands or even Europe.
What we have to do is reverse that flow of foreign capital. The only way we are going to reverse that flow of foreign capital is by making sure that we have an incentive for people to come and invest in this country.
The embassies and the consul generals in this city monitor this House of Commons. Week after week after week they see a tax in this bill and another tax in that bill. They see a litany of taxes. It does not matter that they are just small amounts. These small amounts added up along with the paper burden do not attract people to participate in the economic growth of this country.
I have been saying in this House of Commons for the last two years now that what we should have is a single tax rate. We should have a rate where we are charging people not more than 20 to 22 per cent both on the personal and on the corporate side.
What will that do? Let us just take some of the people who are popular Canadians. Let us just take a Canadian artist like John Candy. He has made a tremendous contribution in this country. We are reminded of this by last weekend and obviously again next weekend. He has invested heavily in my home town team, the Toronto Argonauts. If there was a preferred rate this is the type of person who would find a lot more incentive to participate in the Canadian economic life than currently exists.
There are a lot of John Candys in this country. They may not all be actors but there are a lot of people in business, sport and a lot of other sectors of the economy where that capital should be based in Canada. The way you do it is with the tax system.
Why can we not make a country like Canada into a Switzerland in terms of attracting reserves? Surely to goodness we can do what they do on islands like the Bahamas where they attract large pools of capital. I do not mean we can attract in terms of lifestyle but in terms of foreign investment.
When large pools of capital come to a country and they put it in financial institutions, it puts downward pressure
Government Orders
on interest rates. That is what allows our entrepreneurs to get capital which they in turn use to go out and create jobs.
When people are working they pay taxes and that ultimately leads to less unemployment insurance and less welfare payments. This would ultimately lead to a situation where we would not have to be worried about our Canada Pension Plan being jeopardized. It is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion that we are in a country as rich as Canada in terms of resources and entrepreneurial spirit, and we are not galvanizing it. We are not turning it on. We are not utilizing it. We are not using those resources to attract capital which ultimately will create larger revenues for the country.
It is so simple to me. Consider those who make a couple of hundred thousand dollars in a year. It could be some of our superstars in industry or in culture or in sport who sometimes make as much as a million dollars a year. When they are given a tax act the way ours is structured today, which is in some instances close to 60 per cent, it is no wonder they want to park enough money here in Canada to live and then tend to move offshore.
Can we imagine if we reversed that and that capital stayed here? Can we imagine if we were sitting in this House today and instead of having more than two million people unemployed they were working and paying taxes?
Can you imagine what we could do if that kind of condition existed? It requires the government to take a leap of faith. It seems to me that if we are going to mobilize people in a positive way, we are first going to have to show them that the legislation we are putting forward in this House is sending out signals of fairness.
All of the legislation we have put through this House in the last 60 or 90 days has basically been sending signals of unfairness. Week after week all we do is sit in this House and talk about another tax increase: "Oh, well, it is not that much. It is only $7 a month here and on the Bankruptcy Act it is only 5 cents per person per week". It is from GST to bankruptcy tax. Now we are trying to cloud the Canada Pension Plan. I think the way to motivate a work force is to treat it fairly. This government, whenever it has found itself short, when it is trying to keep its fiscal framework in order, always goes for a

Government Orders
tax increase or the selling of a Crown corporation to get it off the books.
When this government talks about productivity it forgets that the key to productivity in this country is a motivated work force. This government controls the only instrument that can turn a work force in this country on, and that instrument is the tax act.
We sit in this House today and talk about the Canada Pension Plan which is something that seniors in our country have never really worried about before. They have never really considered that our Canada Pension Plan was in any jeopardy.
I realize that we want to maintain a fiscal responsibility on this act. I said it earlier today and I saluted the member for Calgary Southwest that it is a good move. We want to get our fiscal framework in order. In the process of doing that we have to look at the entire package. One of the things I believe would maybe create a lot more wealth in this country, which would allow us to fund this pension plan in a much more progressive way and maybe without going to these taxes for employees and employers, is by radically reforming the tax act. At the core of that reform has to be a simplicity of the act so that people in this country can judge fairness.
I would submit if that approach were implemented the productivity levels in this country would be such that it would attract new foreign capital to this country, which is ultimately a key to job creation. God knows we need job creation in this country in the worst way right now. A radical reform of the tax act would probably encourage a lot of those people who are tempted right now to move their resources offshore to keep their resources here and invest in this country.
That ultimately is what we are supposed to be doing in this House. We are supposed to be devising a way to get this country out of its chronic depression. There is a chronic depression out there today and we should be using our creative juices to try and figure out ways to pick the morale up.
Today we are talking about the Canada Pension Plan. By adding a further tax on employers and employees at a time when we are trying to pick ourselves up and trying to avoid going back into a second recession is a two-edged sword.
Yes, it is fiscal responsibility and we must keep the Canada Pension Plan in shape, but I think in the process of addressing this issue we should also look at the total plan. We should see what we have to do to attract capital and mobilize the will of this country again so that we can get those two million people back to work and make sure that the treasury of this country has all the resources it needs.
The Canada Pension Plan, one of the greatest in the world, should never be thought to be in jeopardy by any of our seniors in this country or by the people who are working hard and thinking about the fact that in 15 or 20 years from now when they are seniors they will want to make sure that plan and that fund are solvent.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-39 and the amendments that are being offered by the federal government in co-operation and as a result of negotiations with its provincial counterparts.
The Canada Pension Plan can only be amended by agreement between the federal and provincial governments which makes amendments to the act extremely difficult at best and sometimes impossible at worst.
I want to say at the outset that my party supports the two amendments that I am particularly interested in today. The first one is the increase in monthly benefits to the children of disabled or deceased contributors to an amount of some $35.
Having said that, I want to remind the House that around 1986 or 1987 a major review of the Canada Pension Plan took place and an agreement was arrived at between the provincial governments and the federal government for a whole number of amendments to the CPP, including a substantial and very much needed increase in CPP disability benefits to the then current recipients.
With the co-operation of the opposition parties at that time we again rushed through these amendments as we are being asked to today because there is a deadline for getting those improved benefits through to recipients of the CPP disability pension plan.
We did that only to discover that provincial governments immediately deducted an equal amount to the increases in the CPP disability benefit from programs that provincial governments were paying those same people under provincial benefit programs. Insurance companies also paid the disability benefit to the same
November 18, 1991

individual as did employers under different pension plans.
At that time there was a great outcry both from the government side and from the opposition. They said: "What was the sense in increasing benefits to those recipients who badly needed them only to have a second, third or fourth party sometimes deduct an equal amount from benefits that they pay so that the individual was no better off financially?"
I see the federal government has not learned anything in the last four or five years because there is nothing in these amendments that would prevent the same thing happening again. If that happens I think we will be doing a great service to the children of these recipients whom we are now trying to help.
I would hope that the committee emphasizes that part again when this is referred to a legislative committee, hopefully within the next day or two. That is my first concern, that it has not been addressed in the negotiations with provincial governments to prevent that kind of thing from taking place again.
The other thing that I am a bit disappointed about, even though there has been some movement to alleviate the situation somewhat, is where an individual has become disabled and is under the care of doctors, therapists and whoever else. There is also hope that such individuals would recover and be able to return to a useful occupation. What happens very often, because they hope they can return to work and because the medical profession is always hopeful that they could be rehabilitated, is that it may take them two or three years to apply for a disability benefit under the Canada Pension Plan.
What the Canada Pension Plan says is that unless one makes that application within 15 months of sustaining that disability one will not be eligible for a benefit under the plan.
This could be someone who has contributed to the plan since 1966 when the Canada Pension Plan first came into effect. Suddenly, because of changing circumstances, those individuals would be ruled ineligible if they did not apply for that benefit within 15 months of that disability first taking place.
Government Orders
The small change that has been made in the amendments before us is that if the applicant failed to make such an application as a result of mental incapacity, the government and the administrators of the plan would be willing to take another look at it. That is fine. I welcome that because it is something that was not there before, but many Canadians suffering from a mental incapacity have simply failed to apply for a benefit because they are continually hoping that they will recover from the incapacity.
I think in all fairness the government has to take a second look at that. It is certainly not fair to the individuals and it certainly provides a disincentive in many cases for an individual to become rehabilitated. In other words, it is in the individual's best interest to apply immediately for a benefit under the Canada Pension Plan for a disability pension and to heck with everything else. To me that is counterproductive to trying to get people back into the work force.
Surely it is fair to say that an individual should have the opportunity-and the individuals I know would welcome it-to enter rehabilitation programs. Having done that they should not be penalized for not making an application for the benefit within the time constraints that are laid out under the legislation.
I think it is being pound wise and penny foolish, to coin an old phrase, to continue with that approach. I do not think it makes any sense in these days of enlightenment toward concerns that people in the disabled community in Canada have.
Another problem I have is on the other side of the coin, when someone is disabled to the point that they cannot continue to work any longer. We have a situation under the Canada Pension Plan to avoid all the legalities involved. To put it in a nutshell, one has to be practically comatose in order to apply for a benefit and receive it.
What the act talks about is that in order for an individual to be eligible for a disability benefit under CPP, the person has to be "(a) incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation".
I take a look at members on the government side and members on the opposition side. Every one of us has had individuals in our constituencies who have had a tremendous problem in establishing a claim because they could maybe walk down the street, sit on an elevator. I had one such chap, even though there are no such jobs anymore,

Government Orders
driving an elevator up and down. They used to have them in the Eaton Centre in Toronto but they do not have that anymore, someone sitting on a little stool punching buttons for the customers. That does not exist anymore.
I finally got this one fellow a benefit. After many, many years he got the benefit. Then his doctor decided that it would be good for him mentally to enter a program that taught English as a second language. It was good for him mentally, it was certainly good for the guy physically, and he agreed to do that, unbeknown to me.
He entered the program, notified CPP, and he was immediately cut off benefits. Here was a man who was trying to help himself hopefully to get back into the work force and play the traditional role that he felt would help him provide a means of support for his family, and he got cut off. It took me three months to get him back on. Even then, the guy had to leave the program he was in. There was no way he could receive that benefit while remaining in that program. I told the guy to get out of the program and we would see if we could get him back on CPP. It is stupid, to say the least, to treat people that way.
Even though an individual is incapable of working, if he is willing to at least try to enter a rehabilitation program, then why are we preventing them from doing so? We provide the disincentive that says: if you go into that program, your benefits are going to be cut off. That is what happens, and I think it is high time, and the government promised this four or five years ago, that it changed that kind of silly approach to these things.
Surely it would make sense if we changed the definition of disability under CPP from both severe and prolonged to something akin to significant or extended disability respectively. It would make an awful lot more sense and would be fairer to the individual. I think it would be less of a drain on the Canada Pension Plan, quite frankly, if that more enlightened approach to the problems that people face who become disabled.
There is one other item I want to touch on before I sit down. That is the question of where a couple unhappily find themselves in a situation where they must separate or even have a divorce.
There have been cases that were existent in 1986 and 1987 when we last looked at the Canada Pension Plan. We tried to deal with it at that time and had a great deal of difficulty in doing so for a variety of reasons. There was a case reported recently, within the last three or four weeks, of a woman who had been married to this man for some 30 or 35 years, and the marriage broke down.
It turned out that the male either continued, or ended up, in a common law marriage with a younger female for a period of about five or ten years. Then he died. When he died, the first wife, the first woman, was denied any benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. She was denied any benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. No, I am sorry, she had received the benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. Then it was discovered because of this common-law relationship that she probably was not entitled to the amount of benefit she had been receiving. Canada Pension Plan officials were demanding that she pay it back.
I think I am correct in the facts. That woman, an elderly person, without any visible means of financial support for herself, in all likelihood will lose the only possession she has, which is the house she and her former husband had paid for in order to provide herself with an income in her later years.
We tried to address that kind of problem in 1986-87.1 think it is time we took a hard look at saying that on marriage breakdown Canada Pension credits should be split and they should be split automatically. At the present time it is not. What happens, and the argument goes, is because these are under property laws which fall under provincial jurisdiction, that property which includes pension credits has to be split under provincial jurisdiction.
I think that is kind of sad. Here is an elderly woman who has given her life to a marriage and a breakdown occurs for whatever reason and she is left with with the old age pension. No Canada Pension Plan benefits, even though she may not have been in the work force, as a part of a benefit her husband received as a result of the work she performed in the home. To say that she is not entitled to a part of that pension benefit seems to me to be ridiculous. It is certainly something that this committee should take another look at or at least get a commitment from the minister when he appears before the committee to make a real commitment to look into

this with the provincial governments because it would also require their agreement.
There is a last point I want to make. As you know, under the Canada Pension Plan, there is a child bearing dropout period. In other words, a woman can leave the work force for a period, I think, up to seven years to look after a child and she will not be penalized in the calculation of her Canada Pension Plan contribution period of benefits at the time she is ready to retire.
It is an area that had not arisen before, but has since arisen. The theory is that the seven year old child will be attending school in the formative years and the mother, usually the one who looks after the children in our type of society, could be penalized because she has not made contributions. We looked after that. The seven year dropout provision was fine insofar as it went.
I am interested in taking a look at the act from the point of view of recognizing that there are many care givers, women, mainly mothers, who stay at home to look after disabled children, kids who may not go to school within that seven year period, kids who may never go to school at all because a number of school boards, not having the tax base that there may be in a city like Toronto or Vancouver or St. John's, cannot provide the means to educate a disabled child as can be done in some major centres.
If we cannot provide the means to give such children an education by providing municipalities that do not have the tax base to provide that education, then surely we should not be penalizing the mother who in the main looks after that child and stays at home to do so.
That is another area where I think we should try and get a commitment from the minister when he appears before the committee to take that up with his provincial counterparts to make sure that kind of care giving is not being penalized. It is not only unfair to the woman who in the main is the care provider, it is certainly unfair to the child.
I see I am being signalled that I have a few minutes left. That is about all I wanted to say. It may be a number of years before the Canada Pension Plan revisits this place again. This may be the last opportunity before the next election. I would simply urge members of that committee to seriously discuss not only the questions I
Government Orders
have raised, but many from other members of the House in order to make a real commitment in trying to address those concerns.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested in the comments of the hon. member because the question of Canada disability pensions is something that I as a member of Parliament work with just about every week. I meet with constituents who have questions or are in the process of making an appeal. I agree with much of what the hon. member says.
I would like to point out to the House that there is a lot of co-operation and insight that is necessary when an application is made. It certainly helps to have the co-operation and understanding of the local member of Parliament who has had this problem brought to his or her attention and certainly the departmental officials. I always try to bring in the medical profession as well. In the example that the hon member uses where a person's work life has come to an end, we need the co-operation of the medical profession to make that call. Neither the hon member nor I are members of the medical profession. I see one member across from me who is. Sometimes it is a difficult call. When I talk to doctors I try to encourage them to try and come to that conclusion on behalf of an individual. It is so important because a person has to come within the ambit of the law.
One of the examples the hon. member gave was an individual who took on a job teaching English as a second language. Just to complete the picture, I have had examples on the other side where the department has in fact shown some flexibility. One example was an individual in Niagara Falls who had a heart problem who is working today as a traffic guard. I had the same concern as the hon. member that this would finish him with the Canada disability pension. It was only a couple of hours a day, but his doctor had recommended it as part of his therapy. In that particular instance, when the departmental officials had a look at it, they went along and they recognized and agreed that it could be a part of that individual's rehabilitation while at the same time getting a disability pension.

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
I would like to have one question answered by the hon. member. Perhaps it is just a point of a clarification. I think I heard him give an an example of an individual who's disability has begun and it is 15 months, I believe, before they apply. I hope the impression is not left that that individual will be precluded or his statute barred from making the application. It would seem to me that he or she might only get 12 months retroactive benefits, but that person could still apply if he came from having worked within five of the last ten years or two of the last three. The last example would not be perfect because the individual in this case has been out for 15 months. I do not think I want the impression to be left that somebody could not make the application. I certainly encourage individuals to make the application, if they have been in the work force for five of the last ten years. I just caught the member's example of the 15 months where I could see they might lose some of the retroactive benefits, but they would not be precluded from applying. Perhaps the hon. member could explain to me or elaborate on his comments.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has asked me that question because it requires some clarification. He is absolutely right in his understanding. I may have left the other impression.
There is one thing I want to clarify where I think I have left some confusion. The individual I spoke about did not go to teaching English as a second language, he went to learn it. He went and took a course to learn English as a second language. He was not working and his doctor felt that it would be good for him mentally to do that, and so he did. As soon as he did, even though he was not working he got cut off. That is the kind of strict interpretation that the language in the act seems to require.
I understand that there are individuals, officers and workers within the Canada Pension Plan system and bureaucracy who exercise some leeway on cases, but it should not be like that. That is the problem with this kind of legislation. Surely to goodness people should have an equal right to access a benefit that they have paid for and which is being administered by a government agency such as the Canada Pension Plan. It should not be up to an individual going to Niagara Falls, for example, and meeting a kindly administrator within the Canada Pension Plan who says: "Mr. Smith, you are absolutely right; you are being treated unfairly. This is nonsense. You are eligible". The same individual could
go into an office in Toronto or Vancouver or St. John's or wherever and meet a grumpy person who says: "I don't care how disabled you are, right. As far as I am concerned I feel lousy this morning". I am not suggesting that is what happens, but the individual is not going to get the benefit even though an individual under the same circumstances in another part of the country receives the benefit because he or she has a more sympathetic administrator within the CPP.
I would like to have that language loosened up so that an individual who does go into a retraining program of whatever nature is not going to have this disincentive and be disqualified simply for doing so.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the current legislation does not allow for retroactive payment to any applicant who is under age 70 at the time of application if the applicant fails to make that application.
I have seen many constituents that have fallen into this trap. I feel that since those Canadians who have worked have contributed to this plan years previous to their retirement it has therefore become their inherent right to claim what they have contributed to in the past.
Why is there a provision that precludes them from applying or getting the benefits if they did not apply in time? I pose that question and I wonder whether the hon. member could comment on the unfairness of a provision in the current act that precludes payment if one happens to apply late and will not be able to recover that even if one had contributed to it. It is one's basic right as a contributor to the plan.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, where an individual makes an application for disability benefits under the CPP and that disability is supported by a person from the medical profession of whatever type that person's application should be considered in that light.
I have run into cases of disability applications. The most common one is a case of someone diving into a lake in the summer without due care and striking his or her head on a rock or boulder or something and breaking his or her neck and becoming either a quadriplegic or a paraplegic. That can happen at any age and that individual very often is not in a position because of this accident to make an application on time, as the department says. If that individual is disabled, surely society has an obligation to to help and give whatever assistance possible to allow him or her to continue to live in the
November 18, 1991

mainstream of Canadian society. That is what this whole thing is about.
It comes down to what kind of society we want to live in and what kind of society we want others to live in. Surely to goodness when we get a piece of legislation that is so strict and the language so tight that it allows practically no leeway there is something wrong with it, especially when it is dealing with individuals who more often than not are being not denied but certainly restricted to any entry back into the work force. Surely we have an obligation not only to those individuals but to ourselves as well.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-39, which was tabled just two weeks ago, I believe.

For my own constituents in Mount Royal riding, to address this bill and its implicit amendments to the Canada Pension Plan is somewhat different from what they live with under the Quebec Pension Plan, although for people living anywhere in Canada this plan is a cornerstone of the social safety net that we have built so carefully in this country since 1966, I believe it is.
In my riding where close to 20 per cent of the constituents are 60 years old and over, it is quite an amazing reality. This plan and the program and its implicit impact on Quebec as a guide or direction will be very important in the future.
Many of the changes do not apply to Quebec except for over the next five-year period for which the Quebec Pension Plan has been amended to increase contribution rates at a similar rate for 1992 to 1996, but it does not as yet have a 25-year schedule as does the Canada Pension Plan in the decisions that were taken jointly at the federal and provincial levels.
Government Orders
The benefits, and I want to make this abundantly clear, are not the same in Quebec under the Quebec Pension Plan as they are under the Canada Pension Plan and so I would like to keep my remarks fairly general.
As members of Parliament we are not only interested in how it relates directly to our constituencies but also in how it relates and how the policies brought forward by the government relate to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In that regard I think this bill does many important things, particularly with respect to children and to some of the touch-up and remedial measures that are brought in.
There are some questions that have been raised by my colleague who is leading our party in the debate, our member from Winnipeg North. He has raised some very pertinent questions as have other members-and I hope that they will be addressed with a great deal of seriousness-with regard to the well-being of the children who are addressed quite particularly in this bill and the benefits as a result of either a disabled family member or a loss through death. They will be able to have a better income to help support them as they move through their childhood and adolescence to age 18 and, if they are at university, from 18 to 25.
Mainly, as I pointed out, Bill C-39 seeks to preserve the health of the Canada Pension Plan and its ability to make payments through an increased contribution rate. They are looking at a 25-year plan and particularly an adjustment to this five-year period. We have an example of how two levels of government can work together to take a look at changes that are needed.
With respect to the specific amendments, the bill increases the Canada Pension Plan benefit levels for
170,000	dependent children of deceased or disabled plan participants. I think as we are looking more and more at the rights of the child, the needs of the child, as we are looking to sign an international agreement with respect to the child, and as we note the level of poverty, it is important to address all our concerns so that the children can become a well educated work force and become satisfied members of our society and contributing members of society. This is a welcome move. The

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
amount, the $35 we are talking about, may not sound like a great deal of money. If we multiply that times $170,000, I think that it is a significant amount and is at least one step forward in addressing the acute question of child poverty, the one that is preoccupying all of us.
In the light of poverty it is not only poverty in a financial sense that is implied when we talk about poverty, but it is poverty that relates to inappropriate nutrition and inappropriate clothing in the rather harsh and unkind atmosphere of Canada.
It relates to the kind of housing that these children are brought up in. It relates to the size of the family and the structure of the family, whether it is a single parent family headed by a mother or another type of family. We know that close,to 80 per cent of those families live below the poverty line and that it has very serious implications for the well-being of the child.
Any move that we can make to alleviate the stress on children particularly at a time of loss of a family member or if there is a disability of a family member becomes a very key public policy which we welcome on this side of the House.
When I think about the Canada Pension Plan I think about what it is meant to do. It is fundamentally meant to protect us as we age in society and in a sense ensure that although we no longer are in the position to make a contribution to the working world in the sense of work for pay, we still are able to contribute to society in many other ways. Those ways are within the voluntary sphere, within the sphere of enabling role models to exist within society in demonstrating that older people have a place of importance.
To do that you really need to have a healthy society that has financial means to feed, clothe and house its members. In this pension plan the problem that we are dealing with in our own lives and those of our friends is how to have ample income at the end of our working years, be that at age 65, 70 or before or for many reasons such as early retirement, et cetera.
What more noble goal could a country have than one which helps maintain an income stream for Canadians living in any of these situations?
If we think about it, how many of us have friends and neighbours who have retired and who depend on the
Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and the supplementary benefits that come along so that we can have an adequate living style in our country? We all know that there are more and more Canadians benefiting from these kinds of programs.
We are addressing in this bill the rights of the retirees, the state of health of those retirees, the disabled and the children of deceased plan participants. I guess these important areas and evolving areas have seen changes in the pension plan since it was first conceived back in 1966. I might add it was by a Liberal government.
Quebec provides benefits for its population under the pension plan which was established in 1966, at the same time as the Canada Pension Plan. It exercised its constitutional prerogative to establish a comparable provincial pension plan in lieu of the Canadian Pension Plan.
It would be fair to say that the two programs in many respects are similar in their framework design and eligibility criteria, though the benefits can differ quite significantly.
At the moment Quebec has agreed to amend its own contribution rates to match the increases made in the CPPs for the next five years as set out in this bill. That points out the similarities in this program.
I am told however that Quebec is expected to introduce amendments to revise its own pension plan law, possibly by the end of this year. For the longer period beyond five years, Quebec will still have to pursue its own review of projected benefits and contributions to establish its own requirements for the next 20 years.
I think it could have a different kind of outcome for those under the Quebec Pension Plan than for those found under the Canada Pension Plan. I am not saying that that is better or worse. It might be different.
Despite the differences that exist, I nonetheless believe there is something we can learn from Quebec and we might want to examine that in committee. If we look at what Quebec has done, it has found a mechanism to use the funds in a very creative and helpful way for industry. It has enabled this massive amount of money to be put to constructive and good use in the interest and well being of the citizens of Quebec and the industry in Quebec through the Caisse de depot et placement.
November 18, 1991

