1991-06-05

Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian men and women who represented Canada so well in the Persian Gulf war will receive their volunteer service medals from the Canadian government on June 22, 1991.
These well-deserved medals will be presented the day before the Canadian Korean Veterans Day celebrations on June 23. This year's celebration will commemorate the 41st anniversary of the Korean war.
When is the Canadian government going to present distinctly Canadian medals to the men and women from every Canadian province and every territory who served voluntarily on behalf of Canada in the Korean war?


NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Environment Week across Canada.
I would like to quote from Canada's Green Plan for a healthy environment, which says that although the environment is every individual's responsibility, this responsibility should be reflected in concerted efforts at all levels of society.
National Environment Week emphasizes the partnership concept, and this year more than ever before, groups at every level of our society have joined the government in a nation-wide campaign for commitment and action.
By working together with our partners to make every week environment week, we can build a healthy and prosperous future for this country, Mr. Speaker.
In Quebec and Beauce, people are becoming more and more environment-conscious. This government's efforts are admirable, but every individual must be committed to protecting the environment.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce says that on employment equity the government should first get its own House in order.
The case in point remains Dr. Chander Grover who was fired because he dared to file a complaint of discrimination against the National Research Council.
After dragging out the ordeal to inflict the most damaging psychological and financial punishment possible, the NRC reversed Grover's dismissal when the outcry from the visible minority community became too loud to ignore. However, there was no repentance and no victory because NRC still had many weapons in its bureaucratic armoury.
Grover is now a technician supervised by a boss lacking his international prestige while another less qualified than he does what was Grover's life work.
To challenge this would be insubordination; to accept would be to capitulate to racism.
For the Public Service, that is good enough for government. The Chamber of Commerce has a point.


CANADIAN SCOUT PARLIAMENTARY UNION
Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, to millions of people around the world scouting represents a movement which has improved their way of life.

June 5, 1991
Scouting, rooted in the belief in God and in one's own country, teaches young people everywhere to do their best and always be prepared.
As a former Queen's Scout, I am delighted to announce the formation of the Canadian Scout Parliamentary Union, thanks to an initiative which began with our colleagues in Korea, and other Parliaments across this world that have joined together.
I would like to urge my colleagues from both sides of the House to join those founding members from Peterborough, Okanagan Centre, Fraser Valley West and London-Middlesex by stepping forward to assist in the formation of this union.
Some 265,000 Canadians involved in scouting will enjoy and need the support of this Parliament in what is going to happen in the future of scouting in the world.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the environment is important to you and it is important to me. No doubt you would agree that Canadians must be concerned about the environmental and social implications of large energy projects not only in this country, but everywhere in our global community.
One large project currently planned is in Thailand. This project proposes the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Mun River, the largest tributary of the Mekong River.
The Thai public has demanded by way of petition and personal representation to World Bank officials in its country, that a moratorium be put on this project. The numbers ol people to be displaced and resettled are in dispute. Basic data and analysis by the Electrical Generating Authority of Thailand have not been released, despite repeated requests by villagers, citizen's groups and concerned academics.
Fertile land and fishing will be destroyed. I call on our Minister of Finance, as Canada's Governor to the World Bank, to vote against extending a loan to Thailand for
this project until the public in Thailand has had its concerns met.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in this House to plead for assistance to the port of Halifax.\nFor months, ever since the cancellation of the At and East subsidy in 1989, I and my colleagues have been begging the government to help this once great port to survive.\nTwo weeks ago the Minister of Transport told me that he would see that CN did "what was right". One week ago the minister told me he would do everything in his power to alleviate Halifax\'s problem.\nIt took nearly two years to get any response to our questions at all. How much longer must we wait for action?\nEssentially the problems for the port are twofold: uncompetitive freight rates and an unfair tax structure. Halifax had been a thriving port since its founding 242\nyears ago. It has taken this government a scant seven years to put the port in jeopardy.\nWhy will the government not act and act now?']
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request and urge the Standing Committee on House Management review the Question Period process. Canadians are sending a message loud and clear that they want the politicians to change. They are demanding that private members speak out on behalf of their constituents and no longer act in a strict partisan fashion, and that includes during Question Period.
We take pride in the fact that we are a democratic country of equal opportunity and access, but our own House of Commons Question Period is undemocratic and not all MPs enjoy equal opportunity. A minority of members have a better opportunity to represent their constituents than others.
The Canadians I represent deserve the same opportunity to be represented as any other Canadians. Just because I sit on this side of the House does not mean my constituents do not have problems and concerns they want addressed, but it does not mean that I always agree with the government.
As usual, the Canadian people are ahead of the politicians. All I ask the committee to do is to ensure that all members of the House of Commons have an equal opportunity to represent their constituents.



Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House concerns over the Prime Minister's recent statements regarding compensation for Hong Kong prisoners of war.
Despite the Prime Minister's announcement that Canada extinguished its rights to any further claims to compensation, I wish to draw to the attention of the House, sections 130 and 131 of the Third Geneva Convention which specifically prohibit one government from entering into an agreement with another government that would wilfully deprive its citizens of the rights
)*
f;
June 5, 1991

to undertake legal action for liability pursuant to the terms of the Geneva Convention.
The Prime Minister's statement is in no way consistent with the tenets of international law or Canada's position on human rights. The Prime Minister should understand that Japan's apology for its violations of the Geneva Convention has only added legitimacy to support the claims of the Hong Kong war veterans of Canada, and that his unfounded statements in regard to the matter have done a great disservice to those veterans who suffered the brutal atrocities of war in the service of their country.


TRIBUTE TO PIERRE FOURNELLE
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I attended a ceremony to name a municipal park in honour of Mr. Pierre Foumelle, a resident of Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts.
Mr. Foumelle has done volunteer work for 34 years in the riding of Laurentides, mostly in the field of amateur sport. His excellent work and endless dedication are impressive.
The fact that so many sports, including baseball and minor hockey, are popular in our region is largely due to the activities of Mr. Foumelle.
And, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fournelle's commitment reaches above and beyond the boundaries of the riding of Laurentides, since he is also involved in a number of sports federations at the regional and provincial level.
I want to offer my sincere thanks to Mr. Foumelle for the many years he has dedicated his fellow citizens. He truly deserves to be held in high esteem.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, 50,000 Canadians will die from heart attacks this year. Many of them will die suddenly and with family members and friends looking on helplessly. This is an
unnecessary tragedy, given that there are life saving techniques available to all who care to learn them.
CPR teaches one how to recognize heart attack signals and how to perform the technique should a victim's heart stop before an ambulance arrives.

I urge all my colleagues in the House of Commons and the other place to attend the CPR information sessions to be held here on the Hill on Monday, June 10, from 11 a.m to 2 p.m.

I urge all my colleagues to attend the CPR information sessions being held on Parliament Hill on Monday, June 10 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Let us all learn how to save a life.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Customs: A Pivotal Role at the Border headlines the second edition of the crossborder report.
Canada Customs officials, our front line troops, assume a pivotal role in the cross-border shopping puzzle. First, there is the role of protection: protecting our interests through their enforcement and border control activities.
However, Canada Customs are asked to balance security with efficiency, the support of national priorities, the facilitation of trade activities, and the movement of travellers. In particular, what this means is the collection of the applicable duties and taxes from all citizens re-entering Canada with purchases and, at the same time, moving the traffic through the border points.
In the end, all members will agree that Canada cannot afford long line-ups at the border. We are losing valuable American tourist revenue, as well as duty and taxes through wave-throughs.
This may mean more efficient use of technology and current work forces, more personnel, the trial of express lanes, and/or something else.
The objective must be the collection of all applicable duties and taxes in the absence of excessive line-ups at the border.

June 5, 1991
Our Canada Custom officials are a valuable front line force in our efforts to address cross-border traffic volume. We need new initiatives to help them make headway on this matter.
Stay tuned, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, for the next edition of the cross-border report.


WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound -Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, today is World Environment Day, a date on the calendar first proclaimed by the United Nations in 1972 and celebrated each subsequent year since on June 5.
World Environment Day not only highlights the many necessary and essential works undertaken by the United Nations in the area of environment but also reminds us that all peoples of the world share a common home and a responsibility for its healthy upkeep.
It is no coincidence that Canadians observe National Environment Week in the same time frame. Not only does our National Environment Week focus on promoting environmental awareness among Canadians and an appreciation of our unique and beautiful country, but it also serves as a vivid reminder that we are all accountable stewards of the earth.
While there is still much work to be done in dealing with the world's serious environmental problems, let us take advantage of World Environment Day and National Environment Week to celebrate what we have accomplished so far and reflect on what we can do in the future to make Canada the most environmentally friendly place on the planet.


NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the National Council of Welfare issued a report on the financing of medicare and post-secondary education in Canada. The report did not mince words.
It said that if federal funding cuts were allowed to stand, medicare would be effectively dead as a national health care system. What could be clearer than that statement? Certainly not the Prime Minister's response
that the report was inaccurate and the numbers mentioned were not justified by government projections, and certainly not the Prime Minister's waffling on the introduction of user fees.
The Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada, the Canadian Council on Social Development and the Canadian Medical Association have all stated that medicare is threatened by these unilateral funding cuts which will amount to $62.4 billion by the end of this century.
Canadians are greatly concerned about medicare and its future.
At the provincial health ministers' meeting on June 19 the government must announce two actions: first, the unilateral federal funding cuts to medicare will be reversed and, second, the federal government will ensure that neither user fees nor extra billings will be introduced in any province.


INGLEWOOD LIBRARY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in 1891 in the community of Inglewood, Ontario a public library opened. The Inglewood Mechanics Institute Library that year had 178 volumes and 104 members.
Over the years the number of books grew as the library changed locations from a public hall to a hardware store, to a church, to an ice cream parlour. Today, the library is part of the town of Caledon library system and it gives me great pleasure to rise in my place and salute a hundred years of learning, literature, knowledge and progress in this community in my riding.
It is also an honour to thank a century of people who volunteered their time and energy to see that the printed word in Inglewood, Ontario was treasured and shared.


CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Environment Week from June 2 to June 8 is a time for optimism. This is because it involves partnerships among government, industry, environmental groups, labour, health, youth, native groups, church organizations, and many others.
June 5, 1991

Oral Questions
At the community level and at the national level all these partners work toward the common goal of increasing Canada's year-round involvement in safeguarding our environment.
On June 7, the Minister of Environment Canada will be presenting environmental achievement awards that celebrate the effort and commitment of Canadians from all walks of life who work to protect and restore our environment. These groups and individuals remind us of our responsibility to care for our environment, and indeed for our planet. These achievements prove that as individuals and as groups we can make a difference, and the awards that they receive confirm that Canada values the health of its environment.
Let us hope that these award winners will be an inspiration for others to join the environmental team. They symbolize both our national commitment to a sustainable environment and the esteem in which this nation holds those Canadians who lead us toward achieving that commitment.
I also want to mention the thousands of other unsung heroes and heroines-


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


PORT OF HALIFAX
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in this House to plead for assistance to the port of Halifax.
For months, ever since the cancellation of the At and East subsidy in 1989, I and my colleagues have been begging the government to help this once great port to survive.
Two weeks ago the Minister of Transport told me that he would see that CN did "what was right". One week ago the minister told me he would do everything in his power to alleviate Halifax's problem.
It took nearly two years to get any response to our questions at all. How much longer must we wait for action?
Essentially the problems for the port are twofold: uncompetitive freight rates and an unfair tax structure. Halifax had been a thriving port since its founding 242
years ago. It has taken this government a scant seven years to put the port in jeopardy.
Why will the government not act and act now?




Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday Uniroyal-Goodrich said it was making fast tracks for the United States. We are about to lose another 2,000 good manufacturing jobs in Canada.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: When will he realize the damage that the free trade agreement, an agreement without safeguards, is causing to the manufacturing sector in Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member relates directly the Uniroyal potential closure to the free trade agreement.
Two months ago Uniroyal closed a tire plant in Wisconsin with 1,300 jobs. Was that because of the free trade agreement?