I wonder whether there is not an idea there that is worth exploring, an idea which would allow us perhaps to give some consideration, and it may not appear in this bill but it could be examined under this bill, to establishing a dedicated fund for a portion of the contributions that come into the Canada Pension Plan to be invested in a creative way, somewhat similar to what Quebec does in the Quebec model, while the balance could continue to be on call at the low rate of interest for the provinces.
We are in this bill trying to preserve the health of the Canada Pension Plan and its ability to make payments through increased contribution rates. The schedule of increase of the contribution rates will be $7 in 1992 for each person earning the average wage of $30,500. This contribution will increase to $42 by 1996, allowing for a combined employer-employee contribution rate of 4.6 per cent in 1991 and that will increase to 9.1 per cent in 2011 compared to 7.6 per cent by 2011 if the current contribution schedule had been maintained.
Mr. Speaker, I point out to you that Canadians right now sense that they are being taxed to death in many different ways. For the government to bring in what it perceives to be a necessary change at this particular time, I do not think is going to be very happily received by the contributors. It may be necessary but there has to be a different mechanism at this point in time.
The lower and middle income families are hard pressed by the number of people who have their hands in their pockets, from the federal level, from the provincial level, from the municipal level, from the sales and excise taxes. All kinds of people have their hands in their pocket. The government has just increased the unemployment insurance payments both for the employer and the employee and now we are looking at the same kind of increases for the pension plan.
I would hope that in committee there will be a close examination of whether or not one needs to improve it or to insure it to this degree or whether there is not something here the general revenues ought to incur.
I am not a professional in this area. I am not an expert in this area. I believe and hope that both the parliamentary secretary and the members of that committee will take this whole question of the sense of the Canadian
Government Orders
population, that they would like to have a tax revolt, seriously into consideration as they look at this bill.
My colleague from Winnipeg has spoken eloquently to the precise changes in the bill. On behalf of my own constituents in Mount Royal riding, let me address again some of those major principles.
We are considered by the world a leader in how we treat our citizens with caring and compassion. One has only to look at the social safety net that is in place, hopefully not too tampered with and hopefully not too diminished. That would include medicare, family allowance, Old Age Security, pension plan and all the other social network systems that are in place for the well elderly and the not so well elderly as well as for our children.
These kinds of programs could become bureaucratic nightmares for those who try to have access to those plans. You have heard a number of members in this House, Mr. Speaker, talk particularly about the definition of disability, what are the criteria, how do you get access, the time delay in getting access and how it creates additional stress. I hope that kind of bureaucratic problem will be effectively dealt with as the members of the committee address the issues.
I see the parliamentary secretary shaking her head yes. I am very pleased to note that. Certainly we do not need any increased stress on people who are already in a situation of stress.
With those few comments, I would like to wish the committee well in its undertakings. I hope that the small amount of money will relieve those children who are desperately in need. I am sure it is not enough.
However, there are circumstances beyond which we cannot go and it is a step by step process. I hope that the review procedure will indicate that we are not in such such fiscal disarray as I seem to understand from the parliamentary secretary's initial remarks that the fund is in need of additional financing and that this could have been perhaps re-evaluated earlier in 1986 when the first revisions were brought in where it allowed early retirement.
I understand that the then health minister, the present energy minister, indicated that it was not going to have a serious impact. It has or else there were some miscalculations. It has been said that the fund needs something like $90 billion. Is that the amount of money that the plan seems to be short? If that is the case, I hope it will

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
be examined. Ensure yourselves that those are really the financial needs. I would really hope that you will reduce the burden on the contributors as much as is possible while ensuring that the fund is stable and at the same time look at what kind of service is offered to those people and what kind of access they have.
I would like to quote something the National Council of Welfare has said. "We believe it is fundamentally wrong that a public pension program set up to cover the entire paid labour force is incapable of producing benefits large enough to keep most of its beneficiaries out of poverty". It is from that perspective that I hope the government will carefully address the issues that have been brought forth as it brings in a bill of this nature and that we will not have a smoke and mirrors piece of legislation, that it is not just a pretty package, but it will have substance and give succour to those who are in need.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Mount Royal for her splendid debate on the issue, as usual, as on many other issues.
I particularly want to focus my comment on what she said about the dedicated fund. I think she has touched one crucial point of this debate and that is, has this government in fact been a good financial manager over the last many years? Why do I say that?
As I think was said by the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health in opening debate on this bill, we would like to secure the financial soundness of this plan for our seniors. When I opened my debate, I said nobody would argue against the need to secure the financial soundness of this plan for the seniors of our country.
Again, I would just like to note, because my colleague from Mount Royal did indicate the need for a dedicated fund, the need for sound financial management of our plan. A Winnipeg Free Press editorial of January 13, 1991, did indicate the point as well in terms of how the finance minister of this government had managed to squander so quickly the premium increase he imposed four years ago.
Not one of the provincial ministers questioned the federal minister on this point. The provincial ministers were happy to agree, as has been announced by this government in opening debate on this bill, and who
would not be happy if they dip into the fund at reduced interest rates. Therefore, I think we have to be very careful about the implication of this.
My colleague from Mount Royal indicated the timing of this increase.
Is it the time to do it today? I was glancing at the press release by the government dated October 24, 1991. It says that "in addition to adjusting contribution rates for the next 20 years to reflect new forecasts of expenditures, the bill also extends the schedule by five more years to ensure that there is always a 25-year schedule of rates". Let me proceed to page 2 and the appropriate quotation. It says that "as a result of the first five-year review of the CPP contribution rates by federal and provincial finance ministers, rates will be increased in two stages to ensure that the new rate will be in effect for January 1992".
The first stage of this increase is being implemented by regulation provided under the existing CPP legislation. The second stage of the increase, and I will conclude at this point, an additional increment beginning in 1997 will be implemented once the new legislation, the proposed amendment, has received the required provincial approval.
One wonders why the haste. Why today when in fact this implementation will be in the beginning of 1997.


Sheila Finestone: Just one word. I guess it is a very happy kind of circumstance when you can get money for much less and not have accountability in terms of having to borrow on the open market. They are borrowing out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets. That is exactly what the member pointed out. They could have waited until a little bit later. I hope you are going to examine that when you get into committee. Thank you veiy much for raising that point.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill because the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan, along with a number of other measures that have been introduced in Canada over a number of decades, contribute to a quality of life and a security in this country that I think we as Canadians believe are impor-

tant in allowing people to live full, productive, fruitful lives from the time they are bom until the time they die.
Therefore, it is an honour to be able to speak on this program and on this bill, and as my colleague before me has done, to raise some issues that I hope the members of the committee examining this proposed legislation will look at very carefully.
Without going too much into the positive benefits of the legislation, let me raise some of the issues that I hope will receive some attention in committee.
When we are increasing fees like this, we need to recognize the full impact of the fee increases affect those on modest and lower incomes. There is a limit on the income at which people can contribute to the CPP and benefit from it. The impact of any increase in fees falls disproportionately on those earning very modest incomes. In this case the limit on income under which one can make contributions is approximately $30,000.
There are a number of changes in legislation and contributory plans that fall into the same category which have seen an increased financial impact on very modest income earners over the last number of years. Unemployment insurance fees, for instance, fall most heavily-again, because there is an income limit on the program under which you can contribute-on those earning the most modest incomes.
Such things as student loan fees are a tax on a benefit that one receives only because one happens to be from a very low income household. It is fairly important for the committee to look at the cumulative impact on modest income families of a number of policy changes, not just this latest increase in the fees.
It is also important to point out that the CPP was brought in in recognition that over a period of time there would be an increasingly elderly population, and a larger proportion of our population that was retired, not earning. Therefore it was important to do everything possible through the tax system, with RRSPs and such things as CPP, to encourage people to set aside enough for their retirement years so that there would not be a massive demand for public support because people simply did not have enough income to live on.
We have seen the intent of that whole approach of encouraging people to do as much as possible to provide for their own retirement, whether through government
Government Orders
or private programs, being undermined by such things as the clawback of Old Age Security which is going to hit increasingly more modest income seniors' homes as time goes on. I hope the committee will put that into the context in which they are looking at this bill as well and the impact of it.
As well, we know that the situation of small businesses in our country today is not good. We have seen the dramatic rise in the number of bankruptcies and the declining number of jobs and, therefore, the declining number of people contributing through income tax and through programs such as this to the public good in Canada. Businesses go out of business, those jobs being lost forever and therefore the economic base on which we can support such programs into the future are significantly eroded.
Again I think the committee has to look at the impact of this along with increases in unemployment insurances fees and a number of other new expenses such as the cost of administering the GST which falls far more heavily on small businesses than it does on large ones. It should also make sure that in protecting the security of our CPP, we are not creating greater damage out there than the benefits we are achieving, whether it is to modest income earners or to small businesses or to the economy in general.
In that light, I want to pick up on a point that was barely mentioned by my colleague who preceded me and it is the necessity to look at the management of the fund. If this is intended to be a self-financing pension fund then I believe it should be managed as any other good fund. It should not be a plan that uses the contributions received from Canadian workers and employers in a way that subsidizes other activities. In other words, those who contribute, whether as income earners or as employers to the Canada Pension Plan, have a right to be assured that their contributions are gaining the same revenues that any well-managed pension plan would gain in the private market and to know that the revenue on the money in the fund is in fact being used to pay benefits and not being used for other purposes.
I hope the committee will have a very careful look at that because it goes to the heart of what makes the rate increase necessary. How the fund is managed is one aspect of that and how is revenue attributed to it is also aspect of that.

Government Orders
Another aspect of it though is what elements of public policy have led to the need for this increase in funds. While it is matched by a small increase in benefits for instance to surviving children of beneficiaries, the majority of the need for the increase appears to come from the fact that there are and will continue to be fewer contributors while there are and will continue to be more beneficiaries.
Frankly that is something that is happening throughout Canadian society. Canadians are living longer, they are healthier longer and they are more active longer. It is a great tribute to one of the best health care systems in the world of which we should all be proud. Unfortunately it does present us with the problem of how we are going to make sure that people do not live those extra years in poverty but live them in a way that allows them to enjoy them.
However, we also have to look at the other side. Why are contributions not able to meet the obligations? Clearly if you have a higher rate of unemployment, if you have a policy of high unemployment, if you have, as we do now, close to 1.5 million Canadians not working, not earning and therefore both they and their employer not contributing to the Canada Pension Plan, it affects this pension plan and creates directly the need for greater contributions by both employees and employers.
I think we need to look at those other public policies, such as the unemployment policy, that leads to this kind of situation.
We also have to look at the larger number of older workers who are losing their jobs and are not ever again making it back into the labour force. Certainly I and many other members of this House have had some very sad experiences of speaking to constituents who at the ages of 50, 54, 55 are unemployed for the first time in their lives and know that they are never going to be in the labour force again. That is an extremely difficult situation.
As critic for the Public Service I see it in the area of employment that I have to most often deal with and that is the downsizing and lay-offs and contracting out within the Public Service which has reduced the surplus of income to the Public Service Pension Plan over payouts. There is a surplus despite what the National Citizens Coalition might want people to believe that has dropped
from about $400 million a year down to $50 million a year. It very clearly is something we need to be concerned about, when public policies such as lay-offs, early retirement, contracting out of work that was formerly performed by wage earners, is starting to undermine the largest pension plan in this country.
There are a couple of other things that I hope the committee will have a look at. I note that what is described as technical provisions of the bill for instance is greater information sharing among a number of social programs: family allowance, OAS, CPP. I certainly hope that the committee will seek the advice of the Privacy Commissioner in terms of the Privacy Act and any concerns that he may have about that, but I also notice that information is going to be made more freely available to others outside government, so I think that is also a concern.
For instance, I notice that information will be able to be released with regard to criminal proceedings. I want to draw to the attention of the committee that there is another area they might want to consider and that is the way in which the federal government does or does not make information available out of these programs to usually women who are not receiving child support payments that they should be receiving. If we are freeing up the release of information and the access to information about beneficiaries of government programs then that is a very serious area that we need to look at.
I can only compliment the government on the improvement in the children's benefits. We have all been made very aware through the National Symposium on Children just a few weeks ago of the terribly difficult situation of children growing up in poverty in our country. Even though this particular provision will touch
170,000	children, and that is a small proportion of those millions of children who are deprived of opportunities, deprived of education and deprived of the same future as the majority of Canadian children by the simple fact of poverty. This is a small but hopefully significant improvement in the lives of some children.
Finally I want to address the status of women and pensions because I think it is something that the current changes before us do not adequately address. In my view it is high time that we looked at the status of people who work but do not necessarily earn wages in our society. The group consists primarily of women who assume child bearing, child rearing responsibilities for a considerable

period of what otherwise would be an income earning period in their lives.
I hope that the committee will question why changes are not being made so that women who stay at home have greater access to a pension. It is still true that two-thirds of the elderly poor in Canada are women and it is largely because they simply do not have the same ability or access to create pension plans for themselves.
Pension splitting has been mentioned by a number of speakers, so I will not go into details on that, but that is certainly something I hope the committee will address.
One other matter I want to mention is that the committee have a look at the administration of CPP. Whatever the legislation says about the benefits, if one cannot access those benefits in a fair and speedy manner, one does not have those benefits. There are certainly problems in the staffing that is provided with respect to CPP and other benefit programs that severely impact on individuals and create great hardship, for example, if a spouse dies and one has to wait two or three months to start receiving a survivor's benefit. My colleague has already read the statistics on the large proportion of recipients of CPP benefits who have incomes below the poverty line in Canada. When one is already living at below the poverty line, one cannot afford to wait two or three months for a reduced pension. One has to have it right away. That is simply a matter of providing efficient and sufficiently staffed offices to process those applications.
Similarly, if a couple on retirement applies for pension splitting and it takes six months as it has in some cases I have dealt with, it takes six months to process that. That sends out a message that the other spouse, usually the wife, really is not entitled to a pension, it is something which is being done as a matter of generosity to her. In fact it means that an entitlement that a couple has to split their income and to maximize the tax benefits from that has been denied to them for six months.
I hope the committee will consider an amendment to the legislation that would make pension splitting retroactive to the date of application, the government is incapable of providing sufficient staffing to process those things quickly.
As I said, I welcome a look at this bill. I welcome the opportunity to address it. I reaffirm some of the points
Government Orders
that have been raised earlier by others, for instance, the definition of disability and particularly the need to be more generous in accepting definitions of emotional disability or mental disability in processing applications.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the indulgence of the House and I look forward to following the committee's progress on this bill. I hope we will take this opportunity to look at other issues around CPP, the impact of such legislation and the increases in fees at this time in our economy and who it is affecting most.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague who made some extremely enlightened remarks. I would like to point to two issues that she raised and ask if she has any further information. On the first issue, with respect to having done work on the divorce bill as it went through this House, there was great discussion about the problems around the collection of alimony and how to find the missing spouse.
There was to have been a follow-up by the Minister of Justice. There was the example of I believe Manitoba and the use of the Health and Welfare system so that one could locate the missing spouse and ensure that he or she would meet his commitments with respect to child support payments.
When you look at the exchange of information between programs that is going to be allowable between the CPP, the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security and family allowances information, they tell you that the reason they are doing this is so that pensioners would not experience the frustration of changing their address for their Old Age Security cheque and then have their CPP benefit go astray.
Second, pensioners who submitted a marriage certificate for spousal allowance would not have to send it in again to qualify for the CPP survivor benefit. Third, mothers who receive family allowances for young children would have automatic benefit of a CPP child rearing drop-out provision without having to make a special declaration at a later date.

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
Would it not be fine if they would add another reason? It would be to enable the reduction of the amount of children who live under the poverty line-well over one million children-in this country, most of whom are as a result of broken homes and most of them because the child support system is in arrears and they cannot find the parents.
Certainly they would be able to find the parents under this system, so I would hope there would be an enlarging of that particular aspect. I thank my colleague for bringing that particular aspect to our attention.
She also talked about fair return on your money as a contributor like a taxpayer on your investment dollar. It would seem to me that we are taking money from three pensioners. We are putting it into a fund to be paid to them at a given point in time.
At the same time, that money is lent out to the provinces at a much lower rate. I believe it is around 4 per cent. No one on the government side is standing up to speak to this issue. If they were standing up to speak to the issue, I would ask them the question but as they are not doing so, I will ask my colleague: Do you know of any of the provincial governments that have started a payback to the federal government of the money borrowed since 1966?


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if I may start with the first question: No, I am not familiar with the current status of either how the contributions are used or how the rate of return on them is calculated, but I think it is extremely important that the committee assess whether this increase is truly necessary and whether it is necessary at this time.
The committee has got to look at what the rate of return has been on the money people have been contributing for 20 years to this plan, including the contribution of employers. It has got to look at how those compare with other similar sized, well managed funds. I could suggest one or two that members of the committee might want to look at that have managed to pay indexing for instance for the last 10 years without increasing premiums.
I think that is a very important issue for the committee to probe very deeply. It is fundamental to this bill as to whether we need to increase premiums or not.
On the first issue, my colleague raised support and custody child support payments and how to access those. We have a vety serious problem in this country of children going without food, clothing and shelter because one parent, usually the father, has abandoned the family. He can avoid any child support payments by a simple matter of moving from here to Hull, or from northern Ontario to Winnipeg.
The federal government is not doing enough in my view to allow provincial agencies to use federal records to find out where that person is. It comes at two different levels. One, when there is a court order for support, should that person get back an income tax return, or should it really be going to their family?
Second, when there is no income support order, what is the obligation of the federal government, which after all contributes the bulk of the social welfare payments that then have to pick up the obligations that are not being met by one parent? What is the obligation of the federal government to assist in locating that person who is paying income tax, has a social insurance number and in many ways comes in contact with the federal government? Is there an obligation to assist in finding that person so that an order can be made to appear in court and to settle the issue of what support is necessary for the family and should that information be made available? I think this is a good opportunity for the committee to look at how we can ensure that our children are properly supported by parents who can afford to support them, instead of being supported out of the welfare system which dooms them to a life of poverty.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: I would like to make a brief comment relevant to what has just been discussed. In an item by The London Free Press of June 30, 1990, a statement by Mr. Don Gass of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, indicated that in 1996 the CPP fund was short more than $230 billion. He indicated that by the end of 1988, the shortfall was in the neighbourhood of $300 billion. Obviously, this is very alarming news. I am glad that my colleague for Ottawa West did indicate how crucial it is for the legislative committee to examine and probe the government on its failure of performance.
November 18, 1991


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about Bill C-39 and about one especially important element of the bill dealing with children.
This government in its Speech from the Throne last May clearly stated its commitment to children. It indicated to the House that one of its objectives would be to see Canadian children better educated, better protected and better nurtured.
Today it does give me pleasure to speak about the proposal to increase Canada Pension Plan benefits for children as well as other proposed changes to the plan which are of particular benefit to children.
When speaking about children and the effect of Bill C-39, I want to make the point that this is yet another expression of the concern of this government for the state of children in Canada. There is some urgency in the consideration of this bill because the proposed increases in the benefits to children contained in this bill are scheduled to go into effect in January 1992. If this is to happen, not only must we in this House give this bill second reading and get it to committee and get it back lor third reading, but it must go to the Senate and then it must go, as I understand it, to every province for an Order in Council ratification before the improved benefits will be payable to families in Canada in January 1992 as is planned.
The major proposal would provide dependent children of deceased or disabled Canada Pension Plan contributors with a significant monthly increase of $35 per child. This represents a 30 per cent increase over the current benefit of $113 per month. This benefit would flow to an estimated 170,000 children in Canada, children of disabled or deceased Canada Pension Plan contributors, if we get this work done, effective January 1, 1992.
The affected children include dependent children under age 18 and those age 18 to 25 who are in full time attendance in school. It is noteworthy that the increase received the unanimous support of the federal and provincial finance ministers at their meeting in January 1991 in concept. As I said earlier, it must be ratified before the end of December 1991 in order for the payments to become effective January of the coming year.
Government Orders
The children's benefit increase was initially put forward in the federal government's 1987 consultation paper on Canada Pension Plan survivor benefit reform. The consultation paper contained a proposal for the over-all reform of the CPP survivor benefit structure in an effort to make survivor benefits more appropriate to the needs of Canadians. While federal and provincial finance ministers agree on the concept of a new survivor benefit structure, a consensus on the design of the benefit structure has not yet been solidified. However, in the interim the finance ministers decided to proceed immediately with the increase for children. Hon. members will also be pleased to note that this increase will not add significantly to the short or the long-term costs of the Canada Pension Plan being less than 1 per cent of the over-all plan expenditures.
The 1987 federal consultation paper was referred to a parliamentary committee which subsequently held public consultations. During this process the children's benefit increase received the support of major interest groups such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Labour Congress and the National Association of Women and the Law. The benefit improvements are in line also with the parliamentary committee's recommendations.
This increase responds to both social change and the economic vulnerability of children. Social changes since the 1960s have had a dramatic impact on the family, and in particular on children. These changes include an increase in marital separations and divorce. There has been an increase in single parent families and family situations where the dependant child of a deceased contributor may not live in the same household even as the surviving spouse.
In view of these developments, Mr. Speaker, it is desirable that the Canada Pension Plan do its part to target more assistance to children who are often the truly real dependants.
The proposed increase will also recognize the sometimes difficult circumstances faced by Canada Pension Plan survivors, as well as by severely disabled contributors having dependent children. We know that children in such situations often have lower incomes than children in Canada as a whole. Therefore, the increase will provide a measure of additional support to a particularly

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
vulnerable group. As such, this increase is an important investment in children, our most cherished resource.
The legislative Bill C-39 also includes a number of minor amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. I would like to briefly discuss two amendments which directly affect children. The Canada Pension Plan provides a disabled contributor's child benefit to the dependant children of a disabled contributor and provides orphans benefits on the death of a contributor. In situations where benefits are payable to dependant children of a disabled contributor, and the contributor should die, it is proposed that the children's benefits would now automatically convert to orphan's benefits without the need for an additional application. The existing need for an application can result in an interruption in payment for children at a particularly difficult time. The proposal would ensure uninterrupted payment and seems a very practical innovation indeed.
The legislative proposals would also provide Canada Pension Plan children's benefits to a child who comes under the care and custody of a Canada Pension Plan contributor after the contributor becomes disabled. Under the existing legislation, only a natural child bom after the month of disability and a child legally adopted after that month can receive that benefit. This proposed change would ensure the equal treatment of children under the program. While these are minor amendments, they will ensure that the plan remains sensitive to the needs of children.
This sensitivity is in line with this government's broader efforts to target more assistance to those in need. Since the beginning of its mandate this government has introduced a variety of income-related initiatives which respond to the needs of lower income families with children. For example, the 1987 amendments to the Canada Pension Plan under then Bill C-116 provided for the payment of two children's benefits where the earnings of both parents were lost through death or disability; previously, only one such benefit was payable. The bill also removed the marital status criteria from children's benefits at that time. This ensured that the provisions were in line with the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Major changes have also been made to federal income supplementation programs and federal income tax provisions. The refundable child tax credit has been substantially enhanced
during this government's mandate. The maximum benefit increased from $384 per child in 1985 to $585 in 1991.
A new $200 per child supplement to this tax credit was introduced in 1988 for children six years of age and under. To ensure that these benefits are more responsive to the needs of lower income Canadian families a November prepayment of both of these benefits was introduced. The refundable goods and services tax credit replaced a federal sales tax credit and provides enhanced benefits as a result of the GST program.
The child tax exemption, which was of greater value to higher income families, was replaced in 1988 by a new dependant child credit to better target assistance. This credit provides increased benefits for third and subsequent children in a family. Also in 1988 the child care expense deduction for children six years and under and those with special needs was doubled from $2,000 to $4,000 per child and the family ceiling was removed.
This government is also proud to have played a major international role on behalf of Canadian children and on behalf of children from around the world. In September 1990 the Prime Minister co-chaired the World Summit for Children. Following that summit the children's bureau was created within the Department of National Health and Welfare. Its responsibilities cover a broad range of issues affecting all Canadian children. The children's bureau is currently preparing an action plan for children.
I would like to remind hon. members of our responsibilities to those children who are among the most vulnerable groups in our society. The proposed changes in this bill are a further investment in our children. Parliament's strong support for these proposed changes on behalf of the children of disabled or deceased Canada Pension Plan contributors will convey to them as well as to all Canadians the concern and the commitment that I believe we all share.
In order that these increased benefits for children become applicable in Januaiy 1992 I urge the members of this House to support BUI C-39 at second reading. They should get it into committee as quickly as possible to get it back to this House for third reading and passage to the Senate and the subsequent process of ratification by Orders in CouncU from all of the provinces. This wUl implement these very important increases on behalf of

children in Canada under the Canada Pension Plan program.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Fredericton- York-Sunbury for his presentation. He opened with the statement that this bill is yet another expression of this government's commitment to children because there is the proposed increase in benefits for dependants of deceased or disabled contributors to the plan.
As I indicated in my debate on the bill earlier this morning, no one would argue against giving benefits to children. I have one question. Almost a year ago the Prime Minister participated in the World Summit for Children. Today the member indicated that the children's bureau which was created perhaps around that time is still only preparing a plan of action. It is more than a year later because the summit was about September of last year.
Yet here we are presented with a bill on a tight schedule which must be passed because we will deprive our children of benefits. Is this a sincere effort?
My thoughts on this are shared by one excellent writer, Mr. Leonard Shifrin, The Toronto Star, February 4,1991. He labelled the type of benefits in this plan as a candy coating. True, they are important benefits.
One wonders about the sincerity of this government when we are rushed into passing a bill and when this is related to a statement made when increases to contributions were announced by this government some four years ago that there would be no additional cost to other programs. Now it is asking again for increases. The editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 30, 1991 rightly asked the question: "Why should anyone suppose that the government is counting accurately now?"
I would like the member to respond to this challenge from the editorial. Why would Canadians believe that the figures today are correct and that it has been made on a sound basis? If this government is truly for the welfare of our children, particularly the poor, why has it cut transfer payments for education? Why has this government to date not introduced the child care legisla-
Govemment Orders
tion that it promised during the election campaign of 1988?