An hon. member:: No, of course not. It is world-wide overcapacity.


Thomas Hockin: We have in Canada $600 million worth of new investment in tire manufacturing in Napanee. We have further new investments in CAMI in Ingersoll. We have further investments in Chrysler. We have Freight-liner. We are getting our fair share of the automotive business and the tire business.
However, in this particular case overcapacity had to lead to that announcement yesterday.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat my question. It seems the Prime Minister isn't interested in these problems, so we will ask others to respond.
Yesterday, we had a debate on the truly critical economic crisis Montreal is facing. Today, we realize the situation is critical all across Canada, but the government doesn't seem to realize this. The Prime Minister doesn't even bother to answer our questions, but we will keep on asking them, Mr. Speaker.

June 5, 1991
Oral Questions
My question to the Prime Minister is this: When will he acknowledge that this agreement is a disaster for Canada? And when will he announce the workers adjustment program which he promised during the 1988 election campaign?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly wait to respond to the hon. member.
Last year, Canada's balance of trade with the United States was at $17 billion, compared to the year before the trade agreement at $14 billion.
In fact, our balance of trade has improved as a result of the free trade agreement. It has not declined.
Another figure the hon. member should realize-this affects Montreal, Ontario and the manufacturing heartland of central Canada-is that in 1982 when his government, a government of which he was a part, was in power we had 97,000 jobs in the automotive sector.
Today, at the end of the last fiscal year, December 1990, we had 143,000 jobs in the automotive sector. The free trade agreement is helping maintain jobs even in difficult, recessionary times.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, one Uniroyal worker with 16 years of experience said: "The words I have for the Prime Minister, you could not print in the paper."
These people are skilled workers. They are men and women with experience who face a desperate situation today. The Prime Minister does not dare to get up in the House to give them-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition would not want to make personal imputations respecting the right hon. Prime Minister or anybody else.
The Leader of the Opposition will put his question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to know when the government will announce the programs of adjustment that was
promised to the Canadian people in 1988, or are we to expect from the government the same type of answer that we got yesterday from the Minister of State for Privatization who, when talking to the students, said: "If they look hard for jobs, they will find them."
Is that the type of government that unemployed people are looking for in Canada today?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the question.
In view of the seriousness of it, he will I am sure be delighted to read the headline in the Financial Post which says: "Housing sales-"


Mr. Ouellet:: Why didn't you answer the first question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, can the Liberals make up their minds?
They ask a question. I am ready to answer and they heckle because they do not want to hear good news. I have good news.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister will finish his answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is generally agreed that housing starts are an important indicator of economic growth. The Financial Post reported, on the front page, that housing sales surged ahead for the fourth month in a row in April, prompting an industry official to proclaim that the economic recovery is here to stay. Canada's rejuvenated housing market chalked up 65.4 per cent sales last month, the biggest annual jump and the most units sold in the National Real Estate Board's 35 year history. That is important economic news.
A final point that will interest my friend, reported a few hours ago, is that manufacturing plants increased their shipments in March. That news, along with the report by Informetrica, adds evidence that the year long recession is losing steam. Economic researchers at Informetrica say the chances of a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 5, 1991


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment.
In the Speech from the Throne, this government spoke at length to the realization of a learning society, a globally competitive society. However, because of this government's mismanagement of the economy, this summer students are being denied a rightful opportunity to a summer job, that very important first chance.
Why does the minister and his government believe that a globally competitive society is achieved by having thousands of young people sitting at home all summer?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the programs for summer employment that were in place last year are still in place this year. Budgets have been increased and employment centres for students have been re-opened again this summer, 409 of them. I am informed that the offers of employment and the responses to employment are comparable to that of last year at the moment.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
The answer offers no consolation to the thousands of unemployed Canadians who already face, with increasing tuition fees and spiralling education costs, an increasing debt load, and now the frightening unemployment rate.
Can this minister tell Canadians why this government chose to decrease funding to the seed program at a time when students desperately need this government's help? Why do the minister and this government continue to frustrate and demoralize young Canadians, this generation?
Hun. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons): Mr. Speaker, if anybody is trying to demoralize anybody, it is the hon. member by the bias of his questions.
The Challenge program has not been decreased, it has been increased. To quote Tom Sampson, Co-ordinator of Student Services for the Canada Employment Centre,
Oral Questions
he said: "Considering the depth of the recession, the unemployment situation is not as bad as predicted.'' The jobs are there, the offers are there and the centres are meeting the demand in a comparable way to last year.


ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
For a number of years now we have been discussing in the Arctic the infringement on Canadian territory by the United States in terms of issuing oil and gas drilling leases on Canadian territory.
Once again, this year, May 20, 1991, the Department of the Interior says that under sale 124, it is going to issue oil and gas drilling licences in the Beaufort Sea in Canadian territory.
Just four years ago. in 1987, this same issue arose. What has this government done in four years to establish Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic north?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the Leader of the NDP that there were issues relating to two proposals: one, the drilling in the Beaufort, and, two, ANWR. She will know from the presentation made by President Bush regarding the National Energy Strategy that those issues are included within the NES.
I want to indicate to her that as recently as two days ago I was able to speak to Secretary Watkins at the International Energy Agency and raise these issues with him directly.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Just a few years ago this government was prepared to spend billions of dollars on nuclear submarines to protect Arctic sovereignty. Rather than just speaking to people, when is the government going to stand up for the interests of Canada?
This report from the Department of the Interior of the United States says that it will issue leases in Canadian waters, if it is in the U.S. interest. What about the Canadian interest and what is this government doing specifically to stand up to the U.S. government and say

June 5, 1991
Oral Questions
that this is unacceptable and Canadian sovereignty is just that, it is Canadian sovereignty.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP asks what will we do directly. I have already indicated to her how direct we had been. Additionally, I can point out to her that through the Canadian Embassy and directly through Ambassador Burney these issues have been raised, and also directly with various officials in the United States regarding both Canada's position on the Beaufort as well as the position that we have taken on ANWR.
I say to the hon. member that our position from 1987 has not changed. Canada's position on sovereignty has not changed. The United States government can have whatever position it wants. Our position has not changed on that sovereignty question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister. Clearly there are serious issues. These are not new issues. They did not arise on May 20 of this year. These issues have been going on for years, and what gains have Canadians made.
The Canadian interests are being threatened by exactly the topic that the minister raised, and that is ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where the Senate just two weeks ago voted to allow drilling in that Arctic refuge. This will mean that the 200,000 Porcupine caribou herd will be jeopardized for 200 days of oil, as will the lives of the Gwitch'in people of Yukon and Alaska.
I ask the Prime Minister: Is he willing to intervene directly to protect Canadian sovereignty in this issue, to speak to President Bush and say this is unacceptable to Canada, to have drilling in ANWR, and it is unacceptable to Canada for the United States to sell off bits of Canada piece by piece?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the question of ANWR came forward when the United States government asked a number of both its oil companies and American citizens as to the future of their energy policy, which came forward then in what is known as the national energy
strategy for the United States. In it was the ANWR proposal.
The hon. Leader of the NDP should know what the Canadian position has been on ANWR. She should also know, for example with respect to the Porcupine herd that Canada has been protective of that herd. Having said that, Canada as well has given, for example, export licences in the Beaufort and the very area of which she speaks. We are obviously trying to develop a regime whereby Canada's interests are protected and also where proper oil and gas exploration and development can take place.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On May 15 the Prime Minister said in this House in response to questions concerning his office's involvement in the Al-Mashat case, and I would like to quote: "Mr. Tellier, speaking for the Privy Council Office, said do not admit him".
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by that statement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was asked the question on May 15. I responded to two different questions on May 15,1 believe.
Yesterday Mr. Tellier was interrogated by members of the opposition when he appeared before the committee. His response to that question was: "There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Prime Minister's statement. The Prime Minister's statement-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was in order. I am concerned about where the answer was going because I did the very best I could yesterday to indicate that we ought not to be debating in this place what is actually being debated in the committee. I think I have to say to the right hon. Prime Minister that the position I took with members of the opposition yesterday will have to apply to the right hon. Prime Minister today.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre may have a supplementary. I hope that he will be as careful in phrasing it as he was the first question.
June 5, 1991


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, considering that I did not receive an answer from the Prime Minister, I will repeat it.
On May 15, he made a statement-


Mr. Speaker:: I think, in fairness, the hon. member will want to remember that it was the Speaker who interrupted the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was trying to give an answer. I did not allow him to give the answer he was wanting to give.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if there is no answer to that question, may I ask a supplementary?
In interviews given to journalists, the Clerk of the Privy Council said that there was never any decision not to admit Mr. Al-Mashat, but simply a decision not to fast-track Mr. Al-Mashat. That is in direct contradiction to the statement made on May 15, when the Prime Minister said: "Do not admit him".


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has just referred to what he says is a comment made to journalists.


Mr. Tobin:: Outside the committee room.


Mr. Speaker:: However, the hon. member has also described the statement as opposed to another statement made on May 15 in the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: In the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the hon. member to say: "In view of the statement made outside the House" and ask if the Prime Minister has any comment. The Prime Minister can comment if he wishes. But it is not appropriate for the hon. member to prejudge what the statement outside the House and in the House amounted to.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to follow the guidelines you have just established.
I will ask the Prime Minister this. On May 15, and I would like to quote directly from Hansard of that day, he said:
Mr. Tellier, speaking for the Privy Council Office, said: "do not
admit him". Notwithstanding that, he was admitted. That was in
violation of the procedures of the Government of Canada.
Oral Questions
In view of what was said yesterday, does the Prime Minister now withdraw that statement, or do we have to assume there is an inherent contradiction between himself and the Clerk of the Privy Council?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why would my hon. friend say that when, if he read the transcript a few pages later-


André Ouellet: He was there.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that he was there. In fairness, if he was there, he should then report to the House that when Mr. Tellier was asked whether the statement made by the Prime Minister on May 15 was accurate, he said: "It is 100 per cent accurate".


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his ministers have repeatedly assured Canadians that all of the facts about the Al-Ma-shat case would be made public. Does the Prime Minister still stand by those assurances?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, under the rules, that is repeating a question that was answered, and answered in the affirmative. The answer still stands.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have a supplementary.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, since the answer was in the affirmative, and we know that a group of ministers met on May 13 to discuss the Al-Mashat matter, but ministers and public servants alike refuse to discuss what occurred, citing cabinet secrecy-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking what took place in conversations between cabinet ministers. It has always been the rule that that question is out of order.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: My question is not what took place. Will the Prime Minister please fulfil his government's promise and instruct his ministers and public servants to publicly discuss the details of the May 13 meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to commend the hon. member for imagination, but it is still out of order.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on May 15 in this House the Prime Minister said that the Clerk of the Privy Council, Paul Tellier,

June 5, 1991
Oral Questions
speaking for the Privy Council Office, said, "do not admit Al-Mashat. Notwithstanding that, he was admitted. The visa ought not to have been issued".
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that yesterday the same Clerk of the Privy Council said-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway has heard my concerns about this line of questioning. I am trying to do everything I can to ensure that an appropriate question can be asked, but the hon. member is now reaching right back into the committee.
I will hear the question and I will listen to it carefully.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council yesterday stated outside the committee that in fact neither he nor anybody in the Privy Council Office at any point said that a visa should not be issued to Al-Mashat.
My question to the Prime Minister is straightforward. Who was telling the truth, the Prime Minister or the Clerk of the Privy-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Next question.


Mr. Speaker:: That question is an allegation of dishonesty by one person or another and I am not going to allow it. The hon. member may have a supplementary and I would ask again that the hon. member be careful.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the two statements are on the record. I want to ask the Prime Minister this. In view of the clear contradiction, is the Prime Minister prepared to appear before the standing committee on external affairs and come clean with Canadians about his involvement in this matter.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: That question is a clear accusation and I am not allowing it.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I must say on behalf of the opposition, it puzzles us that we cannot ask specific questions about statements made by the Prime Minister in the House which appear to be at odds with the truth.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would say to the hon. member for Hamilton East that that is completely improper. I know that given her experience in the House she would not want to proceed in that way. If the hon. member has a question I will listen to it.