Mr. Bird:: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to agree with the general principle expressed by the hon. member that we should always be acting more quickly in initiatives. This is particularly true for children and certainly on behalf of families with children who are in low income situations, who are in distressed circumstances. I am sure the Prime Minister and all members of this government share his impatience for an action plan on behalf of children to emanate from the children's bureau. This is one which I understand has already been drafted and discussed with many provinces and which requires confirmation across this country. It is an expression of just how difficult the political process can be sometimes. On issues where we have complete consensus and agreement we sometimes cannot move as quickly as we would like. I share your view that we should accelerate our efforts through the children's bureau and follow up on the international summit on children as expeditiously and as effectively as we can.
With respect to the member's comments about the changing rates in the Canada Pension Plan, it is my understanding-and I am not an authority on the Canada Pension Plan-that it was intended and designed to be an actuarially responsible plan from the beginning. It was also to be reviewed in five-year increments and would be accompanied by actuarial studies. I understand that the eleventh actuarial study was the precedent for the proposed change in rates.
The plan has matured and the benefits have been paid. I believe Canadians enjoy very significant benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. However, the financial solvency of the plan is always at risk. It was intended from the start that there would never be less than a two-year capability of benefit reserves in the plan.
We are told now that if the present rates are left unchanged that by the year 2011 the reserve will shrink to less than six months. That is unacceptable. There is no other alternative than to change the rates. Any insurance kind of program or pension plan kind of program that is actuarially sound has to do this. That is what we are seeing here.
I think the hon. member knows that. It distresses me a little to see a sort of political tone put to the questioning of what he knows to be an actuarially designed Canada Pension Plan that is not in any way dependent upon government revenues, either federal or provincial, in a

November 18, 1991
Government Orders
direct and significant way. It was always contemplated that these premiums would change with the needs as the plan became mature. I think to imply otherwise on any political basis is simply not reasonable and not correct.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and speak on this issue of pensions for seniors.
I hope that when this bill gets to committee it is examined in detail. I hope the committee really takes a look at the plight of seniors in this country.
Our parents and grandparents worked hard to build Canada. They have contributed much and they deserve to be able to live with dignity and an insured income in their retirement so that they do not have to worry about their financial security in their old age.
Much of the discussion this afternoon has had the tone to it that basically if elderly people in this country are not well off, at least they are getting by. The tone of this bill is one of simply housekeeping amendments to deal with some of the actuarial problems in the fund and to give a minor increase in terms of benefits to dependent children and to maybe tinker with the definitions of disabilities.
I think it is important that we in this House and in committee really take a look at the situation of the elderly in Canada. There is 50.8 per cent of unattached individuals over 65 and 24 per cent of all seniors who live below the poverty line in Canada. That is 50 per cent of unattached seniors and 24 per cent of all seniors who live in poverty.
Older women are twice as likely to be poor than men. Elderly women in this country in large measure live in poverty. The incomes of most Canadians drop dramatically when they reach retirement. Even with the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement the benefits do not meet their requirements.
The Canada Pension Plan was designed only to replace 25 per cent of pre-retirement income. I do not know who in this House believes that they can live on 25 per cent of their pre-retirement income. Only 37 per cent of
employed women and 54 per cent of employed men belong to a private pension plan in this country.
It is unforgivable that in this day and age in a western industrialized society only 37 per cent of employed women and 54 per cent of employed men belong to a private pension plan.
Take a look at what has happened in the last few years in terms of pensions. Workers have seen the values of their pensions cut dramatically by inflation. At the same time investments and pension funds have gone up because of high interest rates. Over and over again private companies have looted their pension funds for their own use. They say that the increase in return because of high interest rates is no longer needed. They do this rather than passing those pension increases on to their previous employees.
Workers do not have the ability to transfer from one pension program to another pension program in this country. They often lose their employer's benefits when they go from one employment to another employment in the private field.
I think we should take a look at the record of this government over the last few years as it relates to seniors and whether seniors are better off now than they were a few years ago.
First of all it brought in the clawback to the old age pension. It is simply saying that seniors do not need any money over $50,000 a year. That is not indexed so it is going to decrease buying power. It is simply saying to seniors: "That is the maximum income you should ever have, $50,000 a year".
There has been an attack on seniors in terms of their ability to look after themselves. The patent legislation on drugs has dramatically increased the cost of prescription drugs to seniors in this country.


An hon. member:: Nonsense.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: "Nonsense", you say. Just read the reports that indicate the difference between prescription drugs and generic drugs and the cost of them in this country. PharmaCare programs across this country are faced with the reality that prescription drug costs are going up. Go into any old age pensioner group and ask whether their drug costs have not gone up dramatically in the last few years.


An hon. member:: They have dropped.
November 18, 1991


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: They have dropped if they are generic drugs but not if they have been protected under the Patent Act.
The whole free trade deal has opened up this country to an Americanization of our health care system. That is threatening it, particularly when it is coupled with the cutbacks by this government in the transfer payments that will not support health care. Seniors are frightened and justifiably so that health care in this country is under attack mainly because the federal government has reneged on its commitment to a joint partnership in health care and joint funding of health care.
This federal government has washed its hands of housing. It has simply said it is going to turn that responsibility over to the provinces. It has kept a high dollar policy that has hurt our economy.


An hon. member:: Where were you in Question Period? There is no high dollar policy.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: There is no high dollar polity, they say. When a government consistently does something to keep the Canadian dollar high we on this side finally come to the conclusion, reluctantly, that it must have a policy. If it does not have a policy then it does not understand the consequences of its decision.
Are you trying to tell me that the government does not understand what it is doing? Its policies and procedures are keeping the Canadian dollar high. Are you trying to tell me that is purely accidental? Come on. Even the Conservatives in their ineptitude in financial management cannot wash their hands and say: "We do not have a policy". Maybe they do not, maybe the Conservatives do not have any economic policy.
Then there is the GST and how it has hurt seniors across this country.


An hon. member:: Tell us about the rebate.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Seniors repeatedly say the rebate has not covered the increased costs of goods and services they have had to pay. They say this openly and clearly. They are going to ensure the government understands that during the next election when they vote it out.
It is not just in the last few years that seniors have not been adequately served in terms of pensions in this country. The Liberals were in power for much of the last
Government Orders
25 years and they failed to develop adequate pension plans to ensure that all seniors could live in income security and dignity. They did not bring in a homemaker's pension for women when they had the opportunity to do so. They did not bring in programs designed to ensure that all seniors lived above the poverty line.
In the early 1980s, with their great six and five program, they cut the indexing of Old Age Security. They taught the Conservatives how to cut back and the Conservatives learned well from the Liberals in the early 1980s.


An hon. member:: What did Bob Rae do?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: The Liberals learned and taught the Conservatives how to cut back universally on health care transfer payments and deindex Old Age Security. They then brought in the whole business of the RRSPs. The RRSPs are to make sure that the wealthy do not have to rely on the Canada Pension Plan and that they do not have to rely on such things as private pension plans. It is most beneficial to the wealthy in this country. The Tbries come along and they increase the ceiling for the RRSPs up to the contribution of $86,000. Between the two of them, $11.4 billion this year will be lost in tax revenue for people contributing to the RRSPs. The fact is that tax money is the same as if it were taxed and given back in grants.
The whole issue of how we develop a co-ordinated pension program for seniors from all walks of life, not just for the wealthy through RRSPs, not just through employers and employees to the Canada Pension Plan, is something that this House and this government and this country must tackle. In spite of all of the rhetoric here today, we have not done a good job for our seniors. We have not guaranteed that they have an adequate income so that they can look forward to their retirement with a certain degree of dignity and security of income.
I think there are a number of things that we in the New Democratic Party have continued to set out as things that must be done to ensure that our social security programs are adequate for those over 65. We certainly must restore the co-operative funding under the Canada Health Act. We must restore the partnership in which the federal government shares equally with the province in the funding of health care in this country.

Government Orders
We must reverse programs like the clawbacks to Old Age Security. We must look at at least doubling the Canada Pension Plan so that working Canadians will have access to an adequate indexed pension plan.


Mrs. Browes:: An increase in the deficit.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: We must make sure that pension plans are available for homemakers.


An hon. member:: Do not forget the promise of no tuition fees.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: And homemakers have the right to have their work valued and to have their opportunities preserved to ensure that their old age is a time when they do not have to have financial worries.
We must ensure that there is fairness in our taxation, that we do not have large tax loopholes for the wealthy like through RRSPs in which a person who is earning $86,000 and contributes $1,000 a month gets a tax refund of just under $500 a month compared to the person who is earning only $20,000 and contributes $1,000 and gets only a tax refund of $265. What kind of a taxation system is it that for equal contributions to an RRSP fund the wealthy get twice as much back as the low or middle income earner? Is that a fair taxation system? I think we have to take a look at that as well.
The committee should start looking at all of these kinds of issues around pensions.
This bill has some benefits to it. It certainly goes some way in dealing with some of the issues. I like everyone support the increase in dependent children's benefits. The benefit is to be increased $35, from $113 to $154.54.
I hope that the committee looks at whether the government has negotiated with the provinces to ensure that any increase in the federal Canada Pension Plan benefit is not simply taken away from benefits being paid to the same children under provincial income security programs. This is often what happens. Unless the child is totally independent or has sufficient funds to support himself, he is on some form of provincial benefit.
When the federal government or the Canada Pension Plan increases that benefit then there is a decrease in the provincial benefit.
I think it is good that there is a re-examination of the definition of "disabled". I trust that the committee will take a very long look not only at the definitions but at the procedures for establishing disability.
One of the things that is most frustrating to all MPs is to try to work with people in the riding who are applying for these kinds of pensions and feel that they are being held up from receiving a pension because of a very rigid definition. They do not understand. They do not feel that there is justice in it. They have contributed to the Canada Pension Plan for years. They do not understand the difference between prolonged or significant disabilities, extended or other kinds of definitions of terminology. They simply know that they are unable to work in gainful employment and that the likelihood of them working in gainful employment is not there. They do not understand why they have to get so many medical reports and go through so much process. What they see is simply bureaucratic red tape that is intended to disqualify them.
I think the committee needs to take a look at how we set in not only legal definitions but procedures that have some human face to them and take into consideration the nuances that a person feels when they are disabled.
I have had people saying that their disability pensions are being threatened because they have taken a job as a volunteer in an agency. They are putting in a few hours a week helping at a centre. In order for that centre to give them some recognition, it does two things. It refers to them as being employed rather than a volunteer and it may give them an honorarium to offset their costs of bus fare, clothing or something else. All of sudden someone comes along and says: "But you are working; you are employed by a non-profit agency". Here is an opportunity for a person to improve the quality of life and it is being threatened.
I see the Speaker is indicating that I have one minute left. I guess I do not have time to talk about the issue of the actuarial soundness of the fund because that is another major issue this committee must look at.
The provinces have been receiving money from the fund at a cut rate. That does have some benefits to
November 18, 1991

provinces, to Canadian taxpayers, but it is at the expense of our seniors. I hope that the committee takes the opportunity to examine whether the benefits to the provinces outweigh the disadvantages to seniors.


Mr. Lee:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought, since it is approaching six o'clock, I would rise and bring to your attention and that of the Thble the existence on the Order Paper of an order framed as a motion for concurrence which will, at 6 p.m. this date become an order of this House, an order requiring the government to revoke a statutory instrument, that being the Agricultural Exhibitions Loans Order.
I rise for the purpose of pointing that out to the Chair, to confirm that that would in fact be taking place and to note that this is the first time this procedure has taken place in this or previous Parliaments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take the matter under advisement and check the rules and customs of the House in this respect.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, during the five or six minutes I have left, I would like to respond first of all to comments by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Surrey North, who, among other things, criticized the Liberal Party because of certain aspects of our former policies.

The previous speaker seemed to take umbrage at the fact that this party when it was in government brought in the CPP but that it was not quite up to the specifications that he thinks are adequate. He forgot to mention the fact that the plan exists because of efforts of a Liberal government in the 1960s, as does the national medicare plan, and proceeded instead to focus his comments on a tax.
I try not to be overly partisan in some of the things that I say here but this one really caught me by surprise, particularly coming from the NDP. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in our province the NDP is now known as the party that never delivers on promises. It is the party that promised free tuition fees and then abandoned that. The promise of public auto insurance was abandoned. Promise after promise has been abandoned by the party that stands up and pontificates on what a good pension plan it
Government Orders
would bring in if it ever had the good fortune to be elected as a national government, a thought that sends shivers up my spine.
The member from Surrey North talked about RRSPs being a major cause of unfairness. The party of organized labour came in here to complain about the deductibility of contributions to pension plans, the party of Bob White and the United Auto Workers, whose members have one of the fattest pension plans in Canada, the party of organized labour across Canada, each of whose units goes about trying to negotiate the fattest pension plans possible and whose members all get deductions for every dollar they contribute to their private pension plans, wants to foreclose the possibility of self-employed individuals making their own little nest egg through RRSP contributions. That is the kind of party the NDP is. If somebody can get a good job with security of tenure and a nice pension plan, well they can just roll in it. But if somebody has to go out and create jobs for other people and take risks, well, they better be prepared to live on the CPP when they retire because that is all they are good for. I cannot believe it.
On the CPP itself, I have a couple of concerns that I want to raise on behalf of my constituents. First of all, I do not know how many people in my generation have commented to me that they do not ever expect to collect the Canada Pension Plan. This is a very commonly held notion among people of my generation, that somehow or other this fund is just not going to be worth that much to us when we reach retirement age and that indeed is the reason for the enormous support for Registered Retirement Savings Plans among people who are my contemporaries.
The thought is that we have to provide for ourselves because for some reason this plan is just not going to make it to the end of our days in the form that it now exists. For that reason, I would like to say that I am entirely in support of the principle of re-examining at an early stage the adequacy of funding from an actuarial point of view of the Canada Pension Plan.
It is fundamental to the survival of the social network in our country that each Canadian believes that the system is there not just to support somebody else but that it will support each of us. Every Canadian who is contributing must believe that if he or she becomes

disabled, unemployed or is sick that our social benefits will be there for them to rely upon.
That social contract is fundamental to the continued support of all of our plans. Its soundness from an actuarial point of view is fundamental to us. I believe it is of crucial importance.
The other thing that I would like to mention in the brief moment that remains is my concern notwithstanding that of the increasing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Unfortunately, it being 6 p.m, I must interrupt the hon. member.
The Chair is now in a position to respond to the request for clarification made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. Since it is 6 p.m, the Second Report of the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations is deemed adopted and will be thus designated in today's Votes and Proceedings.

It being six o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m., at which time the House will proceed to the emergency debate on the situation in Yugoslavia.
The House took recess at 6.03 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House under the provision of Standing Order 52 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the situation in Yugoslavia.
Mr. Benno Friesen (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs), seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) and the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), moved:
That this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I want to remind all members that the time for speeches is usually 20 minutes. If a member of any party wants to split the speech time, please indicate at the beginning of your speech that you want to split your time with another member.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, all members of the House of all parties have joined together tonight to debate a subject euphemistically known as the situation in Yugoslavia.
Over the past six months members of this House and the people of Canada have watched with horror as the country of Yugoslavia has tom itself apart. All of us have spoken to constituents whose hearts are tom and broken when they see what was their former homeland being mined in the devastation of war. Many of them have spoken in telephone conversations with relatives and friends in Yugoslavia whose voices are tightened by fear and apprehension of what is going to happen to them.
Tonight we want to express our concern, our worries, our apprehensions for the people of Yugoslavia and our repugnance for what is going on in that country. The very foundations of this Balkan country, which when created seemed to afford an acceptable political solution for the peoples of the region, are now being shaken. All these peoples have reached the conclusion that Yugoslavia as we know it can no longer continue to exist. A new arrangement between Yugoslav republics must be found. The present situation in Yugoslavia is a tragedy without precedent in recent European history. As you know, thousands of lives have been sacrificed and hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been forced to flee from their homes because of the fighting.
It is also the most significant challenge to European security and stability since the democratic upheavals recently experienced in all the countries of eastern Europe. I will try to explain the situation as the Canadian government sees it. To begin with, the current situation in the Yugoslav republics is highly complex and there is
November 18, 1991

no one explanation for the conflict between Serbs and Croats. This conflict is not purely ethnic or purely ideological or religious or economic in nature. These factors are all involved, but what we are seeing is the bitter fruit of deep rooted visceral recriminations and fears that date back for decades. It is also and above all a sign of the flagrant lack of trust between these ethnic groups. In the Yugoslav conflict, accusations of genocide are tossed back and forth with disconcerting facility.
It is true that the elections held during 1990 in all the Yugoslav republics brought results in certain republics that stood in stark contrast to those of others. Thus Serbs and Montenegrins elected socialist parties of clearly communist origins. By contrast, the Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians, and the nations of Bosnia-Herzegovina rejected communism. All these governments, elected in many cases on highly nationalistic platforms, immediately began to transform the relationships that had governed them until that time. It was then that fundamental and so far irreconcilable differences began to appear between the Yugoslav republics.
The Slovenes feel that their situation is relatively simple. They account for 90 per cent of the population of Slovenia and the vast majority voted by referendum to form an independent republic. In Croatia, where 75 per cent of the people are Croatians, a referendum also showed that the majority desired independence. However, the Serbs in Croatia who make up 12 per cent of the republic's population are one of the Gordian knots in the present crisis. Many of them have taken up arms to express their strong opposition to the Croatian plans for independence and even to claim their own independence from Croatia. Ethnic Serbian regional governments have even formed within Croatia. Their goal is to maintain these territories in a renewed Yugoslavia, where all who wish to may continue as a part of the country, despite the forceful redefinition of boundaries that this would entail.
This is what Serbia and its allied Montenegro are also advocating. The republic of Macedonia, in the country's far south, shares the Croatian desire for independence from the Serbs. Meanwhile, in a recent referendum, the Macedonians voted in favour of a sort of association where a certain number of the ties, mainly economic in nature, would be retained with the other republics.
Finally, there is Bosnia-Herzegovina, a microcosm of Yugoslavia, containing an amalgam of peoples including Muslims numbering 44 per cent, Serbs numbering 31 per cent and Croats 17 per cent. Complicating all this is the additional claim to a form of autonomy being made by the Serbs of Bosnia, and the Albanians and Muslins of Serbia.
A mere glance at the map of Yugoslavia shows that to divide up the country according to aspirations of these groups would be virtually impossible. Thus we see that we have before us a situation infinitely more complex than some of the protagonists would have us believe in their efforts to gain support. We have a very delicate interplay of peoples all in varying degrees claiming the right to self-determination. We also have before us ethnic groups which, right or wrong, fear greatly for their physical and cultural survival.
How can the rights and the safety of the minorities be guaranteed and the legitimate aspirations of the majority peoples be respected at the same time? In our system we would accomplish this by dialogue and comprise. In Yugoslavia the opposite is true. We find deep distrust on all sides, for example between Croatian and federal armed forces, which makes it tremendously difficult for either side to take the first step. The well-known story of the 12 or 13 cease-fire agreements bears sad witness to this.
The international community and especially the European countries are faced with a tremendous challenge. On the one hand are the legitimate aspirations of various national groups which wish to rebuild relations with their neighbours on new foundations and to participate in the construction of a new Europe. On the other hand is the gratuitous use of violence by the Yugoslav federal army, which is out of the control of the government and which has its own political agenda, and by numerous armed groups in Croatia, Serbia and elsewhere which are using force as a political argument. All this is taking place in Europe, which we felt was finally safe from the threat of military confrontation when the cold war ended.
The international community is not looking on passively as the savage war in Yugoslavia rages. In spite of