MEDICARE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is on another matter.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: While the American Congress is promoting the potential benefits of medicare, the Canadian government is in the process of destroying it.
My question is for the Prime Minister. As a result of cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, the death of medicare is being forecast by groups such as the National Council of Welfare.
Is he aware that as a result of his government's cuts this year, the provinces will be deprived of financing equivalent to 10,000 hospital beds across the country? Is he aware of the fact that at least 10,000 Canadians will be made to wait this year for health care because of his government's cutbacks to the provinces?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Healtli
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, as usual the member for Hamilton East is wrong.


An hon. member:: Again.


An hon. member:: Her record is unbroken.


Mr. Bouchard (Roberval):: Money given to the provinces this year is more than it was last year, except that the way we provide the money could be different. We have less money in terms of cash payments and more money in transfer payments. I believe the National Council has not emphasized this enough in terms of the tax transfers.
This began in 1977 when guess who was in power?


An hon. member:: Tell us.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
June 5, 1991


Benoît Bouchard: That government decided at that time to give more flexibility to the provinces by transferring more tax payments to the provinces rather than cash money.
That is exactly what we do. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will not change his mind today as he did yesterday or last week.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the National Council of Welfare was created by this government, and it has clearly proved that you are going to cut $7 billion at the expense of the patients of this country.
I have a question for this minister: Will he acknowledge that starting this year, 10,000 hospital beds will be cut in Canada because of his policies? Can he go on claiming he supports universality of health care, when he knows his own government is undermining that principle?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to make sense of this question but I will try.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps everybody could put clear questions and the ministers will, of course, try to answer them directly.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton East ought to know that as far as health services are concerned, the number of beds in our hospitals is the exclusive responsibility of the provinces and is determined by the provinces.
This year, the federal government will provide more funding than it did last year. Once again, I want to hear the hon. member for Hamilton East say she is against Quebec exercising its own jurisdiction over this area.


EMPLOYMENT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
At a time when 825,000 Quebecers are out of work,
500,000	draw unemployment insurance and 325,000 are
Oral Questions
on welfare, is the minister aware that the Conseil des affaires sociales du Quebec has just made specific recommendations to the Government of Quebec and his own government, the Canadian government? And what kind of concrete action does he intend to take within the next few weeks to get Quebec out of his critical economic situation caused by his government's ill-conceived economic policies?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of nerve to rise in the House and point an accusing finger at a government that has to spend literally tens of billions of dollars just to pay off the interest on a debt that the hon. member and his Liberal colleagues left us. It takes a lot of nerve!
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member look at the last Budget very carefully. He will find in that Budget, brought down by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, a prescription for the economic ills of Quebec and the entire country. Let him read the Budget! I am sure he will learn something.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is not important for me to read this budget, but for the Canadian people to do so. As a matter of fact, the Quebec Social Affairs Council read the budget and so did the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CNTU). Both disagree totally with this government's economic policies.
I am going to put the question again to the minister. He knows the CNTU has made seven concrete proposals to undo the economic damage done by this government. The last time I brought this up, he replied he had not read the document. I hope he has read it now. So, which of the CNTU's recommendations is he prepared to implement immediately?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if I could get the attention of the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel. The Liberals' logic is hard to follow, but we will give it a try. Last week, the hon. member accused the federal government of interference in provincial matters. And the last I heard, social affairs came under the Quebec government's jurisdiction. That is the "snowplough" principle in action, Mr. Speaker: a step forward and a step backward.

June 5, 1991
Oral Questions


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of trade I would like to address this question to the Prime Minister.
This morning I had occasion to speak to Mr, Lloyd Spalter who is the executive vice president of Uniroyal Goodrich in Akron, Ohio about the closure planned at the Kitchener plant. I find it interesting I have to phone the United States about Canadian jobs. In my conversation with the executive vice-president, he informed me that one of the plants will close for sure and another one may close. He also informed me that during the 1989 strike at this plant, Uniroyal Goodrich had no problem at all in supplying the Canadian market under another brand name of American manufacture.
What is the Prime Minister going to do to save Canadian jobs and protect us from rapacious practices by Americans who, under the free trade agreement, can do anything they want with the Canadian market whether they are on strike or not?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, one thing the Prime Minister of this country is going to do is keep the auto pact in place and keep the free trade agreement in place.
I would suggest to the hon. member that he should read the press release issued in Canada by the president, Mr. Schaub, who says that there is over-capacity in the industry of about 30 per cent-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What the hell does that have to do with it?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member want to listen to the answer?


An hon. member:: No, he doesn't. He wants to bash the Americans.


Thomas Hockin: The Canadian president said there is 30 per cent over-capacity in the industry. He has a plant which was built in 1913 and what he wants to do is take this plant and see if it can be rationalized. He is not sure it can. Therefore he made the announcement yesterday.
This country has been witness to a tremendous increase in investments in the last two years as a result of the free trade agreement. We have gone from a $2.5 billion deficit to a $4 billion surplus in terms of net investment. That is what the trade agreement will bring. That is why the tire industry and the auto industry will improve and it is already improving.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, let us look at what else this Canadian president said in the past when Michelin bought out Uniroyal Goodrich in 1989. Uniroyal promised that there would be no jobs lost in the Kitchener operations. Now Michelin is clearly shutting down competition after this merger.
Will the government launch an investigation under the competition bureau of this elimination of competition and of this broken promise that no jobs would be lost.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the workers in that plant do not want an inquiry, what they want are the jobs.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could reply to the question.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member agrees that there should not be an inquiry, let me address exactly what is going to happen.
We have spoken to the president of that company. We are going to work with him in co-operation with Employment and Immigration and put together an adjustment package. We are also going to see if we can help in any way to consolidate the operations and see if it can have a longer life. At present in the tire industry there are production lines seven days a week, three shifts a day. Tliis particular operation was five days a week and was not operating at full capacity.
As a result, we are going to see if we can put together one line which would be three shifts, seven days, and see if we can continue even with that plant. But if there is downsizing, we have the best-
June 5, 1991


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch - Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
I have talked to several business leaders in Markham who are very concerned about the delay they are experiencing in receiving their GST refunds. Arthur Boas of Cabletest International of Markham finally received his January cheque just a few days ago.
When the GST was introduced, the minister made a commitment to send the refund within 21 days. Revenue Canada officials have said they are short of staff and that business owners should phone their MPs. This is ridiculous.
Does the minister realize how this backlog of refunds is really hurting many small businesses? What specific plans does he have to clear up this situation?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member bringing these specific problems to my attention. I will instruct my officials to immediately look into the matter and investigate the specific allegations if they are proven to be correct. I can assure the hon. member that it is not acceptable for Revenue Canada employees to tell businesses to call members of Parliament.
Further to that, as I have said in this Elouse on previous occasions, in the early stages we had problems with the rebate program. We have taken corrective action in bringing in a streamlined process. I can assure the House and announce to this House that as of May 30, the vast majority of all rebates and refunds have taken place.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, with over 13 per cent unemployment in Kitchener-Waterloo, the area is reeling after the announcement yesterday that Uniroyal Goodrich was going to lay off 2,100 workers.
Oral Questions
It was just last year that Michelin took over Uniroyal Goodrich for $1.5 billion.
Why did this government not act at that time, to ensure that Canadian production and Canadian workers would not be the first victims of this takeover?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been watching television last night when they were interviewing workers as they left the Uniroyal plant, virtually every worker said that this 1913 plant did not have a long life and they were not totally surprised by this answer.
We must not just complain about history. We must put in place a good worker adjustment program. Worker adjustment programs can work in Kitchener. I have in my hand investments in 10 different operations in Kitchener alone which are planned in the next six months. The economy in Kitchener will be affected by this closure. There is no doubt about that. We are going to work with them in retraining.
A great many openings will be coming. I have 10 construction projects alone which I would like the hon. member to take a look at. More important, when Michelin took over this operation, it closed two Michelin tire plants in France a year ago. In other words, there is huge over capacity. The workers at Uniroyal realize that and we are going to be there to help them as they go through this transition.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this minister is standing here applauding or at least not opposing the shutting down of plants and the loss of jobs for Canadian workers. Canadian workers are fed up with being the first ones to be fired.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Come on, come on.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Prime Minister says: "Come on". This government did not act at the time of the takeover to protect Canadian jobs. Furthermore, its policies of high interest rates and high dollar and its made-in-Ca-nada recession are helping to drive these jobs south.
Are these jobs just part of the government's plan to deindustrialize Canada? Will the minister please assume his responsibilities for these lost jobs, ensure the retraining of these workers and assure them new jobs?

June 5, 1991
Privilege


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really discern a question in that oration, but let me just tell the hon. member that manufacturing shipments are up in Canada, automobile sales are up, housing starts are up. The economy is coming back. We have a new huge investment in Chrysler, a new huge investment in CAMI and a new huge investment in Freightliner. We have job opportunities for those workers. We believe in looking to the future and helping them adjust for the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Scarborough West.


PRIVILEGE
Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning my question in the Question Period and the outcome of your ruling on that matter. I do so with some trepidation because of the respect I have for the Chair and the knowledge that the Chair has about the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the hon. member and I understand perfectly that the matter is not raised with any disrespect to the Chair. The hon. member will also know that it is a difficult point of procedural law. I shall hear the hon. member.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: It is precisely for that reason that I raise it; that I may have guidance in the future for my conduct in Question Period.
I know the Speaker will review the "blues", but I think he will find that what I said in the preamble to my supplementary was, and I quote: "We know that a group of ministers met on May 13 to discuss the Al-Mashat matter". I did not say that it was a cabinet meeting.
I may be wrong but I do not believe that every time cabinet ministers get together, shall we say, to have a cup of coffee, walk their dogs or play a game of racket ball, it constitutes a cabinet meeting.
My question was very specific because of the difficulties this House is having vis-a-vis the committee hearings. It was about a meeting that cabinet ministers had. I went on then to point out that certain people were claiming cabinet secrecy. It may very well be that if the government wished to stand up-I am not going to give the answer-and say something about that meeting and explain it, that is fine.
I think a check in Hansard will show that there is no evidence before the House and no statement in Hansard that any particular meeting on May 13 was a cabinet meeting.
Accordingly, since there is no evidence to that effect, I would respectfully suggest that I should have been allowed to complete the question and therefore my privileges as a member were impugned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on the same point.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important for you to render a ruling with regard to the issue of cabinet secrecy or cabinet confidentiality.
Must the privilege be claimed before it becomes effective? Is it up to the Speaker of the House to determine when the privilege should attach, or is there a pre-set of guidelines or criteria to determine when cabinet confidentiality or cabinet secrecy applies?
The reason why this issue becomes relevant is with regard to the Al-Mashat matter. It has been established that on May 13 there was a meeting and at that meeting there were a number of civil servants. There were also a number of cabinet ministers present at that particular meeting. They discussed the Al-Mashat matter.
Does the mere fact of a gathering or a meeting of cabinet ministers lead to the notion of cabinet confidentiality or cabinet secrecy? Was it a meeting of cabinet? Was it a subcommittee of cabinet? Does the mere meeting of two or more ministers constitute a cabinet meeting and therefore allow the claim of privilege?
I believe it is an important issue. When my hon. friend and colleague put the question, the privilege was not claimed. The Speaker appeared to conclude that cabinet confidentiality or secrecy would apply because there was a meeting of cabinet ministers. I would seek direction on that point because it is urgent as far as the Al-Mashat hearings are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway in just a moment. I am expecting to hear some arguments from him.
First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Scarborough West and the hon. member for York South-Weston for being specific and explicit in this matter. I assure you the Chair is aware of the importance of the matter to all members of the House. I will consider very carefully the representations that have been made. I think I have the point clearly and I will try
June 5, 1991

to get back and report to the House very quickly, as soon as I possibly can.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