what is being said by the protagonists who see the only acceptable solution as their own, the European community, supported by the 38 countries of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, has made available to the parties a series of peace making and negotiating tools.
From the very outset of the crisis the European community, in particular the Netherlands presidency, has taken concrete steps to create conditions for a cease-fire. A diplomatic offensive unprecedented in Europe has been mounted by the Netherlands Minister Van den Broek and his colleagues in an effort to stop the fighting. They have developed compromise solutions which have had some positive results. The violence has quelled in Slovenia and the federal forces have withdrawn from the republic. They have also managed to assemble the Yugoslav parties around the same table to discuss a comprehensive solution to the crisis.
None of this would have been possible without the support of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. This forum, which aside from Yugoslavia itself includes all the European countries, Canada and the United States, has stood surety for the efforts of the European Community. It was the CSCE that gave the European Community the mandate to send a mission of 200 observers first to Slovenia, then to Croatia, and now to other areas at risk.
As soon as the mission was announced,Canada expressed its interest in participating. With Poland, Czechoslovakia and Sweden, Canada gave a broader stature to this mission co-ordinated by the European presidency. Often under threat and in dangerous straits our observers have borne witness to the repeated violations of the various cease-fire agreements by both sides. They have also provided their assistance to avert violence in localized confrontations. Finally they have contributed to a number of operations to provide humanitarian assistance to those who are suffering in the conflict.
We should all take pride that Canadians have been able once again to play a peacemaking role in foreign conflicts. I know that my colleagues in the House would applaud that effort on the part of the Canadian peacekeepers. But our country is not limited to acting through multilateral organizations alone. Even though we are far
away our government has seen the civil war in Yugoslavia as an issue of great importance to its foreign policy.
Our colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has taken a personal interest in this matter. She has made use of her numerous meetings with her European counterparts to exchange views on the situation and to see what specific contribution Canada could make. She has attended a series of international conferences with the Prime Minister. The most recent of these was the NATO summit meeting in Rome. It reaffirmed the need to achieve a peaceful solution to the crisis in Yugoslavia.
On November 8, 1991 Canada joined the European Community in imposing economic sanctions on Yugoslavia. This action has been followed by similar measures by the United States, Japan, Australia and other countries.
The Government of Canada decided to impose sanctions on all Yugoslav republics to show unequivocally our wish to see all parties cease hostilities and participate fully in the negotiation process. Canada supports the principle of negotiation contained in the proposal tabled by the European Community at the peace conference in Yugoslavia. We believe that sanctions, as difficult as they may be, constitute the best means at our disposal at this time to end this senseless war.
We cannot say it often and firmly enough. Canada is opposed to modifying boundaries by force and to imposing a fait accompli. If these are the Yugoslav army's objectives in Croatia it had better think again. Canada shares its position with all the countries of the European Community, NATO, CSCE and the United Nations Security Council. We also strongly oppose the attempts of the Yugoslav army and ultra-nationalist militia to seek to modify the ethnic make-up of certain regions by force, thus causing the exodus of tens of thousands of people.
Several forced evacuations of civilian populations, particularly women and children, have already occurred in various regions of Croatia. The Yugoslav army's determination to control Dubrovnik can only be understood in this light.
Some of our colleagues in this House have suggested that Canada grant diplomatic recognition to the unilateral declarations of independence of Croatia and Slovenia. They may do that again tonight. In so doing they have echoed the demands of the members of Canada's Croatian community who see this recognition as a way of countering Serbian claims against Croatia. This responds to the express wish of a majority of Croats. They
November 18, 1991

maintain that diplomatic recognition would end this violence. A number of us have received a fax today from the Croatian Information Centre again requesting this.
Canada's position on this is clear. We must always support the move of other members of the international community to have a co-ordinated peace offensive. By recognizing the independence of Slovenia and Croatia now we would ring the deathknell of the negotiation process.
That is why Canada, the European Community, Japan and others have imposed sanctions to allow the negotiations to continue. If these negotiations are a total failure, violence and force would be the only means left to settle this crisis.
I am sure that no one in this House or anywhere else in Canada wants this to happen. We feel that it is necessary to ensure that genuine negotiations are held to determine the future of all the constituent parts of Yugoslavia and to ensure that this takes place with full respect for the rights of all concerned. That is exactly what we are prepared to do by imposing sanctions. This will convince all parties to end the violr ;e and to return to the negotiating table.
Canada has also been active in the United Nations where the Prime Minister initiated the debate on Yugoslavia. Canada played a key role in informing the Security Council about the crisis in Yugoslavia. This led to resolution 713 and a greater role for the Secretary-General. This has proven especially important in the last few days. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have stated repeatedly that Canada was prepared to contribute to an international peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia. If the conditions can be established for sending such a force, Canada is prepared to play an even greater role in the peaceful resolution of this conflict.
Canada did not wait for the United Nations to debate the issue before imposing an embargo on the sale of arms to Yugoslavia. Since the start of the crisis the Secretary of State for External Affairs has refused to issue licences to export arms or other military goods to Yugoslavia.
I do not wish to overlook the sustained efforts made by our employees in our posts abroad. They are in Belgrade and Zagreb and since the beginning of this crisis they have ensured the security of Canadians living in or visiting Yugoslavia. Two letters have been written to all Canadians in Croatia who are registered with our embassy recommending that they leave the combat area. Recent contacts with these people nevertheless indicated that most of them had chosen to remain in Croatia. Croat and Slovenian citizens who intend to stay in Canada and who would have difficulty getting to Belgrade can obtain visas for Canada from other Canadian diplomatic missions in the region.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the crisis in Yugoslavia constitutes a challenge to the security of Europe. It also constitutes a challenge to the international community as a whole in its efforts to assist small groups of nations unable to agree among themselves on the form of their future relations.
Canada is in the forefront of those nations wishing to assist Serbs, Croats, Slovenians and other Yugoslavs in overcoming this crisis. Our country will do all it can in co-operation with our friends and allies to help these peoples to restored peace and harmony.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to ask a short question of the parliamentary secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the floor to the hon. member?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I say also to the member of Parliament for Mississauga West that we hope during the course of debate we will have the opportunity to hear about his concerns. We know he does have a substantial number of Croatian Canadians in his riding and we certainly will welcome his involvement in the debate.
In that spirit let me begin by saying that many Canadians have waited a long time for this Parliament to address this issue. As each day goes by we have seen more suffering, tragedy, destruction, death and more conflict. The level of deep apprehension, concern and anguish, sometimes directly for those who have loved

ones or family in that besieged part of the world, has reached a pitch of not knowing what to do. There is frustration in not finding in this forum an opportunity to have it expressed.
I would just say in parenthesis that it may demonstrate, as we look at the role of Parliament, that we must find a much better way of making this institution flexible enough and responsible enough that it can deal with these recurring international crises with a great deal more sensitivity and certainly a great deal more speed.
I do not want to give a speech tonight on parliamentary procedure, but rather I want to talk about what is happening in Yugoslavia and what should be done to end the killing as soon as possible.
I must say that I waited with some anticipation for the comments of the parliamentary secretary to see what initiatives the government may be announcing tonight to provide further involvement, further engagement, further intervention, and unfortunately and sadly there was nothing more to say.
The reason I remind the House of this is that it was just about a year ago today that this Parliament was seized with the issue of what was happening in the gulf area. I could tell then there was no hesitation. There was no too little too late. There were no modest, prudent, cautionary words.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs were standing on the barricades ready to do anything possible. The entire western world was being mobilized. The largest army of the last 40 years was being readied to be launched. Thousands of ships were in the gulf ready to impose a sanctions program. It was all done because we were going to have, to quote the United States President, a new world order where aggression, conflict and the use of arms would not be the arbiter of human affairs and we would find a way to resolve these problems before they resulted in senseless killing of civilians.
We have retreated a long way from the brave new world or the new world order of a year ago to where we are today on Yugoslavia. One of the real tragedies, aside from the loss of life and the destruction of property and the breakdown of civil order in what is left of Yugoslavia, is the disillusionment of the world that increasingly sees double standards being applied as to whom and where
and when and how the international community will respond.
If the parliamentary secretary really thinks in his heart that what has happened up to now on behalf of the European Community or the United Nations is enough, then I would ask him to go back and read the speeches of his Prime Minister and others who talked about the need finally for the world to say that we will not let force become the big stick that beats people back, that the international community will find a different way, and that sovereignty of nations imposes duties as well as rights. The primary duty of any nation is to protect the lives of its citizens and when it begins to abuse that right and not fulfil that duty then the international community has a right to intervene.
I would say that one of the better speeches of the Prime Minister was the one he gave at Stanford University a couple of months ago in which that same principle was put forward, except now when we look at the practice, now when we look at what is happening, where is it? It may be that Yugoslavia is not sitting on a pool of oil. It may be that Yugoslavia does not fit in to the strategic design of the great powers. It may be for all kinds of other reasons when we get down to the fundamentals, the issue is still there.
Tonight in towns and villages in Croatia there is fighting going on and people are being killed and the international community has gone fishing. There has been action. There have been calls for conferences and eight, nine, ten, twelve cease-fires-broken immediately-but what has been missing has been resolve, political will, a real full scale, full court press by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Prime Minister of Canada and other European nations to show they really mean business.
The parliamentary secretary referred to the United Nations action of an arms embargo. I would refer him to the article written by Olivia Ward, the correspondent from the United Nations, saying that arms were flown to Yugoslavia several weeks after the embargo had been imposed, including from many of the countries which were sitting on the Security Council. She goes on to say in the article that to make the embargo really work the council would have to set up a sanctions committee as we did in Iraq to deal with violations and to expose those who are still sending arms into that area. The author concludes that so far the council's five permanent

members have shown little interest in such far-reaching measures.
I would add a further paragraph saying: And neither has Canada shown much interest in ensuring that those sanctions were being fully imposed. I have not seen the secretary of state or the Prime Minister or our ambassador to the UN saying: "Hey, Security Council, your laws are being fought and your resolution has got holes in it. Do something about it because you are aiding to the killing". There is not a word.
Does the parliamentary secretary think that is a bold, new initiative to deal with the problem of conflict?


An hon. member:: The surrogate voice of the U.S. is silent.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is a tragedy.
What we really see tonight if we measure the evolution of world affairs dealing with this problem from where we were a year ago to where we are now, where we for whatever reason mobilized these efforts, is not nearly the same kind of application today on questions of sanctions. The United Nations since the call of two weeks ago at NATO-


Mr. Blenkarn:: What other country took it to the UN?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I hear the voice of the member for Mississauga who has as much understanding about international affairs as he has about Canadian domestic finance, which means that you could count it on the head of a pin.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Lloyd Axworthy: If the cow is
going to continue to bellow, we are going to have to put a bell on it.
The fact of the matter is that on this crucial issue where we know that we once again talked about sanctions, finally the European Community admitted that it was failure, that it could not do it and referred it to the United Nations. I say to hon. members: Where has it been? Have you seen another resolution from the United Nations asking for an oil embargo that might really have enough impact to bring the parties to the
table and which would really send a tough message that we want negotiations? Silence.
On several occasions when we have asked in this House the representatives of the government-and I want the member for Mississauga to take the plug out of his mouth and out of his ears and listen-the Secretary of State for External Affairs refused to answer. This government did not go on record as supporting an oil embargo against those nations.
Is that a defence of the new international order? Is that a defence of the rule of law? Is that a defence against the unacceptable use of force to influence world affairs? I am surprised at the silence.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Where were you in the gulf?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the members of the Conservative Party were not more vociferous on behalf of the suffering of Croatia as they are concerned about defending their own paltry and poor record.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We know where you were.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will welcome you. I will sit here with great anticipation to hear the member for Mississauga get to his feet and come forward with proposals for an oil embargo and come against the fact that his government will not do the kinds of things it should be doing. We will wait to see him make his statement as to what he thinks should be done because we know the things that his government is not doing at the present time.
The hard reality is that it is not just a question of the human suffering because there is a fundamental stake for all Canadians, even if they do not turn on their TV sets, even if they are not wrenched by the kind of catastrophe going on. They must recognize that there is a fundamental issue of world security at stake because this is the test case in eastern Europe where there are all kinds of instabilities, where there are all kinds of groups sort of looking to find a greater sense of freedom, a great sense of self-determination, and where they are looking to see what kind of security framework will be put in place to allow those discussions and those ambitions to take place under peaceful conditions.

I recall quite vividly being at the CSCE conference in Moscow in September when the delegations from eastern Europe, Czechoslovakians, Hungarians, Russians, Poles and others came forward with proposals about how the CSCE itself could strengthen its mechanisms for involvement in cases like Yugoslavia.
That international organization that was being held up by the former secretary of state last year as being the bright new hope for world order was finally having to come to grips with a real tough issue.
The newly developing democracies of eastern Europe themselves were coming forward with proposals to toughen up those mechanisms. As a result, guess who was dragging their feet? Guess who was saying no? We expected some of the big powers to say no. They were giving all kinds of excuses about why it was impossible. But why Canada? Why did we back away? Why did we retreat?
I want to quote a comment by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs who spoke about this. I will not bother you with the entire paragraph but she said: "The Moscow meeting was not the right time or context to take such decisions. We will deal with it in October, from October 22 to 24". That was a month ago. Where is the Canadian voice of the CSCE talking about the need for tougher mechanisms and the need for a new security structure for all the kinds of incredible challenges and tests that will emerge in that part of the world?
Once again there is silence. Once again it meant finding refuge on the sidelines. Here were the newly developing democracies reaching out for leadership, for the kind of direction that an experienced country and middle power of great diplomatic reputation like Canada can give, and what was the answer of our secretary of state? It was neither the time nor the place, "I was busy", or whatever it may be. It is sad. It is very sad. What a missed opportunity.
Canadians today are searching for what it means to be a Canadian and to have our own sense of identity. One thing that has given real raison d'etre for this country since the inception of the United Nations is the idea that when it comes to international affairs we could provide a middle way. We we were not afraid to take real leadership. We could reach out and be innovative in trying to enhance and strengthen the world order through the rule of law and through new international institutions until now.
When we are called, we will not respond. We are silent. As a result the chaos continues. There is a need to begin putting into place a new security arrangement that will be absolutely essential if we are not going to have a combustion in eastern Europe as it goes through the throes of freeing itself from a former imperialist system and now finds itself in a new era. We should be very clear. There is nothing sacred about the status quo.
We must let evolution take place through democratic elections. We must let self-determination take place through peaceful means, through protection of minorities. That will require a very effective, international, multilateral framework, and this is the time to start building that. This is the time to show that we really mean business. It is time for a new ethic of intervention, one that will move us beyond where we are now.
The failure in not doing so will have repercussions for years and years to come. We would like to hear very clearly the voices in this Parliament tonight speak out to give some new resolve to the government, to give some new will and determination, to start putting on pressure at the United Nations for a meeting to begin with for the imposition of oil sanctions.
Second, the voices should start saying that the international community has to get tough. If some of those great powers do not want to go on then let them say so. Let it at least be visible as to who is standing in the way of some resolution of this conflict. Let us make the arms embargo a meaningful one. Let us start arguing for closing the loopholes and putting a sanctions committee in place. Let us take the initiative. Let us show some leadership. Let us go to the CSCE the same way and ask for an emergency meeting, which is clearly our right under the by-laws. Let us get the foreign ministers together, sitting down and saying: "It has gone far enough. It is too much". If the CSCE is going to have any meaning in the future, if it is going to have any relevance to the problems of Europe, it must act now. It means looking at new mechanisms. Let us not follow the advice of our secretary of state when she says: "Another time, another place". The problem is right now.

As Canadians we must also grasp hold of the responsibility to deal with the deep humanitarian suffering that is going on in that area. There have been $1.5 million in valuable contributions to the Red Cross, but does that really ease the suffering of the 60,000 or 70,000 people who are trapped tonight in Dubrovnik without water, without electricity, without sewer treatment, without food because they are blockaded? Do you think that is going to help them?
Going back to the fundamental principle that was in the United Nations covenants, is probably in the covenant on genocide, and is certainly in the CSCE covenants, it is certainly part and parcel of the new ethic of intervention, we cannot allow a government to deliberately starve and maltreat its citizens. If that means that the blockade in Dubrovnik must come to an end and there must be ships of the international community there to do it, then so be it.
It is interesting how things get lost. Two weeks ago there was talk at the NATO summit meeting in Rome that maybe NATO, which does have a standby force, which has the mechanisms, which has the military committee, which has more generals than you can count, which has incredible planning going on, was going to be asked to deal with the problem of the blockade of Dubrovnik.
The shield comes up, the wall and the curtain descend and no more is heard about that proposal because there is a fundamental lack of political will. All the sweet words and brave descriptions we heard tonight from the parliamentary secretary do not cover the fundamental fact that chaos is erupting inside Yugoslavia and if it is not stopped and solved by peaceful means then it will lead to chaos in other places at other times.
We have a responsibility as a privileged, protected nation, one that has the respect of many other nations of the world to be more than simply an echo, to be simply more than a "me too", to be simply more than saying we will do only what is necessary, not what really will count.
I say to members of this House tonight that there is only one way that will happen. Every one in this House tonight has to get on his or her feet and speak with a commitment and a dedication, to say this is a time of testing, this is a time for this Parliament to be heard, this
is a time for Parliament to lead the government and show Canadians and the world that we will not stand by and watch the world being engulfed in this kind of chaos, that we will do everything within our power and our influence to show that we can solve these problems by peaceful means.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record. The minister called for the very things this member called for several weeks ago. He is a little bit behind the times.


An hon. member:: You had better believe it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my colleague from Victoria. I know there are many other members of this House who want to speak in this debate but will not have the opportunity to do so. I particularly want to single out colleagues such as the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and other members who have spoken out publicly and with eloquence and have expressed their deep concern, their sense of anger and reflected a sense of betrayal that too many of their constituents have felt at the silence and the lack of response of their government at a time that they were looking to their government for leadership.
This is an opportunity for this Parliament to tell our government, to tell our minister, that the silence must end. Canada must at last play a role of leadership, not only within the United Nations but as well, as the previous member pointed out, within the CSCE which has established mechanisms to respond to a crisis, to a human tragedy, a political tragedy, a tragedy of a country that has ceased to exist.
Surely as a Parliament that must be the basis of our understanding, that Yugoslavia no longer exists as a nation. We must recognize that the people of the republics of Yugoslavia, whether it be in Slovenia and Croatia which voted overwhelmingly, 94 per cent, for independence in a referendum, whether it be the people of Macedonia who voted in a referendum in September for independence, whether it be the elected representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina who in the middle of October proclaimed the sovereignty of that republic, that Yugoslavia is no more.

November 18, 1991
Surely the most fundamental obligation we have as elected representatives is to speak the truth and from that truth to draw the conclusions that surely must follow. What are those conclusions and what should Canada be doing at this time that we are being tested as a nation? What has this new world order meant for the people of Dubrovnik, what has it meant for the people of Vukovar, what has it meant for those who are hungry in Zagreb, what has it meant for the children who are among the 350,000 refugees fleeing from the madness of this war, what has it meant for the eight year old boy in Vukovar who talks about the people in the refugee centre who cannot understand how today people are trying to resolve this conflict through violence?
What in fact should the response be? If we accept the fundamental principle set out in the CSCE documents of self-determination, surely we should recognize that the people of Slovenia, the people of Croatia have spoken loudly and eloquently for independence, for freedom and for democracy.
At the same time the European community has recognized, and indeed the leaders of Croatia in particular have recognized, the importance of respect for the rights of minorities. In fact, President Thdjman of the Government of Croatia has expressed himself very clearly as being prepared to grant to all people who reside in Croatia every internationally respected right for minorities, to do so under international monitoring and to recognize also that it may be that there is an important need for arrangements under international supervision with human rights guarantees, to respect the rights of minorities. We know that the historical fears do run deep, that the 600,000 Serbs in Croatia, looking back on history have those fears.
At the same time, we must not be mired in the death and tragedy of the past. We know that the Albanian majority in Kosovo has been brutally repressed for too long. Our obligation as parliamentarians is to recognize that we must in the absence of leadership from this government provide leadership on behalf of the people that we have the honour to represent.
What does that mean? It means for example that there must be a role for the United Nations, for peacekeeping forces from the United Nations, but not, as has been
suggested by the President of Serbia, in a de facto greater Serbia. Troops that are set up within the territory of Serbia would in fact achieve the objective that has been set out by Serbia, to carve out chunks of territory. The United Nations must not be a part of that scheme.
The international community and Canada must state very clearly to the Yugoslavian army in no uncertain terms that they will not yield one inch of territory to violence, brutality and bloodshed. The Yugoslavian army must be called upon to withdraw beyond the boundaries of Croatia, to stop the violence, the death, the injury, the destruction, the creation of hundreds of thousands of refugees. We have heard the desperate appeal from the mayor of Dubrovnik, Pero Poljanic, who says: "We are desperate, dear friends, we need you. At times we think we are crying in the desert." This historical jewel is being utterly devastated by shelling.
We must understand and we must accept that it is not a question of when Croatia will be independent; it is a question of how much blood will be shed before that independence has been recognized. I say on behalf of my colleagues that too much blood has been shed and Canada has been silent for too long.
Some say that Serbs and Croatians cannot live in peace. The reality is that until this conflict they have done precisely that. Families have intermarried. There has been that relationship of trust. Yes, it has been devastated, it has been tom, but that can happen.
Ultimately Canada must lead in the call for an unconditional withdrawal of troops, to urge that there be United Nations peacekeepers, not within the territory of Croatia, but in fact on the border between Croatia and Serbia. We must lead in the call for an end to the brutality that led to the woman from Croatia who came to my office and brought in a piece of shrapnel from her front yard. She was able to escape from that scene of terror. I hope that Canada will be very generous in granting visitor's visas to those who are trying to escape from that terror as well.
We must impose tough economic sanctions. We should have done it a long time ago. My colleague from Victoria on October 8 spoke on behalf of this party, urging those sanctions, urging an oil embargo. What have we done? Finally, a month later, economic sanctions. But what about the oil embargo? No action there at all.
November 18, 1991

Finally, humanitarian assistance is desperately needed at this time of crisis. This is being called for by the Croatian community, but also by the Serbian community which, on the eve of Remembrance Day in church services in Vancouver prayed for peace but also prayed to raise money to buy and send the necessary medicine, food and clothing. I want to pay tribute in particular to the Croatian community in my own area of Vancouver which has, in fact, sent that humanitarian relief. But it is up to our government to show true leadership and provide additional humanitarian relief.
Finally I want to pay tribute to the young people who have shown their concern for their relatives and families, for their loved ones, who have petitioned this Parliament, who have joined in echoing the words of the President of Croatia who said "We will not succumb to military force or economic blackmail. Our liberty is our life".
Mr. Speaker, let that call be heard in this Parliament and throughout this land today.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway for yielding part of his time. As our critic for external affairs, he certainly could have added even more to the debate than he has. But in order that as many members from our party as possible can participate in this discussion, we have decided to split our time.
This is a solemn debate. It is not a debate for partisan division. It is a debate in which all members of this House must come together to speak with one voice. The tragedy in Croatia must immediately come to an end and the Government of Canada must speak for all Canadians in saying that this tragedy must come to an end now. But in order for us to do so effectively, we must not shrink from placing responsibility for the tragedy where it belongs. As the Prime Minister said in this House on October 8: "The army, operating under the name of Yugoslavia, has run amok. It is absolutely out of control".
In a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Security Council, the Secretary-General concluded, on the basis of his investigations, and I quote
from page 12 on a report from Cyrus Vance to the Secretary-General:
Despite the occasional participation of the full eight-member socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and presidency at the Hague Conference, the de facto authority of the central government in Yugoslavia has been seriously impaired since the development of the 3rd of October, as well as by the situation on the ground. A critical result is that the JNA no longer has political direction from a civilian authority that enjoys the support of all the republics and all the communities of the federation.
Mr. Speaker, when you called this debate, you said it was about the situation in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia no longer effectively exists, and certainly, in the words of the Secretary-General, "no longer has political direction of the army that is out of control in Croatia". That is the place where this Parliament's understanding and this Parliament's statement must begin.
The people of the world are horrified at what is happening. But we are also horrified at the apparent inability of the international community to act.
As other members have already said, it stands in stark contrast, in bitter contrast, to the actions of a year ago when faced with the situation in the gulf.
I come, as all members have, from a week in our ridings. I come from a meeting on Friday night in Victoria where people of the Croatian community came together. They, along with all people in this country, simply cannot understand how it is that this tragedy is allowed to happen and the world community cannot act to stop it. We have had resolutions and speeches, we have had half-hearted sanctions and we have had failure-and all members of this House must speak to the point-of the international community to act.
Over a month ago, the Secretary General of NATO came to visit Ottawa. In the course of conversations he said, and he put it personally: "I have the divisions necessary to go into Yugoslavia and stop the fighting". He said that NATO would not do so because it might get caught in a quagmire.
If that is the reason for the international community not to be acting, it is an international crime. We do not advocate that NATO go in. Just as NATO should not have gone into the gulf, NATO should not be operating outside its borders, as it is in fact for that reason politically obsolete. But the Security Council of the United Nations can call on the member states, as it did in the gulf, to provide the necessary peacekeeping forces to

November 18, 1991
go in and stop the devastation in Croatia. This House must make that statement now.
It is a matter of international law that the rights of the people of Croatia cannot be violated by force as they are now being viola ed by force, that the priceless international heritage of that community cannot be taken away. The time has come for the international community to move, through the Security Council, to intervene under the flag of the United Nations to stop the fighting in Yugoslavia.
The word tonight from Yugoslavia is that there is at least some calm in Dubrovnik. If that lasts, that may be something to be built upon. However, that is not going to be enough because last June the people of Croatia voted 94 per cent for independence. It ought to be the policy of this House that the voice of that 94 per cent of the people of Croatia must be given an opportunity to be heard. If the people of Croatia want independence, as other countries have achieved independence, as our colleagues to the south in the United States of America once had a revolution for independence, as we now celebrate the spring of hope throughout all of eastern Europe, as other countries are achieving their independence, so too must the people of Croatia have the right to independence.
The first step is peace and the second step is that the international community must afford the people of Croatia the opportunity to determine whether they wish to have an independent country.
All of us prefer to have some level of cohesion in that area but it must be clear that the people have the right to determine their future in a new Europe. We in the international community must be ready to give them that right.
Finally, let me say that there is the issue of humanitarian aid that must be dealt with and dealt with more effectively than it has been to date from all accounts. The government first put up $250,000 on behalf of Canada. Then it contributed more to bring the aid, as I understand it, to about $1 million. However, there are reports that aid is not getting through. It is said to be routed through the International Red Cross and there are substantial reports that it is not getting through. That aid should be routed through Slovenia to be sure that it gets in to the people of Croatia who need it.
Let me conclude my remarks by offering to the House the experience to which I referred earlier. The Croatian community in Victoria was speaking with a clear voice, and I think we have all had various experiences of this in the last week. About 200 people from the Croatian community, including those from the Hungarian community, came to speak in solidarity with the people of Croatia.
The sense of frustration and hopelessness as the reports continued to pour out of Croatia was palpable. However, we must now take the glimmer of hope that there may be today and try to work with it and build on it and show leadership in Canada, to see that this tragedy is brought quickly to an end and that those in Croatia who want a free, independent Croatia have the opportunity to have it.
When the meeting was over, Mrs. Maria Micic gave me a letter from her sister who has spent much of the last period of time below ground, suffering bombardment. She asked me to deliver this letter to the Prime Minister, which I will do on his return from Paris. It is a letter which is poignant and feeling. It speaks of the experience that has been inflicted on so many in this century, the hundreds of thousands of people who have been the victims of civil war and of war between nations.
We are once again called upon, as a Parliament, to speak out for peace. I would ask all of my colleagues to join in that plea tonight.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to you today about the terrible situation in Yugoslavia. After listening carefully to comments made in the House so far this evening, I had trouble understanding what kind of message the opposition was trying to send us. I know the Canadian government is trying to help the people of Yugoslavia, and I realize perhaps something else should be done as well. However, if I recall correctly, during a similar discussion we had a few months ago on the war in the gulf, the same opposition parties voted against the same UN resolution.
I will just say that I find it difficult to understand them, and that is putting it mildly. Perhaps I could explain what Canada is doing at this very moment. What we want
November 18, 1991

above all is to stop the killing and persuade both sides to embark on a peaceful settlement of this conflict.
As you know, Canada has acquired considerable experience in peacekeeping, and I would like to analyse the situation in Yugoslavia from that perspective. The situation is somewhat complex. It is not just a war between two armies, which would lend itself easily to a classic peacekeeping operation.
There are a number of factors that complicate matters: ethnic differences, a federation that has fallen apart, the security status of minorities, nationalism, ancestral rivalries and conflicts, mistrust of one's neighbours, the impact of these tragic events on the population, and in fact all the tragic consequences of the breakdown of the social order and civil war.
I also find the situation in Yugoslavia disturbing because it was in this country that the first sparks flew that started the conflagration of World War I. Yugoslavia is certainly not an island, and as a result, current instability may spread to neighbouring states. However, there is a definite difference compared with the situation in 1914, so much so that I feel there is hope the past will not repeat itself.
No major power has a personal interest in the region. The country's immediate neighbours are anxious to take advantage of the end of the cold war to progress politically and economically. There is no mechanism in the region aimed at preventing, restricting and regulating conflicts, such as the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, also known as the CSCE, or the United Nations. To end this conflict, our only hope is to find ways to stop the warring parties and start negotiations.
Canada has acquired a broad experience of peacekeeping operations. The peacekeeping concept was first proposed by a Canadian, Lester B. Pearson, at the time of the Suez crisis, to help the belligerents agree on a cease-fire. For this concept, Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Since then, Canada has taken part in all UN peacekeeping missions. Today, more than 1,000 Canadian soldiers are deployed in peacekeeping operations in the gulf, Cyprus, the Sahara and the Middle East. We are also involved in the latest peacekeeping mission in Cambodia, where two members of Canadian
military personnel have already started setting up operations designed to support the peace process in that country.
Since we have a long history of involvement in these missions, the greatest tribute to Canadians who served the cause of peace came when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1988 to peacekeeping forces throughout the world. A magnificent monument commemorating that event and dedicated to Canadian soldiers who took part in those operations is now being erected on Sussex Drive.
However, it is not enough for Canada to look back on the achievements of the past. A nation that has acquired such a vast experience of peacekeeping has a duty to share that experience with countries where new conflicts break out, in this case Yugoslavia. I take great comfort from the initiatives taken by Canada in this respect.
It was Canada that first requested a special meeting of the Security Council and the sending of a peacekeeping mission. The Prime Minister himself discussed the matter. We have learned from experience that sometimes belligerents must be helped to agree on a cease-fire and we realized that intervention by peacekeeping forces might be useful at this time.
Canada has played an active role in persuading a major organization like the CSCE to intervene in the Yugoslavian crisis. Some countries were surprised at our position, considering that we are not a European state. Maintaining Europe's security is our concern. Canadians fought in two world wars to protect the cause of peace in Europe.
Our troops have been part of NATO for 30 years, always for that same reason. How could we remain silent within the CSCE when the war in Yugoslavia threatens the very peace for which we fought for so many years?
Canada did far more than condemn violence and ask for a peacekeeping mission to be sent. Our desire for peace goes further than mere words. Canada joined the European nations that formed the cease-fire monitoring mission in Yugoslavia.
The mission was organized to see whether it was possible to avoid the conflict, and if not, to see whether the conflict could be controlled, and if that were not the case, to see whether we could at least protect innocent civilians from the more violent effects of combat. Under the enlightened and energetic leadership of the Nether-

November 18, 1991
lands, the observers went well beyond their mandate to try and establish and maintain a cease-fire.
Zagreb, Vukovar, Dubrovnik, Split-many of us barely knew of the existence of these cities before we heard about them in the media. They are the names of cities where the observers went and where they are continuing their peace efforts.
I wonder whether Canadians or even hon. members fully realize the extent of Canada's participation in this monitoring mission. We assigned 11 people to this difficult task. I am told they are peacekeeping experts, and it seems they are making an exceptional contribution to the mission.
All of us here salute their courage and selfless attitude. Let us join their families in giving thanks that they have been spared so far and in praying that they will return safe and sound. These Canadians show that we want to bring peace back to Yugoslavia. They give substance to what we say in the halls of Europe and the world.
I said earlier that the Yugoslav conflict is far more than a classic confrontation between two armies, and I highlighted some of the more complex aspects of the situation. What we have here is civil war.
Peacekeeping operations have also become more complex, more refined and better able to deal with the underlying causes of a conflict instead of with its military manifestations, pure and simple. They have evolved to the point that today they include missions responsible for monitoring respect for human rights, ensuring the safe return of refugees to their countries, organizing national referendums, supervising elections and responding to humanitarian needs.
Canada has both military personnel and civilians who are experienced in such missions. We have people working in the human rights monitoring unit in Salvador. We gave our assistance when elections were held in Haiti, and Canadians are once again involved in restoring democracy to this troubled country. We are now involved in a mission responsible for organizing a referendum in the Western Sahara, in the national reconciliation campaign in Angola and, since quite recently, in the general UN mission responsible for restructuring political institutions in Cambodia.
Canada has also played a leading role in the development of peacekeeping concepts. A 34-nation committee of the United Nations is studying all aspects of this activity. I find it revealing that, since the end of the cold war and the resulting revitalization of peace keeping, this committee has chosen a Canadian as vice-chairman, who also chairs its working group.
Innovative ideas together with a vast experience of new peacekeeping possibilities may give us a way to resolve the Yugoslav situation.
Needless to say, Canada has already contributed to the efforts to bring this conflict under control. We have advised the CSCE and the UN. We are participating in the observer mission in Yugoslavia. We support the European peace conference. We have condemned acts of violence. We have applied sanctions and provided aid to innocent victims. But the fighting still goes on. However, it seems that the parties in conflict and the European Community are now considering putting in place a peacekeeping force to end the fighting and allow talks to be held.
I understand that the UN Secretary General has sent his special representative, Cyrus Vance, and his Assistant Secretary for Peacekeeping to Yugoslavia to see what can be done in this regard. We should be pleased with this development.
As I already noted, Canada is highly regarded in the CSCE, the European Economic Community and the United Nations. We have maintained an impartial policy toward the parties in conflict. I therefore think that we are well placed to continue to take part in peace efforts, to which we attach great importance.
In their deliberations, international organizations and the parties concerned will look at various roles that peacekeepers could play in Yugoslavia. For example, they could guarantee the security of minorities. They could supervise the cease-fire and the disengagement of forces. They could also participate in humanitarian aid efforts and introduce confidence-building measures.
Furthermore, the trans-Yugoslav highway and railway will certainly have to be reopened and the economy will have to be revived. Relief will have to be provided in combat zones and refugees will have to be returned to
November 18, 1991

their homes. Finally, respect for everyone's human rights will have to be ensured.
A peacekeeping mission in itself cannot solve the Yugoslav crisis. It must be accompanied by a general desire for peace. Moreover, the enthusiasm aroused by its presence must not predetermine the final settlement. Thus a temporary cease-fire line must not become a new de facto border.
To conclude, I will say that Canada has played an important, appropriate, impartial role so far in this crisis. Some signs indicate that with some encouragement, the parties may now agree to lay down their arms. We should maintain our assistance to get them to stop fighting and to start negotiating.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this emergency debate on the issue of Yugoslavia, but I believe by agreement I am going to share my 20 minute allotted time with my colleagues from Scarborough-Rouge River and Hamilton West, with your permission.
We are here this evening to address a very serious crisis in our world, that which exists today and has existed for too long in Yugoslavia, a situation which is deplorable for the consequences it has wrought upon so many innocent victims in Yugoslavia: 3,000 dead and 350,000 displaced persons in a modem society is totally unacceptable. It is particularly unacceptable when we remember so well the reaction of the international community to the crisis that occurred within the last year in the Middle East when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
It appeared that because our own self-interest was so much at stake we could do nothing more than react. Today we have all these innocent people within Yugoslavia who are suffering so much personally and it appears that those who have power to change things in the world are not prepared to take the necessary steps or do not have the political will to bring about a peaceful resolution to the problem that exists.
Sovereignty sensitivities in this area have translated into inaction. This is unacceptable. Young people, students, men and women who have learned over years, mind you under a stern dictatorship, to live together
despite their ethnic and cultural differences today are suffering.
One of my early memories as a student was being in Yugoslavia and being entertained by other students in Yugoslavia. It was one of the richest cultural and ethnic experiences I have had to date.
It was an experience to have Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians and all the cultures of Yugoslavia coming together. We all shared our song and our dance routines and our tales of our cultural past together. It was a rich experience. I saw people in that country all living together peaceably at that time. It is certainly distressing to see what is happening today.
I believe there are remedies which the international community could have taken long before now and which have been suggested and to which we must address ourselves. For example, it has been suggested for some months that an oil embargo against Yugoslavia would have some impact in causing the conflict there to dry up literally for lack of energy resources. We have an arms embargo in place. Despite this the international community has not done what it could have done to make sure that the arms embargo was effective.
As we talk about embargoes against the country of Yugoslavia, which is unnecessarily at war and conflict at the present time, we have to be aware that we must turn our attention to the humanitarian needs of so many people who have been displaced. We must assure by whatever means is necessary, through provision of supplies by ship and by air, that the people who are the innocent victims in this turmoil have their needs met.
The Serbs and Croats themselves have asked for international assistance. There have been attempts we know by the European Community to try to bring about peace in this region. Unfortunately although perhaps there is some tenuous possibility this evening, so many cease-fires have not brought the result that we want.
It is true that when the people of Yugoslavia see other nations and republics around them looking to a new life freedom and when they look back to their cultural past and heritage, they do look for a new relationship. I believe that the international community could support the European suggestion of there being a Yugoslavia composed of six republics co-existing in a loose confed-

November 18, 1991
eration. Before any of this process can take place we must have peace in that area.
It is incumbent upon us to do something to right the situation. If we continue to treat the crisis in Yugoslavia with distant vacuous words of regret and feigned worry, the condemnation of history' will rightly rest on our shoulders.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I remind myself that it is a privilege for me to stand in this place on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West. It is my duty to rise in this debate, an emergency debate requested of the government by the Official Opposition no less than three times in the last 30 days. It is an emergency debate on the tragic events in Yugoslavia which have resulted in the dreadful unnecessary loss of life.
I say unnecessary because this is another idiotic war which might well have been prevented if the United Nations, the only institution that can organize the world community, had heard from our government. Where were the voices opposite? Lest we forget, it was this government that led the charge against Saddam Hussein and wasted no time in declaring that it would send a flotilla of ships to the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of that war this government was also one of the first to carry the flag of that new world order. Things will be different now, the government declared. No more shall the spectre of war be allowed to raise its head before the international community. The international community is now a tool for peace, for security. Should any nation forget this, the international community will surely say "not again".
Where were the Security Council resolutions on this particular crisis? We remember several from the Persian Gulf conflict but why not this time? The Official Opposition declared at the time that because this government tied itself so closely with the United States, Canada could no longer act as an intermediary between nations. Canada's voice should have been heard long ago on this matter, but we are stuck with a government which is nothing more than a surrogate voice for the United States.
While Yugoslavians are dying and while Canadians of Yugoslav origin and descent were feeling pain here at home, where was our government? Where were the
United Nations resolutions condemning the violence and calling on the Yugoslavian army to cease its attacks and withdraw from Croatia?
I have said it before and I will say it again, you cannot negotiate-and I will tell the hon. member for Mississauga South again-at the point of a gun.
We in the opposition call on the Canadian government to take a stronger role in mobilizing the international community into acting decisively to help bring the Yugoslavian conflict to an end. It is a conflict which has already cost thousands of lives.
As we speak this evening there are over 50,000 people blockaded without food, without water, without electricity, without medical supplies in towns such as Vukovar and Dubrovnik. We hear or read the names of these towns in the news but they seem so remote. We cannot forget that the international community, particularly Canada, has not proposed any meaningful measures to end this civil war.
Toward that end the Liberal Party calls for increased humanitarian aid by way of air or sea where possible to relieve suffering civilians. We also call on other members of the United Nations to help bring an end to the conflict.
The Liberal Party called for such action as far back as last June. If our government had led the charge back then perhaps some of the bloodshed would have been forestalled. It is one thing for the government to posture on opposition demands to change legislation but an entirely different matter not to listen to those voices which are crying out for peace.
Here is what they are saying in my riding of Hamilton West. Boris says: "We just want to live as human beings again". My neighbour Peter says: "The houses are burning; the children are crying. Help us put an end to these barbaric actions".
I am not here tonight to stand up for moral superiority of Croatians over Serbians or Serbians over Croatians. I am here not to lecture Canadians on why one side should win over the other side. I believe it is my duty to stand up for justice and the justice that must be seen to put an end to this war. The justice I see is in putting an end to the destruction of towns, villages and families and brothers against sisters. The justice I see is that my country will stand up and lend its voice to rally other nations behind that drive for peace.
November 18, 1991

Are we so morally superior that we can race to the Persian Gulf but not to Vukovar? Are we so superior that we can allow this war to be fought until it is over? That may be a long time. It may be just a short period of time, but not for the Yugoslavians, not for the people who must put their crumbled lives back together again.
My message is brief. Their request is uncomplicated: use whatever influence at your disposal to mobilize the international community to act to bring an end to this horrific conflict. This House, this party, the government and the NDP have to work together. We have to show constructive action and constructive leadership on this issue.
The high moral road will be taken when this government stands up for whatever is left of this new world order and says it will help show the path to peace. That will be justice.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this very important issue here this evening for sue minutes or for however long it shall be.
This is a very sad and frustrating experience for many of us on both sides of the House who have watched the evolution of this terrible affair in Yugoslavia taking place principally now in Croatia. We have seen all of the innocents involved. We have seen the old people and the young people. We have seen the death and the mutilation and the destruction and we wonder why it goes on in the face of the will of so many around the world to see it ended.
Some will ask: What can we do here in Parliament? We all acknowledge there is not a magic solution to be accomplished here, but Parliament enables us to articulate for Canadians our wishes, our views and our positions as a people and as a nation. It is through Parliament that we can urge and convince our government to act the way we want it to act. That is why we are here tonight.
We want our government to act aggressively for peace and not just to go through the motions. This government did not cause the problem in Croatia and this Parliament did not. It is one having roots going back quite far in history. It looks to me on this side of this House that sometimes the government does not know exactly what it wants to do. It does not seem to be seeking out and
aggressively pursuing creative new ways of addressing peace in the situation in Yugoslavia. I do know for sure that that kind of a problem did not stop Mike Pearson 50 years ago. He sought out the new solutions.
What is missing here is effective international leadership in attempting to resolve the failure of our international community to bring about some amelioration of the problem in Croatia. What we have here is a failure that stands in stark contrast to the effective action the international community took in the Kuwait situation approximately one year ago.
I know the international community has tried. There have been European community observers in the field. There have been peace proposals. There have been cease-fires. There has been a lot of talking about a peace force, about an oil embargo, about economic sanctions, but this all seems to be worth very little in the face of what is now happening in Croatia.
Last week we saw the terrible sight, and I know there is much worse going on, of the Yugoslavian army using the historic city of Dubrovnik for target practice. We have simply got to do more.
Some say this is just a civil war, that we should not be intervening. In my view, this is no longer simply a civil war. It is clear I think from most international observers that the country of Yugoslavia has failed to control its army. The army is doing what it wants, where it wants and is operating without the political control of the people of Yugoslavia. We have seen in Slovenia, which has taken approximately the same type of democratic steps that Croatia has, that it has achieved the measure of independence, or at least has come a long way to achieving the independence which it seeks and it is not experiencing the type of war that is now going on in Croatia. This is not civil war, this is anarchy.
The use of the army to smash resistance in Croatia, in my view, is shortsighted and I believe that history will show us that we cannot use an army to achieve a goal in the face of and in contrast with a viable, democratic initiative. The guns simply cannot hold out forever.
I want to close noting that this tragedy cries out for international intervention because the innocent in Croatia need it, because we want to do it, as a country we want to participate and because both of the sides in

November 18, 1991
Croatia have actually requested it. What is holding us up? It is ineffective international action.
I want to leave three questions with the House that have been put to me by individuals from the Croatian community in Canada. Apparently Canada sent five observers to Croatia. But did they ever go to Zagreb? Did they ever leave Belgrade? I am told they did not. What are they doing there for Canadians in monitoring events in Croatia?
Second, I understand that the Prime Minister refused to meet a Croatian delegation on or about September 22. I do not know why he would have refused. Maybe he had reasons but it does not look like he really cared.
Third, why did Canada choose not to speak to its own resolution put to the Security Council at the United Nations? It was put to the Security Council through France. Surely if France permitted Canada to put the motion through its seat at the Security Council it would have permitted Canada to speak to it. I am told that Canada did not speak to it.
I leave these questions for the government. Obviously it believes it has answers. I leave the floor to other members of the House to continue debate on this tonight.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, one week ago today only several hundred yards from this Chamber, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, Honorary Chaplain of the Royal Canadian Legion, speaking at the Remembrance Day ceremonies commented: "The opposite of war is not peace. Peace is only a state of not being at war. The opposite of war is harmony".
Yugoslavia was in a state of uneasy peace for many years but harmony has eluded it and never developed in this region. In the past few months the world has witnessed in horror the deterioration of this fragile situation into a state of all-out war.
Let me express first of all that Canada's heart goes out to those who are personally suffering themselves in this situation. In addition, the challenge is twofold for the world community. First, the terrible bloodshed and death and the malevolent destruction of entire cities and villages must stop. Second, following the cessation of hostilities which must inevitably occur, the conditions for
mutual trust that are essential for a state of lasting harmony in this region must be established.
These are not easy tasks. The roots of this conflict reach deep into history and the base human desire for revenge and retribution has increased rather than diminished over time. It is tragic that when an unprecedented era of freedom and justice beckons all the people of Europe, Yugoslavia has descended into a cycle of intolerance, inflexibility, death and destruction.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asks the government to take immediate and decisive action to end the slaughter. We could not agree more with the feelings expressed and the objectives stated. There is no point in having a debate on that issue. We think exactly the same thing.
However, the hon. member also said that so far Canada and the European Community have done too little too late. I must disagree with the hon. member on that point.

I am sure that the member knows and remembers that one of the benefits of being in government is having the opportunity to change things for the better. But he also knows that one of the frustrations of being in government is recognizing a problem and being unable to solve it alone. Such is the case in this desperate crisis in Yugoslavia. I would like to have a formula that would convince the parties to drop their weapons and negotiate a fair and lasting settlement. But the politics and the emotions of this region defy any such straightforward solution.
Consider for a moment the complex ethnic interrelationships in this region. Serbs make up 66 per cent of the people of Serbia but in one part of its territory, the province of Kosovo, 90 per cent are Albanian. In Croatia 75 per cent of the people are Croatian but fully 12 per cent are Serbian. The ethnic mix is even more complex in Bosnia-Herzegovina where 44 per cent of the people are Slavic Muslims, 31 per cent are Serbs and 17 per cent are Croats.
Establishing peace and stability in a region of such entrenched ethnic tension is not easy. But I want to assure the House and the people of Canada that we have not backed away. From the outset Canada has been outspoken and clear. We seek for all the peoples of Yugoslavia a peaceful, comprehensive and negotiated settlement that protects minority rights, ensures no

unilateral or forcible changes of borders, and provides for appropriate financial and legal arrangements among the constituent parts.

Through official international channels, we have communicated our views to the government and peoples of Yugoslavia.
From the beginning of the crisis, Canada has played an active role in the efforts made by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
We wholeheartedly support the CSCE's statement that the rivalries in Yugoslavia must be resolved through peaceful negotiations, as the CSCE's Helsinki principles provide, as well as the statement relating to any forced change in the boundaries within Yugoslavia being unacceptable.

However, the CSCE was unable to act effectively in the spring because a number of countries, among them at that time the U.S.S.R., were loath to see it move on a conflict within the borders of a member state. The member state of Yugoslavia was a member and is a member of the CSCE. It was also uncertain. So the torch was passed to the European Community to try and settle this conflict.

We made sure that this initiative was taken in the context of the CSCE's broader responsibilities and, like Czechoslovakia, Poland and Sweden, we put Canadians on the observer teams sent to Yugoslavia by the European Community.
But the most important effort was undertaken at The Hague peace conference, chaired by Lord Carrington. We have supported these efforts as the major activity, and we continue to support Lord Carrington. Indeed, in accordance with the United Nations charter, we must first try to solve conflicts at the regional level before going to the Security Council.