POINT OF ORDER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order of which I gave the Chair notice immediately following the exchange with the Prime Minister during Question Period.
I want to raise the following point of order with respect to that exchange in yesterday's proceedings as well.
I am very concerned that the Speaker appears to be suggesting that matters which have been raised in a parliamentary committee, no matter how important the issues are or what issues are raised which directly affect Canadians, cannot be pursued in this House.
I want to ask the Chair to reflect very carefully and to provide guidance to this House on the implications of what appears to be that ruling. If that is the case, it would mean that a whole range of issues which members explore in considerable detail, in some cases with witnesses before committee, could not in fact be pursued in this place.
They are reported on widely. Yesterday's proceedings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs were reported on extensively concerning the item which I wish to address to the Prime Minister. The suggestion was made that in this House on May 15 the Prime Minister had made certain statements. The Prime Minister yesterday said in response to a question: "Well, go to the committee and the Clerk of the Privy Council will pursue that issue and will, I am sure, back me up."
I went to the committee. I asked the questions in the committee of the Clerk of the Privy Council and he said-


Mr. Speaker:: Let us not get into the context of what happened in the committee at the moment. It is not necessary.
Point of Order
I have the hon. member's point. It is a serious question and I accept it as such. I would ask the hon. member to let me look at the "blues" for today and as soon as I have them, I will come back and let the hon. member, who will then also have the "blues", perhaps address me further and I will try to give some guidance.
I appreciate the reason for putting the question and I accept fully that it is a serious one.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the only caveat is that I certainly will come back at the earliest possible occasion to pursue this matter. I may not be in the House tomorrow, but I will certainly pursue it at the earliest possible occasion. It is an important and serious issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I want it made very clear to all hon. members that I take the matters raised as serious.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order with a great deal of hesitation this afternoon. I do believe the government House leader acted inappropriately during Question Period.
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention and the House's attention to Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 369. It says:
- point of order raised during the oral Question Period ought to be taken up after the oral Question Period, unless the Speaker considers it to be an extremely grave matter.
I think we would all agree that this is the usual approach that we have all followed, that when we have a concern on a point of order which ought to be raised during Question Period, we hold off until after.
Today, under the guise of responding to a question, the government House Leader said: "Under the rules, that has been answered." That is obviously a point of order that ought to have been raised at the appropriate time. Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, and the government House leader could have a chat about that so he would act appropriately during Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take a look at the exchange. The government House leader was the only minister rising in response to questions. However, I will look at the exchange and consider what the hon. member has said.

June 5, 1991
Point of Order
The hon. government House leader may wish to address me.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party reading Beauchesne's concerning Question Period. I hope he reads it all and counsels his members accordingly in terms of what is a proper question and what is not.
Clearly, one of the citations state that questions should not be repeated. I was simply making the point that it was a repetition of the question and I repeated the answer. The answer was "yes" as it was the previous time it was asked.
Mr. Speaker, your comments in terms of the other two points of order are appropriate and I agree with those comments. I think they need to be looked into.
I would just like to, very briefly, make a couple of points. One concerns what constitutes a question. Citation 411(2) in Beauchesne's sixth edition says:
A question may not:
(2)	seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as decisions of proceedings of Cabinet -
Discussions between cabinet ministers are by their nature secret and discussions between ministers and officials are by their nature secret. I think it is in keeping with the citation to suggest that those questions ought not to be asked. Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate the difficulty it creates if members are going to stand up and ask: "Now what did you discuss with your colleagues at this meeting and that meeting and so on?" They are by their nature secret, as are formal cabinet meetings. However, any time one of my colleagues discusses matters within our administrative responsibility, we are discussing matters which are by their nature secret and ought not to be questions, according to Beauchesne's- which, I repeat, should be enforced.
As for the question of whether the proceedings of a committee should be a matter for questions in the House, raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kings-way on a point of order, 411(3) says:
A question may not:
(3)	seek information about proceedings in a committee which has not yet made its report to the House.
The reason for that citation should obviously be clear. This matter is fairly complex. There are a number of documents and people involved and so on. In committee the complexity can be explored. At the end of the day, when all the information has been deduced before committee, conclusions can be reached. That is the appropriate forum. To extract out of context one or two items to bring forward to the House is certainly not to serve the purposes of elucidation and clarity for the benefit of the public, but rather to serve other purposes.
In that context, that is a very good explanation of why this citation is in Beauchesne's and why it was entirely appropriate that the citation be enforced in this instance. Members should not use this forum as a mechanism for extracting from the committee those items they find to be to their partisan advantage to be brought forward in the House.
I do not think that serves the public purpose or the public's ability to know the true situation or the facts. It is also not in keeping with what Question Period is supposed to be, namely the opportunity for the opposition to seek information that cannot be obtained in other more appropriate mechanisms such as letter writing, proceedings in committee and so on.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the points of order which have been raised by both my colleague from Burnaby and the government House leader.
The government House leader suggested to the House that when cabinet ministers have discussions, by their very nature they are secret. That, in my view, is somewhat absurd.
There is a big distinction to be made between cabinet ministers meeting and discussing certain points and a cabinet meeting being struck for the purposes of making the decision.
At a cabinet meeting there is a secretary, there are minutes and there are copies of the decisions that have been reached at that particular meeting.
To suggest to the House that each and every conversation between two cabinet ministers, whatever it may be, is somehow sacred is absolutely absurd and I believe should not be found by the Chair or by anyone to be an appropriate point of order.
June 5, 1991

Second, with regard to the point of order raised by my colleague from Burnaby concerning proceedings at committee not being allowed to be raised on the floor of the House of Commons for Question Period, Mr. Speaker, you have given an undertaking to that member and I believe through him to the House that you will reflect on the "blues".
I would simply ask you, Mr. Speaker, prior to making any adjudication to give due notice to the various political parties so that we will have an opportunity to make additional representations to you. While you are reflecting on that, let us draw the distinction that the hon. member has made.
I am looking at the fifth edition of Beauchesne's. My sixth edition is not with me today, but I am sure members will bear with me.
I refer to paragraph 360(3) which talks about seeking information about proceedings in a committee which has not yet made its report to the House.
Let us be very clear. The wording says: "proceedings". It does not say: "subject matter". There is quite a distinction to be made between proceedings on one hand and subject matter on the other.
My second point is the following. We have in the rules in Beauchesne's a rule which has been tradition through the years, which I know my colleague in the New Democratic Party and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will probably want to speak to if not today, later in the debate. That is the sub judice rule.
That specifically refers to subject matter before a court. It says: "subject matter".
This citation concerns proceedings. It does not concern subject matter. If it was to have been subject matter, the rule would have been clear. It would have been spelled out that subject matter is not to be raised on the floor in Question Period.
Finally, it must be understood-the Chair is well aware of this and I am sure the Table is also-that there are numerous agencies of the Government of Canada which are obligated by statute to file statutory reports to various standing committees of the House of Commons.
Today, we have some 40 federal departments, 40 different ministries and there are numerous reports that
Point of Order
are filed with the Clerk and are automatically referred. There is no debate. They are automatically referred to standing committees. Is the Chair going to say to members of Parliament that because that subject matter has been referred to a standing committee that this particular body has no right, no authority whatsoever to examine the subject matter and to raise questions? It is absolutely absurd to suggest that.
Finally, in terms of the distinction, standing committees of the House are not independent, quasi or judicial bodies of the House. They are creatures of the House. It is Parliament, I suggest, through the Chair to hon. members, that is the final authority, and you, Mr. Speaker, the final arbitrator in terms of what is acceptable or not acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will reflect on those comments. But I wish to make the caveat, that before any adjudication is made with regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Burnaby that all members-myself, my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, and I am sure more members-would want to have the opportunity to make interventions.
I make those general comments for the Chair so that the Chair might reflect on the absurdity that is being promoted by the government House leader with regard to that point of order; and, second, his point of order that cabinet ministers when they meet on the street and talk, their conversations somehow are secret, is absolutely and unequivocally nonsense.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Just on a very short point of order to complement the point being made by my hon. friend, the House leader for the Official Opposition.
I refer to "we cannot comment on the proceedings of committee in the House". I think we all understand that. I want to draw the House's attention to the fact that on the agendas for the committees we talk about the "Minutes, Proceedings and Evidence". Obviously when we talk about proceedings we are not referring to the subject matter being discussed in committee.
I want to draw the House's attention and yours, Mr. Speaker, to Erskine May, 12th edition. On page 92 it says:

June 5, 1991
Point of Order
The meaning of the term 'proceedings' in Parliament: The primary
meaning, as a technical parliamentary term of proceedings, is some
formal action, usually a decision.
I think that summarizes it. In other words, we are looking at some course of action. It is an action, it is not the subject material, it is not the evidence being presented; it is simply some action, something being tabled, a vote being taken, or whatever.
I do believe that these are useful interventions. I want to support the points made by the previous speaker by suggesting that to say we ought not raise any issue that is before a committee would almost prohibit the House of Commons from functioning on many days. We have so many committees, they are very active, they cover so many various areas, that I think when we refer to page 92 of Erskine May we appreciate that unless it is a formal action being taken, subject matter is something that we can in fact bring up in the House of Commons.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to make two or three comments.
First of all, as I understood your rulings during Question Period, they were not relating specifically to the fact that this particular issue was before the committee. In one case, you were dealing with a question concerning a conversation between ministers, supposedly a cabinet meeting. That was the first ruling. The second one, as I recall it, concerned the question, who is telling the truth? In other words, it was an accusation or a declaration of motivation by members. Those were the specific issues.
I think when it comes to the issue of questions before this House regarding committee activity, the Standing Order which I think is the most relevant and the one that the Speaker must take into account in any ruling that he may be considering, is citation 359, clause 5, "where the matter ought to be of some urgency".
I think the whole thrust of that is to say that the reason we don't have a committee hearing and then an hour or two later the same issue heard a second time in the House of Commons is, as the House leader pointed out earlier, that we would be taking the same issue into two completely different forums, one where you have the
opportunity to explore in detail and have rebuttal. The other is where there is simply to be a quick question and a quick answer.
If there is another forum where the issue can be better dealt with, as in this case the House decided that the Al-Mashat affair should be dealt with in committee, then as long as those committee hearings continue to provide that forum, I would argue that clearly in accordance with this particular section of Beauchesne's, questions should not be considered on that issue in this House.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the same things were said by members opposite in 1988 and you know who became extinct in the national election after that date.
With respect to the point of order relating to the remarks made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons relevant to the Al-Mashat affair, as a member of the House and of the standing committee on external affairs I was privy to all the remarks made.
What I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will take it into account when rendering your decision, is this. It is trite law that when words are uttered in the House of Commons or anywhere else, the meaning and interpretation to be given to those words is a matter of debate. It is not a matter of judgmental decision. One argues one way. One argues another.
When you take that into account, Mr. Speaker, you will find that as high an official of this government as Mr. Paul Tellier has said that the remarks made by the Prime Minister of Canada are 100 per cent accurate. Those words are on record. They are in the public domain. The public can judge the accuracy of the words.


Mr. Speaker:: I am certainly prepared to accept, and I do accept the argument of the hon. member, but this is not the place for us to be judging the testimony heard in the committee.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I know you do not wish to have this matter go on and on, but hon. members are going to have to bear with me. The fact of the matter is that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has made specific references to Beauchesne's citation 359, subsection 5, when he talks about whether or not the matter is of some urgency.
June 5, 1991

The hon. member, maybe in his own mind-and I could use adjectives to describe "mind" but I will not-may feel sincerely that the subject matter being raised is not of sufficient urgency. But I suggest that the matter is of paramount urgency.
The Prime Minister of this country has made a statement on the floor of the House of Commons on May 15, 1991. Our colleagues have expressed certain concerns with regard to the validity of that statement. I think the Prime Minister ought to be given every opportunity to clarify, if they need clarifying, those particular statements. To suggest that somehow the subject matter of the evidence on the record of the senior public servant of this country seems to be quite different from what was said in this Chamber-


An hon. member:: That is debate.