The question is: How long can these efforts be made and made again while the obscene killing goes on before some more resolute action is required? Once again there is not a simple or superficial answer.

The Prime Minister and I have uniformly condemned the violence and intolerance in that country that have led to all-out war.
Secondly, we were among the first to show the international community the potential consequences of that tragedy.

Canada was the first country to request a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on the Yugoslav situation. The reason that Canada did not speak to that motion is that the rules of the Security Council did not permit us to despite repeated requests. Our view is that the Yugoslav crisis poses not only a human tragedy of enormous proportions but also a direct threat to international peace and security in the area. The collapse of an effective governing authority exacerbates the potential for civil strife and further endangers the peace and security of neighbouring countries. This call for action on the part of the Security Council has been resisted by some of its members who believe that the tragedy of that country remains an internal matter and that Security Council action would constitute interference in its internal affairs. Unfortunately, despite our own pleading, despite our own lobbying, despite our own work with each and every member of the Security Council, including the permanent five and the rotating members, that view has been held by one permanent member that has a veto: China.
We agree that this is outmoded thinking and it is deeply damaging in the circumstances. We do have some basis to hope that China will soften its stand, but in the meantime there is little that we can do except to try and continue to make the case as we do daily.
The situation also poses a direct challenge to the principles enshrined in the charter of Paris and the aspirations of all participating countries in the Confer-

ence on Security and Co-operation in Europe for the peaceful settlement of disputes. We have called for the establishment of a peacekeeping mission and have indicated that we are ready to contribute resources to such a mission.
Last week both the Serbian dominated Yugoslav presidency and Croatia at last called for the UN to send peacekeepers. They are not however in agreement over some vital issues of where the warring forces will be separated.
The UN Secretary-General's special envoy Cyrus Vance and the undersecretary general responsible for peacekeeping are now in Yugoslavia to see what can be done. Our monitors remain there in co-ordination with the European Community which is the one that is directing the monitoring process and which makes the decisions on where members of the monitoring mission go. Such a peacekeeping effort could have several roles, some of which have been alluded to earlier:
First, the supervision of a cease-fire in the disengagement of rival forces.
Second, basic protection for the security of minority groups in the republics.
Third, assistance in the distribution of humanitarian aid and the return of displaced persons to their homes.
Fourth, the supervision of relief for blockaded army camps and a general monitoring of the activities of the Yugoslav army.
Fifth, the reconfirmation of existing borders within Yugoslavia.
Sixth, assistance in the reopening of crucial road and rail networks.
Seventh and finally, the establishment of confidence building measures at the grass roots level between the rival factions.
These are steps that Canada has urged in every forum. It is a large order but it does follow the concept of moving from peace to harmony.
Canada stands ready and willing to contribute to such a comprehensive peacekeeping mission and we have been from the beginning. But even to contemplate peace the leaders of the parties to this conflict in Yugoslavia must be brought to the bargaining table for genuine discussions. This necessity presents a difficult dilemma for
countries outside the conflict. How can they force the issue without further hurting the people who are already affected?
As in other areas of conflict, Canada has sought to use economic and political levers for peace in an evenhanded way while at the same time provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of the violence.
When the crisis began I instructed my department to refuse systematically to issue any permits for the export of arms or other military goods to Yugoslavia. Canada has not only supported UN resolution 713 but has moved in advance of it.
The Prime Minister and I have written to the leaders of the parties involved in the crisis, urging them to end the violence and pursue a negotiated settlement. I have met with the foreign ministers of Yugoslavia and Croatia and will take every similar opportunity to do so in the future.
Our government continues to receive calls for recognition of those republics which have unilaterally declared independence. I know this is a sensitive point. We shall continue to resist such pressure. First, we believe along with members of the European Community and after much soul searching and discussion that recognition of republics that wish to leave Yugoslavia should only be given within the framework of a general agreement. This was discussed with members of the European Community, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and NATO, and I have discussed this personally with Cyrus Vance and with Peter Carrington.
Recognition of Croatia and Slovenia at this time would signal the end of the negotiation process and would leave force and violence to settle the issue.
It would also jeopardize the fate of other republics and minorities that have called for other kinds of arrangements for Yugoslavia.
We steadfastly believe that the first requirement for any political solution is peace within the region. Canadians are participating in the international cease-fire monitoring mission, as I pointed out, that was mandated by the CSCE and led by the European Community. Canada will continue to do what it can in the Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe to serve the cause of peace.
Also, Canada has fully supported peace efforts by the European Community. The EC has played a leading role

in this crisis because it has more influence than anyone else on the Yugoslav republics, several of which are seeking membership or have at least expressed the hope of membership in the community. So the community, it is believed, has some leverage.
Earlier this month we joined the European Community in announcing a package of sanctions designed to apply pressure to the various factions in Yugoslavia. Specifically, we suspended Canada's general preferential tariff treatment to Yugoslavia. We put Yugoslavia on the area control list, which means that any export to Yugoslavia now require an export permit.

We announced that all requests concerning Yugoslavia made under the terms of the program for export market development and under the Renaissance program for Eastern Europe would be rejected, and we suspended trade development and support initiatives for Yugoslavia.
We welcomed the suggestions made by the European Community for other measures to strengthen the arms embargo, and which favour an oil embargo.
We also reacted with our hearts. At the NATO summit in Rome, I was the first one to urge the other foreign ministers to combine sanctions with specific measures to make humanitarian aid more effective.

We have moved early to provide assistance to victims. Our first step was to provide the international committee of the Red Cross with a contribution of $250,000 in support of its programs in all regions affected by the crisis.
On November 8, we went well beyond this. The Prime Minister announced from Rome that Canada would make an additional $1 million available for humanitarian relief. Funds will be provided for the Canadian Red Cross to purchase emergency relief and medical supplies for the International Committee of the Red Cross to use in Yugoslavia, and the Canadian forces will provide air transport to move those supplies into place.
I will be announcing the details of this effort within the next few days. In the meantime, NATO countries are giving active support to the efforts of the UN and the Red Cross. While the tragedy in Yugoslavia unfolds,
many thousands of miles away there are thousands of Canadian families who are directly affected. For the many Canadians of Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian descent, the events are not simply video images on television screens. They are family, friends and special places and personal memories.
I know, without being out of order, that many of them are here to hear us today and many of them will be watching at home. Each day the pictures of war score direct hits on their hearts and their peace of mind as well as those of all other Canadians.
Since the beginning of this crisis, the safety of Canadians has also been on our minds. We have advised by letter all registered Canadians in Croatia to leave the zones of conflict. All Canadian missions are in a position to provide Canadian visas to Yugoslav nationals and locally engaged staff in our Consulate General in Zagreb continue to operate the mission and offer assistance to Canadian citizens in Croatia.
But we must also comfort and support the Canadians here at home who have families and friends in the area. They live peacefully in our neighbourhoods among us with people of all races and creeds, from every comer of the world. They work side by side with people whose families arrived here three or four hundred years ago. They value peace, freedom, order and equality of opportunity for members of their families and the people of their communities as well as those in their homelands. They tolerate diversity, differences of opinion or political affiliation because they live in our country in a generous society and a tolerant one. They value that harmony that is the cornerstone of our society.
We ask them to help us. They are involved emotionally and otherwise. We ask them to help us in calling for leaders in all parts of Yugoslavia and its component states to stop shooting and to come together at the table.
We can impose strict sanctions. We can condemn violence and plead for peace, we can meet around the clock in our various fora and we can pass all of our resolutions, but the people of Yugoslavia must themselves find that harmony that is crucial to their future. That is neither an avowal of failure nor an unwillingness to do everything in our power to support peace efforts and to provide relief. It is a note of caution for Cana-

November 18, 1991
dians who think that there are quick and simple answers even as we are searching for those new answers.
We pledge to make every effort to assist the people of Yugoslavia. When those opportunities are there we will seize them and we will search them out. We will also seek an immediate peace. One more death, one more injury, one more devastated building is one too many. But we do pray for that harmony, we search for it. We join with our allies and we join with our fellow Canadians in seeking it.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, could I seek unanimous consent of the House to ask a short question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the floor to the hon. member to ask a question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are sitting here debating something that does not need to be debated. Every member of this House knows full well that we must certainly stop-


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


Mr. Prud'homme:: I regret, but we have had a very orderly debate so far. The hon. gentleman has asked the permission of the House to put a question to the hon. minister. Exceptionally, we are in agreement to say yes, but if he wants to make a speech, let him take his position with you, Your Honour, and then let him make his speech later. If he wants to provoke members, the debate so far has been excellent, and I do not see why we should provoke each other.
The hon. member asked permission to put a question to the hon. minister. We say yes because we are interested. Let him put the question to the minister and then I think we will proceed with a very orderly debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I ask the co-operation of the hon. member.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for bringing this to my attention. I certainly did not plan or do not plan to disrupt a very orderly debate.
This is a very upsetting situation that we have. We have everyone here in this House in absolute total agreement that the fighting must stop, the devastation must stop, the loss of human life must stop, the suffering must stop. However, I commend the minister for-


Some hon. members:: Question.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: I commend the minister for having brought forward the things that she has done. However, this is not stopping the fighting. The minister has said she has consulted-


An hon. member:: Put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. The hon. member received the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question. I am patient but please ask your question.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: The hon. minister has stated that she has consulted with Cyrus Vance and Lord Carrington about recognition of the state of Croatia. I want to ask the minister: Why can we not recognize the state of Croatia right now as a show of good faith and would it not be a great thing for Canada to recognize Croatia as an independent state now?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the interest of members of this House and of the people who have connections in this region concerning recognition.
It is the opinion of all of us who are engaged in trying to make the decisions about what we do both bilaterally and internationally in these matters that it is not going to achieve the number one objective, which is to stop the violence. Recognition simply changes the nature of the combatants and it becomes a foreign war as opposed to a civil war. It does not stop the violence.
That is why I made a point of raising it with those particular gentlemen because they are engaged as emissaries to the region and they are in touch with all the parties concerned and all the leadership of the various states that are involved as well as with others in international meetings. I have discussed it at the United Nations
November 18, 1991

because we are all doing our soul searching on how we should act under the circumstances.
What does Canada do under the circumstances? We are doing everything I believe that we can within the organizations we belong to and bilaterally through our connections with the leadership of the countries involved. Recognition now of Croatia or of any of the others-Slovenia is another state which is in a similar position in terms of recognition-takes away some of the leverage to work toward peace and toward bringing people to the table.
That is certainly the international consensus. It is a question that we revisit time after time and that we will continue to ask ourselves because there may well come a moment when that is the answer. The considered view at the moment is that that time is not yet.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take part in this emergency debate tonight.
During my term as a member of Parliament, I have had the honour of joining other members in this House in answering debates on the self-determination of nations and human rights.
Tonight, we are specifically debating the independence of Croatia and the war crimes being committed against Croatians. On two occasions I have visited Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina as a Canadian observer during the elections.
It was during the 1989 Croatian election and one year later at the Bosnia-Herzegovina election that I found that democracy worked. I have fond memories of the moment when the election results were announced that the democratic forces of the Croatian Democratic Union won the election.
Those elections were certainly an expression of the will of the people. Yet, the Canadian government is still unwilling to recognize Croatia's independence. I have to ask myself why. Why is this happening? I believe because the will of the government is not there because of an agreement reached at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Berlin on June 20, and the Group of Seven Leaders declaration at the London summit of July 16 where they agreed to maintain Yugoslavia in its status quo.
I quote the hon. member from St. Paul's, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the department's press release of June 27. "As Prime Minister Mulroney has said, Canada considers the unity of Yugoslavia to be very important to the stability of central Europe. That is why Canada subscribed to the June 20 statement of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the ministers who supported the unity and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia."
I would like to quote Andrew Cohen, a journalist who wrote in The Financial Post. He called the unravelling of Yugoslavia "almost a mirror image of Canada and therefore Canadian politicians think Quebecers might identify too much with the nationalists of the republics." The republics of Croatia and Slovenia fall within the sphere of influence of the old world order, that is to maintain the integrity of Yugoslavia, a world order that in 1956 abandoned Hungary when it was invaded by the Soviet armed forces, a legacy that ignored the democratic processes in Czechoslovakia in 1968, a world order that created Yugoslavia in 1918, a Yugoslavia that was created artificially by joining different nations in the subdivision of the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires.
So we have the first world order as a direct result of World War I, when at the Versailles Conference the victors artificially created Yugoslavia, recognized the independence of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, rewarded the communists in Moscow by helping them build the Soviet empire, subjugating Ukraine, Byelorussia and other nationalities in the Soviet Union and assisted Stalin by ignoring his killings of millions of people. As an example, the artificially induced famine in Ukraine in 1932 where seven million people perished, they ignored the existence of Gulags and all of this in the name of the new world order.
There was a decision made as well to punish Germany and Italy through economic measures after the First World War. That, of course, devastated those economies and gave rise to Hitler and Mussolini.
That then brings us to World War II with all its tragedies. Over 40 million people died, most of them in eastern Europe. At the end of World War II, at the Yalta Conference, President Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill

again divided the world into spheres of influence. The Soviets took over Yugoslavia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. There was no consideration in those negotiations for the right to self-determination for those countries. The United States of America and Great Britain, being colonial powers themselves, had no problem with either the concept or the execution of delegating those nations to become colonies of the Soviet Union. This led to the creation of two nuclear superpowers and the cold war, the building of thousands of nuclear warheads and rockets by both powers in their respective countries.
The world started talking of a mutually assured destruction in an atomic war. Then in 1986 something very tragic happened in the Soviet Union: the meltdown of an atomic reactor in Chernobyl. Suddenly the people of the Soviet Union came out of self-denial and Mr. Gorbachev was obliged to act on glasnost and perestroika. So we can say Chemobly was a catalyst in the movement for independence of most of the former Soviet republics like Ukraine, Byelorussia, Kazakstan, and the same thing happened in Yugoslavia.
Because of those events, the equilibrium between the two superpowers was slipping toward the United States, and at that very time we had the crisis in the Middle East. The United States was able to take advantage of that situation because the Soviet Union was slowly disintegrating. This gave President Bush the occasion to talk about a new world order.
The consequence of the first world order in 1918 was World War II, or at least the seeds for World War II, and the consequences of the second world order in 1945 were the cold war and the proliferation of nuclear arms. Now we are facing a third world order, and it is a very dangerous stage because of course it could be the seeds for another war. As the United Nations tries to implement the new world order after the war against Iraq, the United States, with its dominance of the United Nations through financial control of the United Nations, becomes the supercop of the world.
In this context, President Bush wants the status quo in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. I would like to refer to his speech in Kiev in Ukraine on August 1 where President Bush warned of the excesses of suicidal nationalism. I would like to quote from an article in The New York Times of August 2:
Still Mr. Bush spent much of his day here (Kiev) praising Mr. Gorbachev and his vision of the Soviet Union.
But the Soviet Union does not exist any more. Mr. Bush goes on to endorse Gorbachev:
Americans will not support those who seek independence in order
to replace a far-off tyranny with the local despotism, he said. They
will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon
ethnic hatred.
They are fearful of nations like Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, but whether they like it or not, justice and human rights are going to prevail. In this era of communications, it is impossible to fool the people any longer. But we must remember that it is a very dangerous turning point in our history.
What about the west's ideals for supporting duly elected democratic governments, their leaders and the right of nations to self-determination? I say to those western democracies, do not give us rhetoric, stand by principles. What about international law? Remember in 1954 the Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict.
Yugoslavia became a signatory to that agreement in 1955. That means that present attacks on churches and monuments are not only an affront to the world's conscience but to world law.
What about the city of Dubrovnik, the gateway to the Slavic world that is being bombarded and the people starved? That city was founded in the seventh century after Christ. It has an historic respect for human rights. The city republic afforded asylum to refugees of all nations. One of them was King Edward of England. That nation state was one of the first to recognize the independence of the United States of America and it is an irony of history that today the communist dominated navy is bombarding that historic city, destroying her monuments and history while America stands by in silence. It is a tragedy for Croatia and all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.
We say to world leaders: Is this your new world order? We have double standards. We acted one way with Kuwait and are acting differently in the case of Croatia.
Let us talk about Yugoslavia's chemical weapons. We know that Yugoslavia outbid Brazil in winning the contract to supply Iraq with a chemical arsenal and missiles. Therefore, I would like to conclude by saying that our government has the obligation to give a signal to
November 18, 1991

the world by recognizing the duly elected and freely elected government of Croatia. I think this will lead to peace and negotiations. Otherwise, the war will continue and people are going to suffer.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the world witnessed the residents of Vuko-var coming out from their underground shelters as their homes burned on the surface.
What is happening in Vukovar and other towns devastated by the conflict in Croatia is a degree of human suffering unseen in Europe since the Second World War.
The United Nations children's fund visited Dubrovnik only to find children left wounded and homeless by a political crisis that they cannot even begin to comprehend.
The destruction that is occurring today is a result of the age old belief that political aims are worth human lives, even thousands of lives, especially if most of the dying is done by the enemy. Fear, hatred, economics, land and political power are as much a part of this war as any other.
Much of the debate thus far has focused on the political struggle, the right of a population to choose its government democratically and its future against the ability of an army to usurp political control with military force and predictable rationalizations.
In every war the aggressor motivates its followers by manufacturing motives of revenge, anger and fear, provoking the kinds of vicious attacks and cruelty that have so characterized the current conflict. In April 19901 was one of the members of Parliament from this House to travel to Croatia to monitor its first democratic election in half a century. We all saw a people filled with hope for democracy, personal freedom and economic prosperity. Many of the same people I met in Osijek, for instance, 18 months ago are dead, maimed or homeless. This is a war in which brothers are killing brothers, conscripts are being ordered to bombard their home towns, and hundreds of thousands have seen their homes and lives shattered by politicians who are indifferent to the horrors of war.
This is a war that has already scarred the Croatian landscape and spoiled its pristine coastline. The destruction of towns and villages, the disruption of trade and tourism, together with panicked military spending will leave Croatia desperate for outside financial assistance. The rest of Yugoslavia will no doubt suffer the economic and diplomatic consequences of world-wide condemnation, as well as the full burden of a crippling foreign debt made worse by military mobilization. This civil war has already killed thousands and is now sure to leave millions of the survivors of people impoverished for years to come.
In the face of ever stronger appeals for action and assistance, the world's response has been shamefully muted and restrained. Nations looked first to the implications that a Yugoslav war would have on ethnic nationalist aspirations at home. Britain has to be concerned about the impact on Northern Ireland. Spain nervously watches over the Basques. Even Canadians have looked for parallels. The Canadian government has yet to address the Croatian tragedy in a meaningful way. We heard the minister refer earlier to the hope that once peace reigned in Croatia then we would look for solutions to the Yugoslav problem.
Six months ago I stood in this House and warned that democracy in Croatia was threatened by military rule and military occupation. I called on the Canadian government to recognize whichever form of government was democratically chosen by the people of Croatia. Canada did not recognize Croatia when independence was declared, neither did the rest of the international community, and civil war ensued.
Canada has finally taken the symbolic first step of imposing trade restrictions, but the current implementation strategy places the peaceful republics of Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina at the risk of becoming the principal victims rather than the states actively participating in the war.
The Liberal Party st'ongly supports the imposition and enforcement of a complete oil embf rgo of Yugoslavia by the United Nations. While such an oil embargo will adversely affect citizens in peaceful republics, it is likely to have the greatest effect in the hindrance of the Yugoslav war machine. The highly mechanized Yugoslav army depends largely on the use of aircraft, tanks and heavy equipment, all with great appetites for fuel.

While it is understood that the army will get first call on remaining resources, the political support for war will certainly dwindle when energy shortages become acute. It is time for the federal government to stop paying lip service and show real and effective leadership toward a peaceful solution to the conflict in Yugoslavia.
Members on both sides of this House have on several occasions referred to the words and actions of Lester B. Pearson for guidance in resolving international conflicts by peaceful and humanitarian means.
Earlier the minister adopted a rather defeatist attitude when it came to the racial tensions existing in Yugoslavia. The time has come for the international community to unite as one to achieve a peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia. The human toll is too great to be ignored and too great to be brushed aside by the political rhetoric and diplomatic impotence we heard tonight.
Canada has yet to make any real effort to alleviate critical shortages of medicine and humanitarian supplies. Infection, disease and hospital overcrowding are amplifying the death tolls and the human suffering. Direct shipments of medical equipment and supplies to embattled areas, as the Italians are beginning today, could save the lives of countless Croatians. The $1.5 million initially committed by the Canadian government and the additional $1 million announced tonight by the minister are insignificant when compared to the billions that Canada spends elsewhere in terms of foreign aid and are a trifle when compared to the $600 million committed by this government to military action in the gulf war.
More more people have been left homeless in Croatia than lived in Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded. Perhaps the west does not view Croatia as having the strategic importance of an oil rich state in the Persian Gulf, but if the world is to believe that the gulf war was in any respect a humanitarian effort, the west must now act to safeguard democracy and human rights in Croatia.
The Liberal Party supports Canada's involvement in mobilizing an effective UN peacekeeping force and directly participating in that force. With no end in sight to the bombardment of civilians, Canadian efforts must also be directed toward humanitarian relief in ensuring
that Canadian resources and products are in no way fueling the aggressor.
Furthermore, Canada should announce that trade missions will be undertaken to ensure that captured territories and goods will not prove to benefit the army or its backers. The spoils of this war must never be cashed into Canadian dollars.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in her intervention a few minutes ago, the Secretary of State for External Affairs recited events and in reciting the events that she had witnessed and participated in she revealed also the impotence of the policies that she and her government have pursued so far.
It seems to me that the Secretary of State for External Affairs failed to put forward in this debate two questions. The first one is: How long can the Government of Canada continue to deal with the government of a country which submits its own people to bombardment of its own population, to the destruction of its own towns and cities, and to the destruction of the fibre of the very nation?
One must ask for how long the Secretary of State for External Affairs can live under the delusion that Canada and the west can have a leverage in negotiating with Belgrade when Yugoslavia has fallen apart and when the government of that country has lost the moral authority to govern because it started the destruction of its own people. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada does not have the intellectual strength to put forward this question for debate tonight. It seems to me that this is one of the key questions that must be approached.
In other words, how long can we in Canada pretend that Yugoslavia still exists? How long can the Government of Canada elude itself that it can negotiate and bargain with a government in Belgrade when that federation which was a dream for two generations since 1945 has suddenly fallen apart and disappeared almost overnight?
The second question it seems to me is: Why has the Secretary of State for External Affairs, despite the urgings and the debate that preceded her intervention, not put forward the principles or at least her views on the proposition made by the member for Winnipeg South

Centre when he proposed earlier the concept of a new ethic for intervention? Obviously one can see the evidence in the global community that the transfer of sovereignty to a higher level is required in order to deal with national situations.
Evidently we are witnessing the fact that international institutions which we have created are not capable of surviving the acid test of internal divisions in a country such as Yugoslavia. Therefore, at the point when we come to that realization I then submit that we have to discuss and elaborate on the concept put forward by the member for Winnipeg South Centre, the concept of a new ethic for intervention. It is the kind of ethic that will be required in order to bring peace to this war tom and desperate nation which is so gifted with human qualities, so rich with history, so rich with architecture and culture, as everybody in this House has already stressed and underlined.
Evidently something is not functioning within the regional or international institution within the security organizations which have so far more or less served us well. We are now entering a new phase.
Canada a few months ago got passionately involved in the question of Haiti, and so it should have. We have a large population in Canada from that country. In Canada we have a large population of Yugoslav origin. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not get as passionately involved as she did with the Haitian question. It escapes me why Canada is not really involved in the negotiations in the search for a solution. We have to work at the solution and we cannot limit ourselves in endorsing other country's initiatives. We have to demonstrate that we also have initiatives of our own and that we have a role to play toward the working out of a satisfactory solution.
We know that there was no support for the Czech and German initiative. We know that there is fear in the international community for creating a precedent. Let me explain.
There must be some fear in a number of nations which have minorities within their own borders in intervening in case of an emergency, because if they were to do so they feel they would create an emergency or create a
precedent that would allow minorities within their own boundaries to develop initiatives and activities reminiscent of the situation in Yugoslavia and which then in turn would require and would justify intervention by the international community.
The question has been raised by the member for Victoria: Why has this matter not been resolved? We as Canadians do not understand why it is not being resolved. Maybe part of the answer is that there is a fear of creating a precedent by intervening in the situation in this distressed part of the world.
What we have seen in the last several months is the use of brutal force. This brutal force has destroyed a federation of six republics and two regions which had become the model for many other nations which are functioning as a federation. It had existed for 45 years. It had brought together people of different languages and different backgrounds for that many decades and managed to develop quite a powerful and impressive economy and force in the international scheme.
However, the mutual respect which the federation had brought about has been replaced unfortunately by guns and mortars, naval shelling, guerrillas and the like.
What do the people in power in Belgrade see when they look at Croatia? Obviously it is not just a question of the Serbian minorities there. What they see are waterways, agricultural lands which are beautifully managed, coastal tourism, natural gas. By endeavouring to take over the territory of Croatia, the powers in Belgrade are hoping that they can encircle Bosnia-Herzegovina, thus moving toward the goal of creating this greater Serbia.
In the early stages, and I will conclude, this conflict was allowed by the world community to get out of control. Right wing nationalist movements in both Croatia and Serbia would not have taken over, I submit, if the west had intervened early and if it had intervened firmly.
Now, after 13 cease-fires the situation is disastrous. Passions have led to a tragedy. We must recognize that the west has allowed this to happen. We have failed collectively to give leadership. Therefore, I conclude with the words of the member for Winnipeg South Centre, that we need a new ethic of intervention. We need a manner of approaching the situation in future.

November 18, 1991
This may also happen in other parts of the world. It is an unacceptable situation for the world community from a human, cultural and social point of view.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley East.
When Vukovar came under siege, the world paid casual notice. This was a small community in the eastern comer of Croatia, but I believe it was only when one of the great treasures of the Adriatic, that wonderful Renaissance city of Dubrovnik came under brutal attack that the world, late, spoke out.
It is tempting to be cynical and say that if oil were involved we would be there. It is facile now to say this is a federal state sorting out its own affairs, to say as Mr. Trudeau said: "Where is Biafra?" Yet Canadians of all origins are insisting that something is dreadfully wrong in the Balkan peninsula. One by one and group by group, they are doing something about it. Young sons of Canadian Croatian families are leaving in increasing numbers to offer up their lives for their European cousins.
In Edmonton tonight a petition bearing 2,000 signatures is being sent to this Parliament imploring Canada to recognize Croatian independence. A semi-trailer truck will leave Edmonton Thursday bound for Montreal where it will disgorge its cargo of food, clothing, medical supplies, wheelchairs and prostheses on to a ship bound for one of the few Adriatic ports not under blockade.
A question is posed about this curious silence from some quarters of the world. Anthony Lewis of The New York Times in an article which my friend from Davenport was kind enough to circulate posed this question: "Suppose at this moment Venice were being shelled and bombed in a civil war, its treasured monuments menaced, its population starved. Would the western world be
silent? Of course not. It would react in outrage. It would intervene to stop such a crime against history and humanity."
"Across the Adriatic today, another historic jewel of a city, Dubrovnik, is being bombed. Its population is being strangled by blockade and where are the world's protests? Where is any effective action to stop the crime?"
In that same article by Anthony Lewis, one of the most distinguished new democrats of eastern Europe, Vaclav Elavel, says that the danger that is coming from Yugoslavia may be deeper and longer than the international community has realized.
In other words, I believe the President of Czechoslovakia may be referring to the seeds of extended conflict, perhaps once again germinating in the Baltics as happened unfortunately in July of 1914.
The Croats have had a different history than that of the Slovenes, although both spent several centuries as part of the Hapsburg Empire. The Croats were able to establish a strong, independent state in the 10th and 11th centuries which included most of Dalmatia.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in 1102 Croatia was joined to Hungary and was governed by an appointee of the Hungarian kings. The triple kingdom of Croatia, Slovenia and Dalmatia was established in the Peace of Zadar in 1358 A.D.
We have here a nation, a people, who have had a cohesiveness and an identity over the centuries. As has been pointed out by many speakers in this debate tonight, there is the intermingling of ethnicity which has the effect of, in a way, hostages existing within the territory of other peoples. There are 600,000 plus Serbs inside Croatia and a million or so Croats outside Croatia.
Of course, we recall the horrendous, horrific events that took place between the years 1941 and 1945 with atrocities on all sides; two million casualties, 10 per cent of the population of Yugoslavia and half those casualties were inflicted by Yugoslav on Yugoslav.
November 18, 1991

In the months that have gone by since June 25 it has become clear that Yugoslavs have not yet been able to solve their differences peacefully. Since late June of this year a dozen successive cease-fires have come and gone without bringing an end to the fighting. The violence and risks spread beyond the Republic of Croatia to other parts of Yugoslavia, even beyond its borders.
I am pleased that from the beginning Canada has made clear its deep revulsion at these methods of resolving political and inter-ethnic differences. On July 4 the Prime Minister pointed out that countries are not held together by tanks or guns but by the will of men and women to live together. The Secretary of State for External Affairs later said that what needs to be understood in Yugoslavia is that peace cannot be imposed by force, nor are violence and aggression a way to address the rightful concerns of minorities. In an urgent appeal for a cease-fire as early as July 3, Canada joined with other members of the Conference of Security and Co-operation in Europe in offering to send assistance and observers to the area.

Since the beginning of the conflict, it was clear the international community could not dismiss the crisis in Yugoslavia as simply an internal matter. The situation in Yugoslavia has a direct impact on international peace and security in the region. The quasi-collapse of any effective Yugoslavian government has intensified the civil conflict and threatens the peace and security of neighbouring countries. At this very moment, Serbs and Montenegrins are in control of what remains of the federal assembly and presidency.
The sovereignty principle, essential to the survival of a State, has been invoked by those who reject all foreign intervention in Yugoslavia. However, sovereignty must observe more fundamental principles. Today, the mindless destruction of human life can no longer be considered a purely internal matter. The federal Yugoslavian authorities in fact recognized the need for international involvement by supporting initiatives like the peace conference in The Hague organized by the European
Community and by allowing EC and Canadian observers, with a mandate from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, to be stationed in conflict zones inside Yugoslavia.

Canadians have no interest in imposing an external solution. The only lasting solution to the crisis will come from internal consensus. But Canada has acted with other countries in the international community to try to ensure that a workable political arrangement issues from a democratic process that is free from coercion and that includes specific provisions to safeguard the rights of minorities living in the different republics.
When it became clear that some of the players in the Yugoslav crisis had decided to resort to force, Canada joined the other 34 member states of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in an emergency meeting in Prague in early July to appeal urgently for a cease-fire. These states made clear that recourse to the use of force in the Yugoslav crisis was absolutely inadmissible. They offered the assistance of the CSCE in helping to restore peace in the area and proposed the dispatch of observers to Yugoslavia.
On August 28 the Secretary of State for External Affairs renewed Canada's offer to participate in the CSCE mandated and EEC led cease-fire monitoring team. The offer was accepted September 5 and a group of nine Canadians from the Department of National Defence remain on deployment in Croatia at this time. Should it be possible for the international community to play a more active peacekeeping role, for example, by sending more cease-fire monitors or by dispatching peacekeeping forces, Canada has made clear it would be ready to do its part. All we await is a viable lasting cease-fire and the consent of the major parties involved in the conflict.
The Security Council, as we know, met on September 25. It adopted resolution 713 which expressed full support for the peace initiatives of the European community and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and called on all parties to abide by the ceasefire.

November 18, 1991
Canada's role has been one of constructive involvement in the international peace process. The situation in Yugoslavia is complex and intractable and there are no easy solutions. Canada is committed to continuing the search with our international partners for means to end the violence. Talks are continuing with all of the parties involved in the fighting.
This week the United Nations is addressing the issues of universal and mandatory oil sanctions and of peacekeeping. Canada remains actively committed to a peaceful and negotiated solution to this tragic conflict. This is one which may find some kind of permanent resolution of peace in an area that has been a tinder-box in European and world history.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Southwest, for allowing me a few moments of his time in this debate this evening.
I do not know whether you have ever had the opportunity to visit Yugoslavia, Mr. Speaker. I have, and I can tell you that it is a wonderful country made up of marvellous and varied peoples. As you know, tens of thousands of people from those varied backgrounds in Yugoslavia have come to Canada over many years and each and every one of them with their families has made just an enormous contribution to our country of Canada. Canada is a much richer place because of them and because of that contribution.
In 1979, in my former capacity as the mayor of East York, one of the cities that make up metropolitan Toronto, I had the opportunity to travel to Yugoslavia, particularly to East York's twin city of Skopje in the Macedonian republic. But Skopje was only one of a number of communities and a number of cities that I visited at that time, including the city of Dubrovnik. Over the last few days I and other Canadians have watched in horror as Dubrovnik and its people have been destroyed and wiped out in a very systematic way.
That is a city that has a long and ancient history. It is a city that has resisted the armies of Napoleon. Now it has been systematically attacked and systematically destroyed by an army which is out of control, as the Prime Minister has said.
Dubrovnik is one of many horrifying examples and one of a vast number of tragedies that we have seen occurring in Yugoslavia over the last many weeks. A son of one of my constituents, a journalist, was killed there just a few weeks ago in a town very close to Zagreb. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, and I and all Canadians want to see an end to the killing and an immediate stop to all of the destruction that is there. We know that Canada has taken a number of steps so far to try to bring that about. This includes raising the matter at the United Nations, the proposal for sending peacekeepers and imposing some sanctions.
But there is more that we can do and there is more that we must do in this dreadful situation. After all, Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that Canada did not shrink in any way from intervening in the crisis in the Persian Gulf and Canada did not shrink in any way from intervening, as many have said, in the internal affairs of South Africa. Surely there are other things that we can do.
Just before I came to the House for this debate this evening I received a call from a friend of mine in Yukon. He suggested that what we should be doing, as he suggested to me before, is proposing that we have a United Nations emergency force.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs tonight has indicated that there are problems with that, problems with the United Nations taking further action in this matter particularly with respect to the possibility of a veto by the People's Republic of China.
If that is the case, surely Canada has an obligation to itself and to Canadians to be speaking out and speaking out firmly and making it quite clear to the public in this country what the difficulties are in making our voice heard and putting the spotlight where it should be put, on those who are blocking intervention on the part of our country and on the part of the United Nations and other bodies around this world.
Earlier today I received a telegram from a good friend of mine and a constituent, Miro Mihelic. It read: "In the forthcoming debate, stand up and demand the immediate recognition of Slovenia. Let Canada be first. Slovenia fulfils all conditions and more. She has democratic government, undisputed borders, necessary infrastructure, its own currency and no enemies. Recognition will improve the prospect for peace. Absence of recognition will imperil the economic survival".

That is a plea for Canada to recognize the independence of Slovenia. I have to say that every day in my constituency office I receive calls from Canadians whose origins are in Croatia calling on Canada to recognize the independence of Croatia as well.
Mr. Speaker, you and I know that in Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and in Croatia all have made declarations of independence. There have been votes in many of those republics. You know as well that in other eastern European countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania there have been unilateral declarations of independence and where those declarations of independence were made and where there was an overwhelming vote for independence on the part of the peoples of those countries and where the necessary safeguards for minority rights were in place, Canada has not shrunk from recognizing the independence of those states and of those countries.
The Prime Minister has indicated that in a week or two's time when there is a vote in Ukraine, if in fact Ukraine opts for independence, Canada will be recognizing it as well.
Surely at the very least Canada must be consistent when it comes to the recognition of independent states.
Fortunately tonight the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not closed the door on this, but in this case the time has definitely come for Canada to fling the door of independence wide open.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I note you said 10 minutes so you are aware that I am sharing the time with the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle and I would appreciate some warning as I get near the end of my 10 minutes.
As we speak this evening on this subject, we are speaking in very comfortable surroundings. It is cold outside but we are quite warm in here. We have had our dinner. We can sit here and talk as though it was something that was not really happening at all and not terribly important, but as we speak people are dying. People are being slaughtered by an army and Canada is talking. We are rather proud of the fact that we are talking and saying things that mean little to the people who are being killed.
The minister said that Canadians condemn violence. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that all of the violence is taking place in one republic, the republic of Croatia. There is no violence taking place anywhere else. It is taking place in Croatia because Croatia has been invaded by an army, a Yugoslav army, which is supposed to be beyond the control of the civilian authorities.
I find that awfully hard to believe. I am not sure whether it can be accepted or not, but we know that an army depends upon its supply line. An army needs food, an army needs clothing, an army needs shelter. It needs supplies to continue fighting. Somebody is filling those supply lines and keeping them open and operating.
It can be nobody other than a government that is doing that. An army left on its own could not continue to battle for any more than hours before it would have to stop. In the meantime, we can feel good and proud of ourselves for the fact that we are condemning violence, knowing all the time that we are condemning it in only one place.
We have called for action on the part of the Security Council. That is great. We have asked for a peacekeeping mission. That too is good. We are going to impose sanctions pretty soon. We will get around to it. We have done all these things, talked about all these things, always in very comfortable surroundings, thousands of miles away from where people are being slaughtered.
We talk about doing these things and we feel good about it. Can we honestly say that all of the things that Canada has done to this point in time, short of the Red Cross donations, that all of the talk has saved one life in Croatia? Can we point to any one person and say that somebody in Croatia has benefited at all from the actions and the talk that we as Canadians have contributed to that is going on internationally?
The fighting is going on in Croatia. That was my father's homeland. He never lived in this place called Yugoslavia because he left there in 1897, long before Yugoslavia was dreamed of. But the fighting is going on in the village from where he came. I have a cousin there, the cousin has a wife. They have a daughter with two young children, a son about my age. The last I heard, the fighting was very near the village of Ozalj, 10 kilometres from Karlovacz. That is where the fighting is going on

and I am wondering whether or not my relations have been wiped out.
This community held its head up high because it stood off the Turks. The Turks never conquered Ozalj. There was a castle there, they were able to get into the castle every time the Thrks approached and they were able to save that village. It was never conquered by the TUrks. They have a proud history. That is the kind of country we are talking about, a nation that was independent for centuries, off and on, conquered by one or another, but a nation that had its own history of independence.
We are talking about giving them $250,000 through the Red Cross. That is great and they need it. We are going to give them another $1 million somewhere down the road. We are not exactly sure when that is going, we have to find it first, like we must with the money that is going to the wheat farmers in the prairies. If we do, it totals $1,250,000. The damage in Zagreb according to newspapers is reported at $110,000,000 a day. In three months, $12 billion worth of damage and we are contributing $1,250,000. Well good for us.
We could and should be doing more. In my opinion, we should be. Yugoslavia is a nation that was created by the allies at the end of World War I. The name Yugoslavia means South Slavs, the union of South Slavic nations, a union of nations. Canada is a nation. In spite of what some people might argue, there is one nation here. We are separate colonies that agreed to come together to form a nation. We got our independence from Great Britain and we formed one nation. Yugoslavia never did agree as a group to form a nation. It was imposed upon them by the allies as a way of stopping the Russians from expanding to the southwest and getting access to the Adriatic. Created for that purpose, power politics, they never agreed to live together and they never wanted to be together. Certainly the Croats never wanted to submit themselves to the rule of the Serbians. They never have in history and they still do not today.
There has been talk about recognition. Recognition is important because there is no other way of stopping this with talk as long as the Serbians are supported by then-own government, the Yugoslav government if you like or the Serbian government. Certainly Serbia is the largest republic, the most populous republic and the one that is controlling the army, the one that is feeding the army,
the one that can stop the army by cutting off supplies at any moment in time. That is where the control is. They have that control.
Recognition would mean that we are saying as a group of nations that we made a mistake when we forced these people to be subjects of the Serbians in this so-called union of South Slavs. We made a mistake when we did that and we are going to correct that mistake. We are going to correct it by saying that we should never have done it in the first place.
We recognize that the Croatians in free and democratic elections-and I was one of the ones privileged to be there and to observe those elections-made a decision to elect their own democratic government and to make their plea for independence.
If anything, the Serbians have proven that they do not have the right to rule people like that. The way in which they have handled the situation in the past three months, they just do not have the right and they should not have the right. There is only one way. All the talk in the world is not going to save one life. As I said, people are being slaughtered there every day.
There is only one way, that is for the United Nations to take action, the kind of action that we should be prepared to take in many parts of the world. The kind of action, as one member said, the United States took when it went into Iraq. There is oil there. Does anyone believe that if there was oil in Croatia that there would not be a war on right now, that the United Nations would not be involved and that the Americans would not be in there? Of course they would if it was important to them. It is not important to them, so they are not.
I believe it should be important to all of us involved in the United Nations. I believe that it should mean recognition of Croatia as an independent state. It should mean that we are prepared to go in there and say we are negotiating a treaty with this independent state and we are going to save these people from the genocide that is now taking place, the genocide that will never wipe out the Croatians. They have had a lot of practice fighting.
The Croatians fought the Germans during World War II. The Serbians fought the Croatians. Croatians were being fought from both sides but they survived. They will survive this as well. But it falls on our heads if we let this fighting go on so long that so many people on both sides

are being killed. It takes action. If it takes recognition first, so be it. Let us get on with it. Let us get beyond the talking and do something that will mean something to the Croatians who are dying right now. They have their own flag, their own anthem. I wish I could sing it. But I can say, Mr. Speaker vivjeli Hrvatski.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join in this discussion.
When the republic of Croatia had the first free election I was asked to bring a group of members of Parliament together to observe that election and again when the first free election occurred in Bosnia-Herzego-vina, I was asked at that time as well to put a group of MPs from all parties together. We went and we observed the elections.
I will never forget the evening as some of the election results started to trickle in from Croatia, the sheer joy and jubilation, the tears in the eyes of the men and women in the city of Zagreb. It was an experience and a privilege for me to be there that evening to join with them in that experience. There were some things that I discovered that I think are very important that I wish to convey to the House.
As we were there during the election, I had an opportunity of listening to many of their politicians, particularly to the President, Dr. Tudjman. I had an opportunity during and after the election of talking with Dr. Tudjman. In fact, I would say that from that time to the present, I have talked on maybe five or six different occasions with Dr. Tudjman and various members and leaders of the Croatian government.
What struck me was that the government of Croatia realized that if it was to become a more independent- and that is what they wanted-nation, to restore the nationhood they had to do it in a way in order to prevent a civil war from occurring. In fact, the very thing that is happening today.
They want to develop into a western democracy with western values.
They knew that a civil war would impact, would create a tremendous amount of hatred, retribution, violence, terrorism, that would prevent them from accomplishing their goals. They knew and understood this. They tried to
do everything possible to deal with the Serbian minorities within their borders.
On numerous occasions I had discussions with the leadership, and always the question was: how can we accomplish this, how can we achieve our goal of free, liberal democracy that respects human rights. How can we prevent this type of bloodshed and civil war, this type of disaster which is pulling down the Croatian people as well as the Serbian people. It is a situation where there is no winner.
They tried, but part of the blame has to rest with the west, with our government and the Government of the United States of America, and the governments of the countries in Europe, because they failed to send a strong message to the Serbians. I should not say the Serbian people, I should say the group that is in control there now. They failed to send a message that the behaviour that they used is unacceptable in this day and age in a modem world.
Had they sent that message a year ago, we would not have had the killings today. We would not have had the violence. We would not have had the destruction. But unfortunately, that message was not sent and we are now paying the price.
I do not understand the thinking of our western governments. We hailed and applauded when democracy came, and lo and behold, when you give people the ballot, one of the first things they do is vote back the country. Is this amazing? Had Germany won the war and occupied Holland, Belgium, France and 40,50 years later the ballot was reintroduced to Holland, guess what? The first thing the Dutch would do would be to vote back their country, and that is exactly what the people of Croatia have done, and the people of Slovenia and the people throughout the world who have been forced into a union without their consent. Give them the ballot and the first thing they will do is vote back their nation.
Is that surprising? Apparently it is surprising. But surely common sense tells you that this is inevitable. Either we accept democracy or we do not accept democracy, and the people of Slovenia and the people of Croatia have spoken loud and clear: They want their own republic. They want their own nation. They want a nation to live in peace. They want a nation that will protect minority rights. How often have I discussed this with the people in the Croatian government, willing, Mr. Speaker, to bend over backward to guarantee the rights of the