David Charles Dingwall: No, no. It is not debate, Mr. Speaker. It is not debate. The hon. member has said the subject matter is not of great urgency. What I am doing is rebutting that argument and saying that it is urgent. It depends upon your definition of urgency, and I suggest that the hon. member is taking a very subjective view as to what is the definition of urgency and it is a vety self-serving one. I am suggesting through the Chair to the hon. member that if the objective test was taken in this particular instance, particularly with the Prime Minister and his chief public servant being at odds, then hon. members would readily recognize that it indeed is an urgent matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member would like to contribute to this discussion.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, if the government House leader was to read out all of the tests for a question in Question Period from Beauchesne's or from Erskine May, I am afraid we would not have any questions qualifying under those standards in Beauchesne's. Of course, the reason is that those guidelines for questions were devised a few hundred years ago and one of the chief rules is of course, * as you know, that under those rules you are not allowed to ask the government questions concerning government policy.
The Chair has to make a decision when you have rules that really no longer apply to today. When the rules that are in the official rule book are there with the rules that
Routine Proceedings
your seats must be two sword lengths apart. Our rules evolve according to what is common sense.
I think that the judgments made by the Chair should reflect what would make common sense today. What would be the judgment of the ordinary person?
We would submit that the entire purpose of Question Period is, if you wanted a broad definition, to make the government accountable to the people of Canada for its actions. That should be the guiding rule that determines questions in the House of Commons, the accountability of the government.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind you that the accountability of government through the House of Commons has changed drastically over the years. A cabinet minister is no longer, according to our customs, held accountable at times for things that happened in a department. Any restrictions on Question Period, the types of questions that can be asked or the subject matter of those questions, would seriously impair the little accountability we still do have in the procedure of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank hon. members and the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the hon. member for Kamloops and the other members who have taken part in this debate. I will, of course, examine the "blues". I think all of the matters that have been raised are worthy of consideration and I shall try to give the best guidance I can.
I might say to hon. members that I also take into account the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond's request, which I accept, and that is to not report back to the House without adequate opportunity to discuss the matter further if that is necessary.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the pleasure to present to the House, in both official languages, the Second Report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.

June 5, 1991
Routine Proceedings


AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C- 226, an act to reduce automotive pollution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present during Environmental Week in Canada a bill to reduce automotive pollution in Canada.
This bill provides the means to reduce automotive pollution by requiring that automotive gasolines contain at least 3.2 per cent oxygen and that methylcyclopenta-dienyl manganese tricarbonyl be banned in Canada. Ethanol blended gasolines labelled as an environmentally friendly fuel will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 5.9 per cent, carbon monoxide emissions by 25 per cent, volatile organic compounds by 8.5 per cent, nitrous oxide by 5.7 per cent and urban ozone by 5.3 per cent.
With a hot summer ahead of us and the increased threat of global warming with increased auto emissions, I am moving this bill that will improve the environment, remove a health risk, especially for urban areas, and provide a market for millions of bushels of Canadian grain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find consent for the following motion:
That pursuant to subsection 14(1) of an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, Chapter 34, Second Supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be the committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of section 21.2 to 21.6 of the Parole Act and the Schedule thereto in subsections 25(5) to 7 and section 26.1 of the Penitentiary Act, and that the said committee report no later than Monday, July 22, 1991.
That the evidence adduced by the committee on the said subject in the Second Session of the present Parliament be deemed to have been referred to the committee.
And that notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, if the House is not sitting when the report of the committee is completed, the committee may report its findings by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House and the report shall have been deemed to have been presented.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One petition is signed by a number of constituents of the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who are supporting the initiative so eloquently placed in this House by my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex to encourage Canadians to utilize a mixture of ethanol in fuel for automobile use and to eliminate at the same time the product known as MMT.
That is an excellent petition, of course.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition. This one is signed by a number of people from Alexandria, Ontario, in Glengarry of course. These fine constituents and Canadians are wanting to alert the government to the fact that they are most upset with the federal government's decision to cut back on benefits to veterans in this country.


Don Boudria: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a whole series of petitions from Canadians virtually everywhere, thousands of them, who again want to remind the government that they do not like the goods and services tax any more now than they did before the government put it in place.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by over 400 residents of my own constituency of Beaches-Woodbine who state that the government has cut CBC funding by $140 million over the next four years, resulting in 1,200 job losses and the closing of 10 regional stations.
These petitioners urge the government to restore proper funding to the CBC so it can fulfil its mandate and role as the heartbeat of Canada.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first one comes on the back of the announcement by the Solicitor General that the contract for RCMP services throughout Canada will be continued for one year.
However, these people in various areas of British Columbia point out that the cutbacks recently in the
June 5, 1991

RCMP services have hurt small communities within Canada.
The petitioners urge the government to restore proper funding to the RCMP so that it can fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for communities across British Columbia.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: My second petition urges the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service.
It further urges the Minister of Communications to consult with all affected parties, specifically those citizens living outside Canada's urban areas who will be impacted severely by deregulation.
It further urges the Minister of Communications to hold local hearings in our communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that is signed by people from 21 Saskatchewan communities, including the communities of Oxbow, Cut Knife, Maidstone, Spy Hill and Lone Rock.
These people are protesting the cutbacks in the infrastructure of rural Canada by this government, including cuts to VIA Rail service, abandonment of rail lines, neglect of fishery, forestry and agriculture, erosion of rural postal service and particularly closure of rural post offices.
These people are calling on the government to turn back from its abandonment of rural Canada and especially to support the rural post office system, which is in fact the lifeline of rural Canada.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition concerns the Minister of Communications. It is to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service.
As has been pointed out earlier today, this threat is most pervasive in the non-urban areas and particularly on the Gulf Islands where it is necessary to have long distance charges.
As is well known, competition in telephone services increases rather than decreases costs.
I urge the Minister of Communications to listen to those petitioners.


Lynn Hunter: My second petition is in relation to the RCMR
The Solicitor General has acted to extend the contract for one further year. We are very glad for that, but for long-term planning for the municipalities of my area, assurance is needed that funding for the RCMP will be extended longer than one year.
The RCMP is a force which Canadians are proud of and which is a symbol for national unity at this important time.
I urge the government to listen to these petitioners.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and indeed a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a large number of people from western Canada who have concerns regarding Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service.

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
The petitioners point out that if this is permitted to proceed, the effect would be that local telephone rates will escalate and add a lot of additional cost to people who use the telephone.
The petitioners are asking the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service. They are urging the Minister of Communications to consult with all the affected parties, specifically those citizens living outside Canada's urban areas who will be impacted most severely by this deregulation.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by some 58 petitioners who are mostly from my own riding of Kootenay West- Revelstoke, the communities of Slocan, Johnsons Landing, Argenta, the cities of Revelstoke, Castlegar, Trail, and outside from Salmon Arm, Vancouver and Spar-wood, British Columbia.
The petitioners ask Parliament to give serious consideration to the matter of Petro-Canada and Bill C-84, to take into consideration' matters of price stability and energy security.
For a number of environmental reasons, they call upon Parliament to defeat or repeal Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the National Petroleum Company of Canada and to keep Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation acting in the best interest of all Canadians.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 42 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 42 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms. Phinney: With respect to the Federal Business Development Bank (a) how many staff are employed (b) how many grants and/or loans were given by it last year (c) what is its overall budget?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: moved that Bill C-9, an act to facilitate combating the laundering of proceeds of crime, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us, Bill C-9, entitled an act to facilitate combating the laundering of proceeds of crime, is part of Canada's national drug strategy. As such, it builds on and complements
June 5, 1991

other legislation that Canada has introduced in this area, most notably Bill C-58 which was designed to enhance international law enforcement co-operation and Bill C-61 which made money laundering a criminal offence.
Its purpose is to discourage the use of Canada's financial system by criminals and to ensure that there is an adequate paper trail for our law enforcement authorities to carry out money laundering investigations.
The bill is consistent with the recommendations of the G-7 financial action task force on money laundering and consistent with those of the advisory committee on money laundering, a joint, private-public sector group which I chair.
The bill also has the support of Canada's financial community and a cross-section of senior officials from that community are members of the advisory committee.
Before I turn briefly to the specific measures in the bill, I would like to outline the setting in which the bill was developed.
As you know, drug trafficking, unfortunately, is something which plagues all modern societies. Familiarity, however, should not breed complacency. The destruction that drug trafficking renders is a tragedy of gigantic proportion. Individual lives, families and communities can and are being destroyed in Canada and elsewhere.
Drug trafficking generates large volumes of cash and therein lies both its attraction and its vulnerability. The proceeds of crime, particularly from drug trafficking, must be converted in other seemingly legitimate forms. The act of doing so is of course called "money laundering".
Without money laundering, drug trafficking would be less profitable and, therefore, less attractive to the criminal element in society.

In July 1989, the leaders of the G-7 countries announced the establishment of a Financial Action Task Force to study and make recommendations on measures to combat money laundering. The Task Force's first report was released in April, 1990. It contains 40 recommendations for action. At the Economic Summit in Houston in July 1990 the Prime Minister and the other G-7 leaders made clear their intention to fully implement the Task Force's recommendations quickly.
Government Orders
I think that we all can feel some measure of satisfaction in that Canada is in substantial compliance with the Task Force's recommendations. One area where we fall short, however, is in ensuring that our financial institutions, other businesses and professionals who handle large volumes of cash maintain adequate records. This brings me back to Bill C-9, which is designed to fill this
gap-
The bill, the short title of which is the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, is linked to the criminal offence of money laundering as defined in the Criminal Code, the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drug Act.
It is important to note that the provisions of the legislation focus on record keeping, not on reporting. The specific details relating to the keeping of records will be established by regulation. The records in question are limited to those which have been determined to be useful in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of money laundering.
This approach allows us to be flexible so that as the channels by which money is laundered change, the methods used to combat it can be adjusted. The bill is similar in most respects, Mr. Speaker, to Bill C-89, which we introduced in the last Parliament. However, the current bill calls for a consultation period of at least 90 days between the time of publication of regulations issued under the bill and their finalization.
In addition, the wording of certain sections of the bill has been made more precise. The revised bill makes it clear that intent is required before penalties apply. In addition, the regulation-making power of the government, with regard to determining the accuracy of information contained in records, only applies to the identification of clients.
The bill, I can assure you, will not reduce the traditional safeguards with respect to access to these records.
Finally, the bill imposes penalties in accordance with the seriousness of the situation. In closing, I do not need to remind the House that drug trafficking and money laundering pose major challenges to society.

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
Bill C-9 is an important bill for Canadians. It is designed to strike at these social ills but in a way which is not intrusive. It is in the interests of all of us to ensure that Canada does not become a haven for money launderers. I would welcome your support for this bill.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this particular bill, Bill C-9, otherwise known as the money laundering bill.
Bill C-9 appeared in the last session as Bill C-89 and it was lost when the House was prorogued. It is probably a good thing that it was because there were some flaws in that particular legislation. We are very pleased to see that the government has responded and made some changes in the legislation that make it a little more workable.
It seems to us that there are still a few things we should take a look at. We understand that everyone is in agreement that this bill be sent off to committee, and that is positive.
The drug war, as we hear it called from time to time, is a major problem in the world. There is absolutely no question about that. Canada has in part been considered a bit of a haven as far as the drug situation is concerned. Because of our close proximity to major drug routes, because we border on the United States and in part because we have lax financial reporting laws, Canada is one of the areas in which we see the drug trade moving. I know I can speak with some knowledge as far as New Brunswick is concerned.
There have been a number of cases where planes containing large amounts of drugs have landed on rural runways. Also, certain people have arrived in the New Brunswick area and deposited guns and everything else to try to free some of the people who have already been incarcerated by our efficient police force.
We know there is a drug problem in New Brunswick. We know there is a drug problem in Canada and this bill will help, in part, to solve the problem. Obviously, the problem has to be attacked on many levels. It has to be attacked where the drugs are being produced. It also has to be attacked at the means of delivery. Third, the criminals who are making a profit on the sale of drugs have to be attacked. I think, in large measure too, consumption also has to be attacked.
There is no question that this particular bill is aimed at one aspect. That is the profits which are associated with drugs and how those get into our community and become legitimate.
The bill builds on the so-called freeze and seize legislation, C-61, which in effect created the offence of money laundering. Money laundering is described as a process by which illegitimate dollars are transformed through the financial markets into legitimate funds. The purpose is to hide the identity of the real owners of the funds and give them the appearance of being legitimate.