S. Q 52
[Stage Direction]
Serbian minorities. They want a society that would respect human rights. They want to be like a western liberal democracy.
They have not succeeded. In fact, some would even say that Dr. TUdjman and the Croatian government, in their attempt to in a sense appease the army by not doing what Slovenia did when Slovenia declared independence, and that is bottle up the army garrisons, allowed the army room to move in the hope of averting this type of situation.
In fact, all it did was encourage the Serbs and the Yugoslavian army to continue their aggression. So we have seen this peace being negotiated. The only people who have benefited from that, of course, have been the Yugoslavs because every time there is a so-called peace declaration or an agreement, they just continue to gobble up more territory.
When are we going to stop fooling ourselves? When I listen to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is she naive? Is the western world so naive? She talks about not recognizing Croatia because it would remove leverage. The opposite is true. If she wants to use a lever and stop the bloodshed, she tells the Serbs that we are going to recognize Croatia. That is what will have some effect, not by saying we are not going to recognize Slovenia and Croatia because we need that as leverage. A leverage on whom? She does not need a leverage on Croatia. She needs a leverage on the Serbs.
Then we hear this rationale about it being an internal matter within Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia does not exist today. Yugoslavia does not have a legal government today. By its own constitution it does not have a legal government. The nation does not exist.
I suggest that if we are going to have some effect we need an international force. Without an international force, the fourth largest army of Europe is going to continue to commit genocide on part of its population. This we cannot accept in the western world.
I would suggest that Canada first of all recognize Croatia and Slovenia. Second, it should declare that the country called Yugoslavia no longer exists and ask its ambassador to go back home. As well it should request that the position of Yugoslavia in the United Nations no longer be there. Third, it should brand the Yugoslav army an occupational army and demand that it withdraw
November 18, 1991
from Yugoslavia. Fourth, if the Yugoslav army does not exit from Croatia, the government or some international body should be prepared to knock out the Yugoslav air force, the Yugoslav navy and the Yugoslav armoured columns. Then I suspect we are going to see an end to the bloodshed finally.
The western world must wake up to a new reality that people have the vote. People are going to use their ballot. We are either going to see peaceful change or we are not. I would suggest that the western world ask for two conditions before any republic or new entity gets recognized: first, that the borders continue to exist as they are and can only be changed through peaceful negotiation and, second, that minority rights be established, recognized and entrenched in the constitutions of these new republics and that a mechanism like our Human Rights Commission be set up and be monitored by an international human rights body.
Then I think we would see the changes occurring and the changes could become peaceful. They are inevitable, but let us hope and pray they will be peaceful. It is not just in what used to be called Yugoslavia but also in what used to be called the Soviet Union and perhaps in many other parts of the world. The countries that were put together by military might or by imperialism can no longer hold together when you give people the ballot. We will see the changes.
Let us set forward some conditions so that these changes can occur in a peaceful way and that minority groups can continue to enjoy their freedom and their rights. Until we do that as a global community we will continue to see that type of bloodshed.
Surely the time for Canada and other countries in the west when we can afford just to say nothing is passed. The time has come to stand up.
Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I want to make sure the member for Mississauga South gets an opportunity tonight, so I will try to be brief.
As the House will recall from some of my speeches in this House of Commons I have spoken out on this issue before. I am very happy tonight to see this unanimity that we have found together. I am happy that we are working on this problem and finally seeing that maybe through working together we can do something collectively that
November 18, 1991

has not been been done yet. I remind the members that in March of this year when an all-party delegation authorized by the Speaker of the House of Commons went to Yugoslavia to study in-depth the situation, we reported to this House and there was definitely some fear in our report that this very thing would happen.
The members of the committee reported that in their opinion they felt that violence and tragedy would come to Yugoslavia and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should take note of this and immediately the occasion arose involve the United Nations. That was months ago. We are finally happy to see some movement in that direction but sadly so much tragedy has gone on.
I want to remind the House of the words of Pope John Paul II on November 13 when he personally denounced the destructive fury deployed against the Croatian population. He said: "An end must be put to this tragedy which dishonours Europe and the world. In the last few days there have been attacks of incredible violence all over Croatia, but especially on Dubrovnik and Vukovar. In Dubrovnik a hotel and a hospital full of refugees and wounded have been hit, among others. It is an aggression that must end. I beg the Yugoslavian army to spare the lives of defenceless civilians".
That is the same army that Mr. Milosevic, President of Serbia, told the delegation he was in complete control of and not to be worried. One would wonder about those words said a few months ago about how much control he really has, because his position was diametrically opposed at that time to Tbdjman's position and Tbdjman's position was democratically attained. It was clear by the referendum in Croatia that the people wanted the right to self-determination, they wanted their independence. Although this was against the intentions of the Serbians, it is nonetheless something that Canadians and Canadian governments have always recognized.
I wonder what has happened to that recognition. I would agree that the Canadian government has urged the 38 countries in the CSCE as well as the European community for peace and mediation. I would agree that this is the first time it has had an opportunity to work in this field, and I guess we on the sidelines should applaud its initiatives and energies. Clearly it is out of its depth in this field. Clearly the United Nations should have been
involved from the outset, and now we need it urgently to resolve this crisis and to get on with the recognition that Croatia so justly deserves.
I would like to talk a bit about the people who have helped bring this to the fore here in the House of Commons. I think that Canadian Croatians have done admirable work in bringing this cause forward, although it certainly has been finally brought to all of our attention through the television media, as it so justly deserves, so that all 27 million Canadians can recognize the horror in Croatia today which all of us abhor. We have talked about it well tonight.
I think that these people have done a real service, a real Canadian service to us in the House of Commons to bring this to our attention and to be diligent about it. I think it is incumbent upon the members of this House to stay together on this issue. We must stay together and we must push this government to act responsibly. It is a clear case that the people of Croatia and Slovenia have made their point about their future. It has been known for months that position is against the position of the Serbian government within the framework of what was then Yugoslavia.
This is no time for partisan politics. This is a time when members of this House should act together and responsibly to keep the pressure and the facts clearly before this government and let other parliaments of the world know that we as a group of parliamentarians want action. We want the situation rectified immediately and the democratic rights of the Croatians recognized outside their country by Canada and the other nations that comprise the United Nations. We want the rights for self-determination to be given as soon as possible in a peaceful atmosphere, looked over and supervised by the United Nations, while the rest of the republics have the same opportunity.
Although tonight we are focusing on Croatia and its situation as it has evolved in Yugoslavia, there are other republics democratically seeking the same path and that has not been recognized by this government either. I would say that they have the same right. We are making a terrible mistake here if we do not stay together on this course and be committed as a group of Canadians that will lead this country's position to be one that will recognize the self-determination of the Croatians, the Slovenes, the Macedonians, and all the other republics

November 18, 1991
that when democratically given a chance for self-determination get it.
I would like the member from Mississauga South to finish this off.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, earlier in September my colleague from London- Middlesex and I were two of the delegates for Canada at a conference at the European parliament on democracy. We flew to Paris and then drove to Strasbourg. On the way we stopped at Verdun to see the crosses row on row on row that were there because of a war that some say was caused by the murder of the Archduke in Serbiano in 1914.
After that war a country was cobbled together and became known as Yugoslavia. That country had no cohesiveness whatsoever. It was cobbled together to break up the Austrian-Hungarian empire and to take a hunk out of the Ottoman empire and to put together people who really had no decent arrangements among themselves.
They were different peoples but they were cobbled together into a nation. That nation did not succeed. It did not succeed through the last world war. It was again forced together and it is now broken up. It is no longer a nation. Its people and its separate republics have overwhelmingly voted to be separate and distinct.
To suggest that Yugoslavia as a country exists is to dream. Yugoslavia as a country does not exist. To continue to suggest that the ambassador from Yugoslavia occupying premises in Ottawa represents and can speak for the people of Yugoslavia generally is crazy. It just is not so. He cannot speak for them. He cannot speak for a Yugoslav government because a Yugoslav government does not exist. The fact is that we have separate republics, all intending to go their own way and all going their own way. The problem today that we face is that one of those republics has control of the military might that used to be Yugoslavia and that army is the army controlled by Serbia that is now invading and taking over in Croatia.
There have been problems between Serbs and Croats for a long time. It is not of our making and it is not for us to judge how those problems developed and where is the
root of those ills. The fact is that we were part of a western world that tried to cobble together peoples that really did not want to be together to form a country. It is about time we recognized our error and recognized the separateness that these people really want.
The fighting is abhorrent to all of us. We have attempted as Canadians up until now to try to play the even road. We have attempted to go to the United Nations and say: "Let us get the Security Council in and we will even be part of a peacekeeping force to help make the peace". The European common group has helped organize 13 cease-fires and 13 cease-fires have become 13 new wars. I suppose we could have another cease-fire tomorrow and we would have another continuing war.
The fact of the matter is that it is clear to me. I think it should be clear to all of the House here tonight that the cease-fires will not work, that we cannot easily get a situation where the United Nations can come in and just be quiet peacekeeper in the normal course. I think it is important that the countries of the world started recognizing the situation, that the only way we can force peace in this particular part of the world is to recognize the separate republics and cease the recognition of Yugoslavia as a state because that state does not exist any more.
I believe that it is important for the House and for the government to accept that the condition of trying to be the broker between people is not going to work that easily. We are going to have to take a stand. That is not a stand against Serbia and that is not a stand against Croatia. That is a stand for the common sense of the fact that these separate countries are really separate countries and that we ought to recognize them as separate countries. From that point of view we ought to insist that separate countries become apart. If they refuse to come apart then we ought to insist that the United Nations or whoever take compulsory action to stop the fighting without the permission of the parties involved. Clearly the parties involved cannot work out a cease-fire among themselves or an accommodation. So that accommodation will have to be forced on them.
We cannot afford in this world to allow wars to continue. We have a war going on here between people who are hostile to each other that will spread if we do not step in and stop it. That kind of thing will spread and

create the kind of holocaust that created World Wars I and II.
l say that this House has got to direct our government in our speeches and in our common agreement that it is time that the matter in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Montenegro be ended. We should recognize those countries, if they want to be dependent and independent, as quickly as possible and get on with it.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to stand in this House and speak on this very important subject this evening.
I would just like to comment briefly on the comments of the previous speaker on the government side of the House. I do not think anybody is being partisan here this evening. I think we all have the same interests at heart and that is for peace in the republics, in Croatia and in the others, in what he referred as the former Yugoslavia.
The emergency debate this evening has been long overdue. We on this side of the House have been asking for it. I think those other speakers have not been putting the kind of pressure on their government that we on this side of the House have been.
We have been consistently calling upon this government to address this issue. My colleagues and I have pleaded for the government to use its influence at the UN in mobilizing a peacekeeping force. The senseless, brutal violence against innocent people must stop.
One of my constituents-I hope he does not mind my using his name-Mr. William Viduka made an impassioned representation for an end to the violence in his ancestral homeland of Croatia. He even brought along a video which visually showed the violence that his people in his homeland were having to endure. His message over and over to me was: "Do something. Canada has to do something to stop this violence".
Thousands of Canadians claim Yugoslavia as their homeland. They and all Canadians want this government to live up to its commitment to advocate peace in the strongest of terms. We on this side of the House condemn the Yugoslavian army for its attack on the Croatian people.
I have met with and heard representatives on all sides of this debate. I have participated in committee and I have made comment in this House. My concern is for the protection of human rights and the right to life, for the establishment of a coherent and consistent national and international policy for the protection of the dignity and the rights of people. The issue of human rights should override sovereignty. The precedent has already been set.
Yugoslavia has been a victim of an international double standard. When similar activities were occurring in Kuwait, with Iraq as the aggressor, the international community was quick to respond to the point of going to war.
If true justice, namely the protection of human rights, is to emerge within the international community then there has to be a more consistent and effective response to ongoing and blatant violations of human rights.
The causes of this particular conflict are numerous and complicated, but the right to self-determination for Croatia lies at the core of the problem. Self-determination is a right afforded to peoples through the UN covenant on civil and political human rights. It has been ratified by over 80 countries, including Canada and Yugoslavia.
I have never been to Yugoslavia though a great number of people in this House here tonight indicated they have. However, I have been to other historically beautiful cities in Europe such as Prague. Its architecture is probably very similar to that of Dubrovnik. It is unparalleled and irreplaceable.
The destruction of not only the people of Yugoslavia but also its historic properties will forever be lost to its peoples and the world in such wanton needless waste.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister always say that they make representations on behalf of Canada. Yet it is my belief that Yugoslavia has never been on this government's agenda.
Canadians demand more than behind the scenes rhetoric.
Canada has always carried weight in the international community. Canada has never been a power militarily. However we have been a power diplomatically. What is

November 18, 1991
wrong with this government today that it is unable to take a leadership role in settling this dispute?
Canadians demand the resumption of this role in order to bring an end to the violence and killing. Canada must bring her influence to bear in the international community to see that such atrocities are not repeated ever again in any country in this world.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent of the House to move:
That this House recognizes the republic of Slovenia and the
republic of Croatia as independent nations.
Do I have the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, to move this motion?


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: No.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the inability of the peoples of Yugoslavia to get along together peacefully and the inability of the world community to stop the fighting is a tragedy of unspeakable proportions. Thousands have died, tens of thousands of persons have become refugees, friends and neighbours one day have become enemies the next.
Great potential exists for similar conflicts in much of eastern Europe. Most of those states and most of the republics in the Soviet Union are multi-ethnic states. It is for this reason that it is somewhat perplexing to me that Canada has not been vigorously promoting the concept of federalism.
Despite our failings we have gone further than other countries in providing constitutional guarantees to linguistic minorities. Many of these guarantees are found in our federal structure. Unless the world community is prepared to contemplate independence for every ethnic group, federalism is the only answer.

The NDP external affairs critic said that the people of Slovenia and Croatia had opted for independence. That is true, but he did not say that Serbs in Croatia, who represent 12 per cent of the population, want to continue to be part of Yugoslavia.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada wanted a peaceful, negotiated settlement that would protect minority rights. If I understood correctly, she also said that Canada was opposed to any unilateral border changes. However, her statement does not answer the following question: What guarantees will satisfy the Serbs in Croatia? They want to stay in Yugoslavia.

They showed that they are prepared to fight to remain part of Yugoslavia. I am not saying that Yugoslavia or other countries must remain together for an eternity with boundaries or an ethnic composition that may be artificial. There may have to be and probably will have to be adjustments. Professor Oral Brown of the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto spoke on October 22 to the Standing Committee on External Affairs. I would like to quote him:
What we may best be able to do is to tiy to manage the dissolution of Yugoslavia. This might involve territorial compromises but you cannot have a settlement along purely ethnic lines because geographically it is impossible. So we would have to create some sort of conditions whereby minority rights are guaranteed within states, where there is some adjustment, but there are still minorities.
Note what Professor Brown said. There may have to be some adjustments. This might involve territorial compromise. But he added that we cannot have a settlement along purely ethnic lines because geographically it becomes impossible unless, as I said earlier, we are willing to contemplate independence for every ethnic group or people, or the uprooting of millions of people.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there are some 30 million ethnic Russians who live outside of the Republic of Russia in the Soviet Union.
If we want to preserve peace, the world community and Canadians will have to promote the idea of federalism. We must deal with the present situation. Many Canadians are dismayed that the world community has not acted decisively in dealing with the war in Yugoslavia.
On September 16 I wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of a constituent who was and is deeply distressed with the inadequate response of the world community in general and the Canadian government in particular to the conflict in Yugoslavia. This constituent believed that the Government of Canada had not done enough to protest or put an end to the killings of hundreds of Croatians. This constituent is of

Croatian origin and all of her relatives, with the exception of her immediate family, live in Yugoslavia. I too have felt that the world community and Canada has not acted decisively enough. I listened to the remarks earlier this evening of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. She mentioned that Canada was the first country to request a meeting of the Security Council but pointed out that China views this as an internal matter, yet hopes that China will stop in its stand.
In spite of her assurances, I do not see the same resolve that existed a year ago when this House and the government confronted the situation in the Persian Gulf. On October 28, our spokesperson for external affairs, the MP for Winnipeg South Centre, asked the minister whether Canada was prepared to publicly support the call for an economic embargo against Yugoslavia. The minister on that day replied that she was concerned that an economic embargo would hurt the people et je termine, monsieur le President, it intended to help and that an economic embargo is not going to stop the attack on Dubrovnik.
Of course, 11 days later on November 8, Canada joined the European Community in imposing economic sanctions. Why the equivocation? Why not demonstrate to Canadians that the government is indeed pleading for action on a daily basis, as the minister stated in her remarks tonight.
I hope the debate this evening will lead to more forceful, visible actions by our government to put an end to the bloodshed in Yugoslavia.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this emergency motion which deeply touches the heart of anyone who cares for humanity.
For the past five months we have been witness to destruction of greatest infamy taking place in the Republic of Croatia, not Yugoslavia. I said Republic of Croatia because on June 25 of this year, Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia and reaffirmed its declaration on October 7 at the expiry of the moratorium on independence.
I did not say Yugoslavia because the Yugoslav federation is no longer a functioning federation entity. The Yugoslav army is out of control. In fact, we know that last September the President of Yugoslavia, Mr. Stipe Mesic, ordered the federal forces to cease engaging the Croatian forces. The army has refused to obey their



[Stage Direction]
Commander in Chief, their legally constituted President who heads the eight member presidential committee.
Indeed, the Yugoslav army made death and suffering in Croatia visit us daily on television and in the newspapers, while for others the crisis reaches in to take the lives of family and friends.
People in my riding of Winnipeg North have lost loved ones in Yugoslavia, in Croatia. Canadian youths of Croatian descent have planned to make a voyage to Dubrovnik to lend moral support.
As horrific as the war may be for both sides, Croatia has become a victim and the Yugoslav army the oppressor. The bloodshed and ruin to Croatia, the people, the cities, the country, the spirit, are heinous. It is time for this human bloodshed to halt. It should never have begun. Canada cannot be allowed to stand idly by any longer.
Aside from the large number of people across Canada who have already voiced their concerns over this issue, I have received numerous letters from my constituents in Winnipeg North, expressing distress and asking what the federal government can and is doing to put an end to this situation.
Over 3,000 have died while a hundred times that number are homeless. Today on television I witnessed the surrender of Vukovar, as hundreds of Croatians, shelled for days by Yugoslav army forces, gave up and were marched from their homes. I saw women weeping with babies on their shoulders leaving the city to an unknown future. Croatian defenders dropped their rifles in piles beside the road, leaving themselves at the mercy of the army.
Indeed, thousands of innocent civilians are being wounded as it is always in any war. It was heartbreaking. The demolition of Croatia is truly heartbreaking. The communist dominated army has violated 13 cease-fires already issued by the European Community. It has attacked the entire region along the Dalmatian coast as well as the cities of Dubrovnik, Karlovak, Somobor, Sibenik, Vukovar, Zadar and Zagreb. The vicious attacks on Dubrovnik have been especially devastating. The army has invaded this 14th century city with such onslaught that countless places of worship, hospitals,
[Stage Direction]
November 18, 1991
schools and architectural wonders have been demolished.
Such cultural annihilation is an absolute breach of international law. Can we permit such unabridged and thorough destruction to run unfettered?
We must make a commitment to Croatians and ensure the presence of Canadian peacekeeping forces under the auspices of the United Nations to aid them in their struggle and bring about a rapid conclusion to this profoundly destructive conflict.
We support a strictly imposed oil embargo as my colleague has earlier indicated to this government, the critic for external affairs, the member for Winnipeg South.
Canada must do more and be directly involved in the search for peace in that part of the world.
As I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, this evening and conclude my debate, I hope the government will recognize not only the severity of the situation but also the need to do more decisively. The colossal human carnage in Croatia must stop. What will we as elected members of Parliament do to stop the war?
Allow me to reflect briefly on recent events and relate them to the tragedy in Croatia. The Baltic states were fighting for freedom and independence; the Croatians are doing the same. The Baltic states were battling to rid themselves of oppressive forces; Croatia has been doing the same. The Baltic states voted overwhelmingly in favour of democracy; Croatia at 94 per cent has done the same.
The 94 per cent of Croatians who opted for freedom, democracy and independence simply cannot be dismissed. Canada must answer the question: Shall we allow Croatia to exist as an autonomous republic which has the right to circumscribe its own political future just as we have done with the Baltic states? This is a soul-searching question that demands an equally soulsearching answer.
My city of Winnipeg has given the answer in a resolution passed on November 6 this year and I quote: "Now therefore be it resolved that the council of the city of Winnipeg on behalf of all citizens of the city recognizes the sovereignty of the people of Croatia and the right to exist free from external threat of force of arms. Be it further resolved that this council by adoption of this resolution calls upon the Prime Minister and the House of Commons to recognize the nation of Croatia and to use all diplomatic means possible to stop further military actions against this nation".
There is no more time to waste. The economic sanctions came in late. Let us now not be too late with the ultimate solution.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this important debate.
About 12 years ago I was in Yugoslavia with the Governor General of the day, the Right Hon. Ed Schreyer, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, and Mark Rose from the NDP. We were attending the funeral of Marshall Tito. As we waited at the airport to make our way back to Canada we talked about how long it would be before Yugoslavia flew apart. Then when they appointed a president and a council of advisers we again asked how long it would be. Now of course we know the answer. It has taken 12 years for them to break apart.
What we see today in Yugoslavia is the result of a sad and tragic history, a history of distrust, suspicion, recrimination and conflict. Everyone in Croatia and Serbia has bitter memories of the tragic incidents between those two peoples during the Second World War. The communist regime imposed by Marshall Tito at the end of the war did not solve the deep regional and ethnic rivalries. It just kept them under a wrap. Now that Marshall Tito is gone, now that the oppressive system he imposed has lost its grip, the bitter enmity between these two peoples can and is being expressed with a vengeance.
In 1990, when communism was being discarded by the people of eastern Europe, all Yugoslav republics held multi-party elections. Almost without exception, they elected non-communist but strong nationalist governments. Serbia and Montenegro merged nationalism and communism, which they renamed socialism.
After months of unsuccessful negotiations concerning new constitutional arrangements-everything from a confederation to a loose form of associated states-Slo-
November 18, 1991

venia and Croatia unilaterally declared their independence. That was June 25.
On June 27, the federal Yugoslavian army tried, without the full agreement of the Yugoslav federal government, to assert control over Slovenia's external borders. The Slovenian defence forces fought the federal army in a number of violent clashes.
After talks with federal and republican authorities, representatives of Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands announced that the army had agreed to return to their barracks and that two secessionist republics would suspend the implementation of their declarations of independence.
With its failure to take control of the symbols of independence in Slovenia, the army agreed to a ceasefire during a meeting sponsored by the European Community on the island of Brioni on July 7. Eleven days later, the army agreed to withdraw from Slovenia and a team of international cease-fire monitors was deployed in Sic enia to ensure the terms of the Brioni agreement.
A similar pattern of conflict in violence is occurring in Croatia. There are, however, factors which make matters even more complicated than in Slovenia.
When the Croatia nationalist government was elected in May 1990, Serbian groups within Croatia decided to take control of some of the Serbian populated areas of the republic. These groups, now constituted in self-proclaimed Serbian autonomous regions within Croatia, launched an important offensive in July to gain control over larger areas with significant Serbian populations as well as over some other important industrial and transportation sites.
Since then, the Serbians, Croatian and federal governments have negotiated cease-fires, but these cease-fires, as we know, have not worked. They have not worked because Serbia does not completely control the actions of the armed irregular groups in the Serbian controlled parts of Croatia. Croatia does not have the control of all its paramilitary units and the federal army seems to have its own agenda.
I outlined some of this background to the current crisis to show how complicated and tangled the situation is. But it is not the complexity of the situation that we most regret, it is the loss of the life and limb, the wilful destruction of homes and families, the violent settling of
accounts, sometimes over issues of situations that are decades if not generations old.
As we in this peaceful country of ours try to work out our own differences, we had better pay attention to the tragedy unfolding in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is a painful reminder of the dangers of ethnic and cultural insularity. It is also a reminder of the virtues of tolerance, openmindedness and flexibility.
Peace, order and good government have been the longstanding principles behind the Canadian Constitution. With the disturbing events in Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia over the past few months, those constitutional principles show the wisdom of the Fathers of Confederation.
I am proud of the way the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have managed Canada's response to the Yugoslav crisis. Though Canada is far from being a powerful force in central and eastern Europe, we have been at the forefront of international action to support efforts for peace and to provide assistance to the innocent victims of this conflict.
In the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, in NATO and at the United Nations, Canada has been an active player in trying to help resolve this crisis. There will always be those who for one reason or another, usually partisan, say that Canada should be doing more and that we should be giving more. In my opinion, we have already been doing a great deal. We have to be realistic. Ask any Canadian and he or she will tell you that Canada cannot single-handedly resolve this crisis. In fact, I would argue that the European community is best positioned to influence the course of events there. That does not mean that Canada should sit back and do nothing or do little. As a responsible active member of the world community, that would be an abdication of our responsibilities.
It does mean however that we have to use our heads and keep a proper perspective on what it is that we can and should do. What the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been doing is working with other like-minded countries, especially the European Community, to bring pressure on those who are using violence to try and resolve the situation and bring relief to those who have been the targets of violence.

One of the frustrating aspects of this whole situation is the notion of sovereignty. For decades, law and practice in the United Nations have argued against any action which could be seen as intervention in the internal affairs of member states, and there are very good reasons for this. But where do we draw the line? How much bloodshed, brutality, oppression and destruction is required before the international community can intervene?
We would all agree that continued and indiscriminate killing and abuse cannot be justified by nationalism. We can also agree that killing and abuse can no more be justified by the notion of sovereignty. We all hope, sir, that this debate has contributed something to the difficulty faced by Yugoslavia and we continue to bend our efforts to do everything we can to see that we can bring peace and take care of the people involved in this terrible conflict to the best of our ability.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being twelve o'clock midnight, pursuant to Standing Order 52(12), I declare the motion carried.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, may I simply draw the attention of the House to the fact that more members would have liked to take part in the debate. I am one of them, and I see two more. However, on behalf of my 10
colleagues in the Liberal Party who did take part, I would like to thank you just the same. I simply wanted to make it clear that although some of us did not take part in this debate, it was not because of lack of interest but because according to the schedule for this debate, everything had to be finished by midnight. Since otherwise the consent of the House would be necessary, and I see there is no inclination to give that consent, I wish to thank you and also the hon. -.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am reluctant to entertain points of order. At this time, I think that the procedure, well- the parliamentary secretary has the floor.

Mr. Friesen On that same point, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for St. Denis that there are many who would like to have spoken. The twelve o'clock hour was an hour agreed to by all three parties, otherwise there would have been many others who would like to have participated on all sides of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This House stands adjourned until later today, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 19,1991