There is no question that there is a problem and it is a world-wide problem. The question is whether this legislation goes far enough. We support the bill being considered in committee, but we hope that it will be improved upon thereafter.

There is no question that it is an international problem, and that is really what has forced this matter on this House. It is the United States and the G-7 which have said that all of the nations facing this problem have to become involved. This legislation when it was first presented had to be returned to the drawing boards because it did reflect an American slant. Their laws, as they deal with barristers, solicitors and other professionals, are different than ours so it was necessary for some of the legislation to be redrafted.
The other thing we have to look at is the area of regulation. A lot of this particular legislation is aimed at allowing the law to really develop through regulation. In some senses that is good but in others it is bad because the regulations do not have the control that Parliament has over intrusions into peoples' lives. We have to remember that is the effect of this legislation.
Any transaction over $10,000 is going to be subject to an intrusion by government, in effect through the reporting of those transactions in financial institutions. On the face of it that is good. There is no question, that is the only way we are going to track this situation. At the same time, it is an intrusion into peoples' lives and we have to make sure there is a balance and that we are going to benefit.
June 5, 1991

There is no assurance yet, nor have we seen any of the necessary money placed on the table to ensure it, that the government, the RCMP and the crime enforcement agencies are going to use this information. We have to be assured that when the information is sent from the financial institutions to the law enforcement agencies that they are going to have the resources and people and the money, all of the things that are necessary, to ensure that something good will come from this legislation. It does no one any good for this information to end up on a shelf in some RCMP office without being utilized. Therefore, that becomes a major concern.
As well, with respect to the regulations, there is a concern among many that the regulations will be proclaimed, and that the different professions and different institutions which are affected will not be fully aware and not have the input that they would have if it was an actual bill that came through Parliament.
We are hopeful that in the long run there will be more control over the regulations so that the adverse effects of regulations which slip through will not be felt. We are pleased that the government at least is going to have a three-month consultation process prior to the regulations coming into effect.
There is also protection for lawyers, as far as solicitor-client privilege is concerned, as that is the other problem and is where we differ a little bit from the American system. Lawyers were faced with the conundrum of not being able to divulge information given to them by their client while, at the same time, having to face a penalty for not giving out that information. There is an attempt to clean up that particular problem.
We also see that the government is going to define "cash" and say what that term really means. That is a loose end that certain criminal elements could hide behind.
The other broad aspect of this bill is that we are going to see an attempt to close some of the borders as far as Canada is concerned. One of the mechanisms to be closed is using Canada's financial system to legitimize illegitimate money.
Government Orders
However, the critical aspect and something that will become interesting once the committee meets is how effective the other countries are going to be. If we do not have connections between all of the other countries then it is not going to work. The other thing we have to be aware of is that the information gathered on Canadians will be available to other countries and other law enforcement agencies. That is a good point and a bad point, as it is an intrusion into the privacy of Canadians. We have to do a cost benefit analysis to ensure that there are not adverse effects on Canadians.
The Liberal Party is prepared to support this bill at this particular stage. We are excited that it will go to committee and that we will have before us all the different interest groups involved, such as the bar society and the bankers' society. We do not know which committee, but it will be one of the very important committees of this House I am sure, perhaps the one which the hon. member chairs.
In any event, the fact that it goes to committee and that we can have submissions from those different interest groups is important. In addition to the involvement of the barristers, the chartered accountants and the bankers' associations, a good idea that has been suggested-perhaps by the chairman of that committee-is that the RCMP be involved in advising us as to what the status of things is.
Second, it probably would not hurt for us to have someone from one of the civil liberties organizations appear to talk about the cost benefits of these intrusions. Let it be perfectly clear that the Liberal Party is fully supportive of the efforts to fight the drug situation in our country and on our streets. We are prepared to go to most levels in order to have legislation which will assist law enforcement agencies in achieving that goal. However, we are not prepared to go to the extent of a complete denial of civil liberties and individual Canadians' rights.
That is why this committee is important. That is why we want to see it at committee. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time to give comments on this particular bill.


Steven W. Langdon: Occasionally there is a piece of legislation which comes before the House and receives the unanimous support of all parties, and which has reached the House through a process of negotiation and discussion, which helps to explain that

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
unanimous support. In the case of this piece of legislation, that is very much the reality.
This legislation is a result of the decisions of the G-7 countries to, quite rightly, attempt to ensure that what we assume to be tremendous monetaiy flows taking place as a consequence of the illicit drug trade are made easier to track and easier to police. As my colleagues in the Liberal Party have suggested this is not for purposes of trying, to somehow hurt the privacy of people, but instead of suggesting ways for our financial institutions in this country to help control more effectively this large scale flow of illicit funds.
We are talking about the flow of illicit funds which is especially important to track. If it is not possible to do so then these illicit funds become the basis on which legal activities are established within this country. This in turn permits further profit making on the basis of what was originally an illicit sale of drugs with subsequent flow of illicit money.
From our perspective as a party we strongly share the basic purposes and goals which lie behind this legislation, and that is to try to see to it that the flow of illicit funds does not become possible in our country. It is not a secret that Canada has been seen as a relatively easy country through which money laundering can take place. This is not a reputation that any of us in this House would want this country to have, and I am certain everybody in the House will support tightening up the situation.
Our concerns however with the original bill, which came before us in a previous session of this Parliament, were that in the process of attempting to deal with a serious problem the government had established a number of clauses as part of the legislation, a number of regulations as part of the draft regulations prepared to support the legislation which frankly represented certain dangers. These dangers could conceivably penetrate for instance the relationship between a lawyer and a lawyer's clients. That penetration could begin through the search for a monetary trail based on money exchanges, but it would have the effect of leading from the purely financial considerations involved into a detailed probing, we feared and the Canadian Bar Association feared, of the lawyer-client relationship which existed in a number of situations.
It is for that reason that the original version of this legislation was very strongly condemned by the Canadian Bar Association.
The Canadian Bar Association is not an organization which ordinarily takes strong positions on pieces of federal government legislation. Yet, the Canadian Bar Association did take the highly unusual step of passing a motion at the national level, condemning this piece of legislation as it was originally drafted.
We talked about this piece of legislation with members from the opposite side, the government side. They assured us that at the time the previous legislation was in front of us, there were no problems.
We however checked to see if this were the case with a number of associations such as the Canadian Bar Association. It indicated to us that unfortunately, contrary to what we have been told, there were serious problems which led them to pass this national resolution.
Subsequently, we indicated that we would not be prepared to co-operate with the passage of this legislation. It was after this, as I understand it, that the government finally entered into serious discussion with the Canadian Bar Association and came to conclusions which now resolve the problems that were in the previous piece of legislation.
We have discussed the new piece of legislation with the Canadian Bar Association. We have discussed it with the body that represents the Canadian Chartered Accountants. We are assured by both that they see no problems with the bill as it presently stands.
We have talked with representatives of the chartered banks who have also indicated that there should be no problem from their perspective with the period of time for which financial records are required to be kept under the legislation.
I think, as a consequence of further consultation, we have a much better piece of legislation in front of us now than we had in the previous session of Parliament.
For this reason we are prepared as a party to support the legislation because, as I say, we strongly agree with the principle. Our concern was with some of the details.
June 5, 1991

Those details have now been worked through with some of the bodies that previously expressed concern.
We would still hope that when this bill goes to committee, whether it is a legislative committee or a specific standing committee, it will call before it some of those organizations which expressed concern in the past so that those concerns will in fact be overcome by the changes which have taken place.
We have heard from such organizations. We take their word, but I think it is important to see that this is explored at committee.
I have had some discussions with the parliamentary secretary to the minister. I think there is widespread agreement with respect to the three or four groups that we would want to see come before the committee.
I hope that speedy passage through the committee will therefore be assured. I am pleased to say that as far as we are concerned, we are very pleased to see speedy passage at second reading of a significant piece of legislation.
It will not in any sense be a comprehensive response, but it will be a significant part of the response to try to deal with the illicit flow of funds associated with the drug trade in our country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-6, an act respecting the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this legislation with a great deal of mixed
Government Orders
feelings. Canada has had a history of being a nation which, on the whole, has worked for peace. It has been in the forefront of attempting to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to provide peacekeeping forces within the United Nations.
Within my own family there is a long and strong tradition of working for peace. My father grew up in Russia belonging to a group called the Molokans, whose members are much like the Quakers; pacifists. He was fortunate enough to be able to leave Russia when he became draft age and he chose to come to Canada because he knew that Canada allowed for religious and political freedom. He was involved in some of the first peace movements in Canada including, I am proud to say, leading some of the first demonstrations and marches against the bomb in 1946 and 1947.
He spoke about many things in the late forties and early fifties and at that time, particularly if you had a Russian name, it was not easy to stand up and advocate peace initiatives. Many years later, when it became more acceptable, many of the things that he suggested, the total community adopted and realized that they only made sense in a modem society.
What we have here is the start of a new government initiative to get Canada farther into the area of arms sales. It is one of these things that becomes a treadmill. The farther you get into it, the more difficult it is to get out.
It is based on a number of very shaky premises. Under the present export control policy, Canada has agreed to a number of things. I think it is worth while looking at what they are. Basically Canada agreed to four things: it would not export military goods to countries that pose a threat to Canada or its allies; it would not export military goods to countries that are involved in or under imminent threat of hostility; it would not export military goods to countries under United Nations Security Council sanctions; it would not export military goods to countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violation of human rights of their citizens.
Some of the current proposals would fail on two of these grounds. The current proposals are designed to start and dump back military armaments into the mideast, including Saudi Arabia. If anyone looks at the history of the mid-east in the last four years, or 10 years,

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
it would be very difficult to say who are our allies are and who are our enemies.
We have decided at various times that Iran is our enemy. During the war, maybe Iran was our ally. We armed Iraq because we decided Iraq was our ally when it was involved in the war with Iran. Where do nations like Syria, Saudi Arabia, some of the other gulf states and even Kuwait stand?
Certainly neither Saudi Arabia nor Kuwait would stand the last test of countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of human rights of their citizens and yet we are prepared to start re-arming undemocratic regimes.
There are many other mid-east countries that I get very concerned about, such as United Arab Emerates in which I had the pleasure of spending two weeks. At this point it is a peaceful country. It is under no threat internally or from any of its neighbours, but it is ruled by one family and one family only, with no pretence of democracy or freedom and with dictatorial policies along religious lines. Yet I see this morning that the United States has just decided to sell it 12 military attack helicopters and 6 to Bahrain.
What are they going to do with those? One becomes suspicious as there is a new birth of democracy sweeping through some of these countries, making sure that they have the means of ensuring their own continued survival.
The whole experience within the war in the gulf should have taught us something. It should have taught us that Iraq would have been militarily incapable of violating the sovereignty of its fellow nations. It would have been militarily incapable of perpetuating the war with its mass destruction. Hussein would have not been able to maintain his dictatorship had it not been for the arms supplied to him and Iraq by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council; Britain, France, China, U.S.S.R and the United States.
It seems to me that Canada was involved in testing weapons that ended up in Iraq. Now we want to get involved in the actual sale of arms to countries that are involved in conflict and in violation of civil rights.
All this does is detract dramatically from Canada's ability to be a peace negotiator in this world. Our whole
credibility as a peacekeeping nation and a peace negotiator was trampled on dramatically during the gulf war.
We rushed in and backed the United States in a military operation that turned out to be an environmental disaster with a huge loss of life. At least 100,000,
150,000	or 200,000 people died in that war.
The Kurds have been totally disrupted. The environment in the gulf has been totally wiped out for 50 or 100 years, or maybe forever. Canada blindly went along.
Now we have the government saying that for the sake of a few jobs we will sacrifice another piece of our prestige, integrity, neutrality, and our ability to act as a peace negotiator and peacekeeper in this world. We will do so being blind to the history since the Second World War. If there were somebody on Mars to look down at us, they would ask: "What is this race of creatures down there doing? It looks like a football scrum has picked up and that they change sides evety weekend and have another go at it".
Our strong ally right now is Japan. It was our enemy less than 40 years ago. Less than five years ago, our worst enemy was the Soviet Union. Now it is considered our ally.
We have even been involved in conflicts in the mideast on both sides of the argument and in other areas. Think back to the Falklands war between Argentina and Britain in which the British were being fired upon by French weapons.
We always make the assumption that we know who our friends are, our loyal friends. Particularly in the mid-east the situation is volatile. No one can guarantee that countries which pose a threat to Canada or to its allies are countries that are involved in or are under imminent threat of hostilities. All of those countries are involved in an ongoing regional war in which the western and Soviet bloc powers have armed them in order to escalate arms sales.
Military spending in this world is out of control. It is $1,000 billion a year, $1,000 billion a year. That is a figure that is totally incomprehensible to most Canadians and to most people in this world. Yet we persist. This bill does not say: "Look, we want to see military spending in the world go down so that it can be directed to positive uses". It simply says: "We want a piece of the pie".
June 5, 1991

We want to be able to say that there is this military spending and we want to get in on the action because it is good for business and profit making.
It is funny how very quickly people's attitudes change. When the gulf war was at its height, we heard from the government some very encouraging speeches. For a moment, I was almost proud of a government that was speaking on my behalf.
T he minister of external affairs spoke out clearly saying: "The world cannot let a victory become a truce, an occasion for nations to rearm, to regroup and return to battle". That was a statement that clearly said we have to put an end to this type of arms trade.
The Prime Minister made very, very high sounding statements. He talked about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the arms trade and the constant chasing of spheres of influence. He said: "We could be big arms merchants. We chose not to be, although it is a veiy lucrative business. We chose not to be, because it is fundamentally inconsistent with our policy to develop it, to peddle it, to finance it and then to deplore its use".
If only the Prime Minister really believed what he was saying at that time, if only he had been willing to commit his government to that type of policy and to say: "Not only have we chosen not to, we will not be involved in developing it. We will not be involved in peddling it. We will not be involved in financing it". All we have left, I guess, is that we will be deploring the use of arms when they start again.
The government tries to indicate that in this time of recession we cannot afford to miss an opportunity for a few jobs. I say to the members on the government side, this is like saying we will keep capital punishment because it makes work for the hangman.


Thomas Hockin: What does the CAW say to that?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I feel for the members within the CAW. I will tell you, most of the CAW people want work that is not based on the arms industry. This government has the responsibility to provide work that is not based on transitory jobs and arms production. There is no justification for an employment policy based on the peddling of arms that are going to be destructive to this world. That is the hollowness of the government, if all it can do is
Government Orders
provide jobs that are based on perpetuating military conflict in the world.


Thomas Hockin: You are calling the CAW workers hangmen. That is what you are doing.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I am saying that the government is so short-sighted that it cannot look at anything but the employment advantages. It has no ability to say: "Look, we have a moral obligation to the men and women in those factories to find them alternative employment. To shut them down today and find positive, alternative types of employment".
This government has done such a flip-flop. Where are the statements that the Prime Minister made less than three or four months ago, when he said: "We could be big arms merchants. We chose not to"? Now it is choosing to be when he says: "It is fundamentally inconsistent". Well, now the government has chosen to be inconsistent.
It is almost pathetic that this is one of the first bills to be brought before the House in this new session. What does that say about Canada and Canada's priorities?
We talk about economies and military spending. One begins to wonder whether the economic success of West Germany and Japan was not based in large part on the fact that after World War II, they were in no position to plough their financial resources into rearmament. Instead, they ploughed them into industrial development. They ploughed them into human resources, technology, education and training. I think that is a lesson the rest of the countries, particularly Canada, should learn.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those across this House who are scratching their heads at this moment and asking themselves why the government has chosen this moment, in a very fragile period, just after we have been embroiled in a situation of war in the Persian Gulf, to introduce legislation which sends a confusing and contradictory message to the international community.
Specifically, the confusion revolves around the fact that at the height of the hostilities, the Prime Minister of Canada made great efforts and great pains to suggest that in the post-war period Canada should take charge and be a leader in the area of arms reduction. He made a statement in February in which he said: "Left to proliferate, arms seriously threaten peace around the world". He also said, in a number of post-war initiatives: "This

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
problem must be brought under control and the time to act is now". In fact, he offered to host an international summit aimed at curbing the world arms trade.
We know the difficulty Canada's reputation suffered, specifically as a result of our involvement in hostilities which left us abandoning our historical role as a peacekeeper. But we believed that the initiatives announced by the Prime Minister were a possible ray of hope in a world that clings to the idea that we have in fact embraced a new world order.
However, with the specifics of this legislation and contrary to the position taken by the New Democratic Party, we believe that there is a place in legislation for export and import control. In fact, for many years we have called for specific legislation to permit the arms business, which has existed for many decades in Canada, to be a matter of the public record.
As the Speaker will now know, most exporting of arms is carried out by Order in Council and very specific legislation directed toward friendly countries could be a benefit because it would lay bare the facts surrounding Canada's role in the arms race.
Most people who have involved themselves in the issue of arms control were not surprised to discover, during the height of the Persian Gulf hostilities, that mercenary activity such as gun running and illegally supplying arms, for example to Iraq, was carried on through Canada. We were not surprised either to realize that the arms, in large measure, that were subsequently used to attack the forces of the United Nations were sold to Iraq legitimately by countries in the United Nations, and most specifically by the United States.
While it is true that the elements of the military equation are constantly changing and very fluid, in this party we do believe that a very specific law governing the publication of export orders would be, in effect, a positive step in terms of exposing and highlighting just where we are going on the issue of arms control.
However, we are most concerned that the specifics of this legislation will lead to a wide open sale of arms to countries that are not on the list of friendly countries. I refer specifically to the legislation as presented to the House by the Minister for International Trade in which
he spoke about the role played by the Governor in Council in terms of establishing a list of countries. We feel that this is key to the debate. He says: "According to the legislation, the Governor in Council may establish a list of countries to be called an automatic firearms country control list, including therein any country with which Canada has an intergovernmental defence, research, development and production arrangement".
However, Mr. Speaker, the word "may", as you know, is not an exclusive but rather a general wording which would in fact permit the Governor in Council to extend the list to countries beyond those which are considered friendly countries to Canada.
We know, for example, that one of the specific contracts which this particular piece of legislation was allegedly introduced to support was the sale to Saudi Arabia. We also know that notwithstanding the elements of progress we saw in the relationship as the Persian Gulf events unfolded, Saudi Arabia is still at war with the State of Israel. Saudi Arabia has not denounced the state of war with Israel and, as such, certainly is not one of the countries which would legitimately be included on the list of countries which the Governor in Council is called upon to establish by way of this legislation.
Unlike the NDP, which basically has taken the position that all current arms activity in Canada should be banned forthwith and for which it has absolutely no support in the union movement, we do not believe as a party that we can move as of this date to ban the sale of all arms, in particular to countries which are using those arms in a supportive and a defensive role.
However, we believe that the sale of arms should be public by way of very specific legislation and that the control order should be veiy tight. It should not be left up to the Governor in Council by way of regulation to play with the list as he or she sees fit.
In that context, what we are proposing are some very specific amendments which would in fact tighten the legislation to make it very clear that countries like Saudi Arabia would not be the legitimate recipients of defensive arms from Canada.
June 5, 1991

An argument was put forward by the Minister for International Trade. He argued here in this House that his particular government was not abandoning its role of arms reduction because in fact the weapons it was talking about were not weapons of mass destruction. You can be killed singly or you can be killed collectively. If you are dead you have still been hit by a weapon of destruction.
I dare say the Canadian public finds that argument rather weak, recognizing that it is the intention of the minister to basically liberalize an activity which has gone on for very many years in Canada but which clearly should be in the sunset and not the sunrise of its activity.
We agree that the Canadian economy over the next decade should not be dependent upon growth from the defence industry. But we also recognize that in the current world order we have not reached the stage of peace and stability where no arms are needed anywhere. In that context, we want to see very specific, well articulated, thoughtful legislation which lays out in the Parliament of Canada just who can receive arms from our country. That is clearly not present in this particular legislation.
Clearly the proposal of the Minister for International Trade that he is only talking about small weapons and not weapons of mass destruction, and the contradictory comments of the Prime Minister that he wants to see Canada as a country that will be leading the way in terms of arms control, simply do not come together.
[Translation\
The public perception is that this is a confusing policy, because, at one time, toward the end of the Persian Gulf war in February, the Prime Minister himself announced a peace plan in which he said he was prepared to preside over a disarmament summit aimed specifically at encouraging arms reduction in the Middle East. However, this legislation, as it stands, does exactly the opposite.
We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that with the proposal put forward by the Minister for International Trade, arms could even be sold directly to Saudi Arabia while it is still at war with the State of Israel.
The problem is that you cannot claim to want arms reduction while, at the same time, introducing a bill liberalizing our capacity to sell arms to any country.
Government Orders
Some Canadians were shocked to hear that the arms used to kill great numbers of people, including allied troops in the coalition, had indeed been sold to Iraq by the United States and other UN member countries when Iraq was at war with Iran, our alleged enemy.
We saw how quickly things changed, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are calling, first of all, for very specific legislation. It is important that exporting of arms be not carried out by a mere Order in Council, as it has been the practice for many years. At the same time, the legislation should be very specific as to which countries should be listed on the Control List and those that should not.
We know that, notwithstanding the NDP policy to the effect that no arms are sold in Canada, arms sales do take place in Canada. We have been selling arms for years. One thing is sure, if we are planning to introduce a disarmament policy, the first thing to do is to find alternate jobs for the workers in that industry.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the situation in the Middle East is still volatile and, with the China's policy setback reflected in the Tiananmen Square massacre, the new world order is not quite established.
Earlier, my hon. colleague from the NDP referred to Canada's neutrality. We are not a neutral country. As a member of an alliance, we share certain defensive responsibilities, not offensive ones, Mr. Speaker. But how are we to be expected to defend ourselves if we cannot even arm ourselves? So we do not understand the somewhat hypocritical position taken by the New Democratic Party, by those people who walk around union halls and say they are working for the unions. However, when they come here-and as far as I can see, there have not been a lot of members from Ontario who spoke to this issue-they certainly don't show a lot of courage when we discuss these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I am from Ontario-you may have forgotten that-but I am from an area where steel is the main industry. I am certainly not ashamed to say we want a clear policy, because this one is not clear. It is confusing, and it sends the wrong message to Canadians. We also want some specific amendments concerning the lists, those so-called lists drawn up by the minister. We do not want Canada to be able to sell arms to countries that are still at war with our allies.

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
That is why we intend to propose some specific amendments. We are going to do what we have to do, and one thing is certain: the bill as drafted could never be supported by the Liberal Party.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of Saudi Arabia and Israel, does the hon. member realize that when it comes to the light armoured vehicle implication of this export permit act, these are wheeled vehicles and therefore they could not be carried over the desert and therefore they are only defensive weapons with regard to Israel?
Is the hon. member aware that the member for London East, in whose riding the LAV plant is situated, very much supports this bill? Is the hon. member aware of those two points?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of the position of the member for London East who certainly has been most vocal on this particular issue. I am also aware that obviously the minister requires certain changes of legislation to facilitate this sale. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion in the House. If there is no problem with the sale of the armoured vehicles with wheels as they now exist, obviously there would be no need to be here in the House. There is a problem and we do not want to see a control order list including sale of arms by way of a vehicle where the gun will in fact be put on in another country.
We do not want to see the sale of arms to countries that are currently not on the acceptable list, because that sets the stage for the kind of situation we saw in Iraq, where the Canadian government, and other governments, saw our own allies being attacked by weapons which were sold to the Iraqis by the Americans and other allies. It was a ridiculous situation that left Canadians scratching their heads.
That is why we want to bring to bear amendments which will very specifically deal with who is on the control order list and why and ensure that that will be available public information.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in my brief time here I have found that when the hon. member for Hamilton East begins to accuse the New Democratic
Party of hypocrisy, quite often it is by way of mirror reflection.
I would like to investigate that just briefly, if I may, with specific regard to one of the most potent weapons of destruction in the Iran-Iraq war, the Cruise missile used in Baghdad and other major centres in the festival of the slaughter of the innocents in which we engaged.
Most Canadians will recall that the guidance system of the Cruise missile was manufactured and designed by Litton Industries, a subsidiary of an American parent, in Toronto, Ontario, and was done with the active approval of the former Liberal government of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau. The testing-at least the beginning of the testing-of that same guidance system over Canadian territory was also approved enthusiastically by the Liberal government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
I would just like to ask the hon. member if-


Mr. Horner:: No lover's quarrel.


Ross Harvey: Oh, there are no lovers here to have a quarrel, sir, I can assure you.
I would like to ask the hon. member how she squares her apparent distaste for certain elements in the arms trade now, with her party's enthusiastic endorsement of the development and testing of what everyone has agreed was in fact a destabilizing weapon that has come to be among the most terrible on the face of the planet.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, maybe the member did not hear the point I was making. The point I was making was the fact that while we get a very spirited condemnation of all sales of arms from the New Democratic Party, as articulated by the member opposite from Alberta, there has not been a member of the NDP from the province of Ontario who has opened his or her mouth to speak. The reason is because they are quite aware of the fact that the CAW very specifically has come out publicly in support of this particular legislation.
I am suggesting that we should put a realistic policy forward. Yes, for many years in Canada there have been arms sold and arms will continue to be sold as long as we live in a world where we are not neutral. We are not neutral at the moment and we need certain weapons of defence. But let us make sure that the control order put forth by the government specifies exactly to whom those arms are being sold and under what conditions. Those are the amendments that we are putting forward.
June 5, 1991

I do not like to have my colleague in the House stand up and decry the sale of all arms when his colleague in the riding in which they are selling the arms goes to his local union meeting and supports it. That is what I do not like and that is what I call hypocrisy.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear to my good friend from Hamilton East that I intend to speak next in this debate, unless the Conservatives are drawn into the debate. I want to raise a question with respect to that extraordinary final statement she made, which suggested that there were members of this House from the New Democratic Party who in fact had gone to labour councils-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are going to be sorry, Steven.


Steven W. Langdon: No, I am quite interested if some evidence can be brought forward of this, because certainly it is not something of which I am aware. I am not aware of my colleagues in this House having engaged in something like this.
If, in fact, any of my colleagues from the House have spoken out to local labour councils in favour of this piece of legislation, I would be very interested to hear the member provide evidence. If however there is no such evidence, I would expect the member to withdraw her statement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, an NDPer is an NDPer. The member should be aware of the fact that the member from London Centre, a minister in his friend Bob Rae's government, has spoken in favour of the legislation, as well as another member of the NDP who is sitting in Queen's Park in Toronto. Clearly with the close ties that this member has with Bob Rae and his team at Queen's Park, I am sure he should know the position being taken by the cabinet of Bob Rae.


Steven W. Langdon: To make it clear, Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, there is of course no connection between the provincial government and its policies and the federal caucus of the New Democratic Party so far.
I put the question once more to the member. She has suggested that there are members of this caucus who have spoken in favour of this piece of legislation to labour councils. There is to my knowledge no such
Government Orders
evidence any place in the province of Ontario. If she has evidence of members of this caucus having made such statements, I would ask her to document them to the House or else to withdraw a statement which clearly is not correct.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member reviews Hansard he will realize that I said NDP members. The last time I looked the minister from London Centre was an NDP member of the Legislative Assembly in the province of Ontario to which the member has associated himself on many occasions. I am sure he will reflect on the fact that at least two members of the NDP party-of which he is a member in the province of Ontario-now sitting in the Legislative Assembly at Queen's Park are in favour of this bill and speak in favour of it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to follow my friend from Hamilton East who, as usual, has straddled the fence magnificently with respect to a difficult issue of principle. In other words, she made a speech which took the classic Liberal position of saying that: "If it is necessary to have legislation, well we would have better legislation than this but of course we would not want to give the impression that we were in favour of encouraging world arms trade", when in fact what this piece of legislation is about is precisely encouraging the world arms trade and perhaps most unfortunately, encouraging Canada's participation in that world arms trade.
I think that we should not have illusions or permit illusions to be put forward to people across this country about what this particular piece of legislation is about. It is not a piece of legislation which is designed, as the member for Hamilton East would suggest, to set up some kind of system of regulation, some system to let us see what is actually happening because we do not know what is actually happening. In fact, it is a piece of legislation which amends laws which already exist in this country, which prohibit the export of various weapons to countries around the world. It is not that we do not have, at the moment, ways of seeing to it that we have a record of what takes place with respect to imports and exports of arms. We have such records. What we do not have, up to this point, is the possibility of getting around those constraints as a country.

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
Perhaps the most telling part of this piece of legislation is clause 8. This particular clause amends the previous legislation which deals with imports and export permits. Let me just read from the present legislation:
Every one who imports, buys, sells, barters, gives, lends, transfers or delivers a prohibited weapon or any component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture or assembly of a prohibited weapon
(a)	is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b)	is guilty of an offence punishable in summary conviction.
That is what the present law says. It prohibits certain weapons from being exported or delivered from this country.
What does this new piece of legislation do? It basically repeats that existing commitment, but then it adds to that which is described in this legislation as a saving provision, "Notwithstanding subsection (1)", which is the subsection that I just quoted. It continues:
-a person who carries on a business described in paragraph 105(l)(b) may export or import for a purpose that the Governor in Council prescribes by regulation to be an industrial purpose a prohibited weapon described in paragraph (c) or (e)- if that person does so under and in accordance with an export permit or an import permit, as the case may be, issued under the Export and Import Permits Act.
In short, what we have is the provision of a new loophole which makes it possible for the government to export what had previously been prohibited weapons under the present Import and Export Permits Act. That is at the heart of this legislation. It has nothing to do, as the member for Hamilton East suggested, with whether or not we produce arms in this country.
Of course, it is important for us in this country to continue to produce the arms of which our armed forces make use. Nobody in this party is suggesting that the arms which are produced for our armed forces should cease to be produced in this country. Nobody is suggesting that we should abolish the armed forces of Canada or that we should rely on imported weapons for those armed forces. Such nonsense.
The whole issue which the member for Hamilton East so successfully, unfortunately, tried to avoid is the question of whether we are going to permit prohibited weapons from being exported in the future. That is the issue. The Liberal Party is supporting this legislation, for what reason I cannot understand, but it is legislation which will have the effect of putting Canada in the centre of the world arms trade, as opposed to the not insignificant, but nevertheless fairly marginal position which we have had in that trade in the past.
The Liberal Party is in favour of us, as a country, being part, to a much greater extent, of the world arms trade and we in the New Democratic Party are proud to say that we are not in favour of that kind of expansion of Canada's participation in the world arms trade.
In my view, and I speak as a member from Ontario, as somebody from a constituency with many members from the Canadian Auto Workers, it would be a serious mistake for this country to move in that direction.
There are at least four reasons that I want to talk about that convince me that this would be a serious mistake. First, if we look at many of the Third World countries to which we provide billions of dollars of aid, which is often felt by many people in our country to be desperately needed here at home, but aid which is, nevertheless, provided by Canada and which we support providing, because it will help poor people in the Third World and give them some sense of hope for the future.
The reality is that much of that aid at the moment ends up providing foreign exchange to those Third World countries which is wasted on the build-up of huge armies, which is wasted on the destruction of neighbouring countries and which is wasted in civil wars. It just does not make sense for us as a country to, on the one hand, be providing help to Third World countries for water supplies, for housing and for food assistance and, on the other hand, to be increasing this world arms trade which is So destructive to many people and many regimes in Third World countries.
Second, our movement as a country into more involvement in the international arms trade contradicts completely the statements and commitments which this
June 5, 1991

government made in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf war.
Some of my colleagues have quoted from some of those commitments. I do not want to simply reproduce some of the government's statements, but I cannot help but point out what the previous minister of external affairs said on March 8. He said: "We cannot let a victory become a truce, an occasion for nations to re-arm, re-group and return to battle." For that reason, he suggested that there should be action to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the arms trade, the constant chase for spheres of influence.
This piece of legislation before us directly contradicts what the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested at that time in those statements. The Prime Minister was even more straightforward. He said: "We have all the technology in the world. We have all the resources we need. We could be big arms merchants. We chose not to be, although it is a very lucrative business. We have chosen not to be because it is fundamentally inconsistent with our policy to develop it, to peddle it, to finance it and then to deplore its use".
All I can hope is that members on the government side will listen this time to their Prime Minister. They will recognize that those words, which were said on March 13 by the Prime Minister of this country, require them to vote against a piece of legislation which takes us directly and deeply into the world arms trade.
I also want to point out that when we get into providing arms to Third World countries, arms to countries in the Middle East-and the suggestion here is that this is going to permit arms sales to Saudi Arabia-we open ourselves up to the possibility of providing arms that prop up regimes which often have human rights records which are absolutely deplorable.
Let me quote, for instance, from Amnesty International's report from 1990 with respect to Saudi Arabia. It says:
At least 27 prisoners of conscience were imprisoned and other prisoners of conscience may have been among more than 70 detainees held without charge or trial. Some political detainees were held without trial in prolonged incommunicado detention. Torture was reportedly common and one death in custody may have been caused by torture or ill-treatment. Sentences of amputation and flogging continued to be imposed and carried out. At least 111 persons were executed, 16 of them for political offences.
Government Orders
Those are the people to whom we are going to provide Canadian arms? That is shameful.
Finally, I want to point out, as a representative of an industrial constituency in Ontario, that in fact the money which is spent on the arms industry provides far less in the way of jobs than money which is spent in other sectors of our economy. For instance, a study which was done in the late 1970s indicated that at that time a billion dollars worth of spending on the military industry would create just under 45,000 jobs, while the same amount of money spent on the medicare industry, with respect to nurses, would create 85,000 jobs. That is almost twice as many.
That has changed even since that time in a way that has made the provision of money for the arms trade and for the military industry even less able to produce jobs than was the case in the late 1970s.
We have to begin to explore the conversion of our industries from arms production and arms export to the production of military related goods for our own country, yes, but more important to the production of industrial commodities and other commodities and services which serve our country and which serve people and people's needs rather than kill people and help to suppress human rights, as the comments with respect to Saudi Arabia indicate.
That is the direction we have to take. It is a direction which many countries in western Europe are taking. Companies in Britain and in other parts of western Europe have explored ways of converting their industries from arms production, military hardware and involvement in the international arms trade, to the production of items which are important to people's social and human needs.
That is the direction we must take in this country. It is not a direction which means that we intend to eliminate arms production for our Armed Forces. It is not a direction which is going to eliminate jobs in London or in Kitchener overnight. In that sense, it is not like the free trade deal, which has had such effects in London, in Kitchener, in Windsor and in hundreds of other communities throughout Ontario.
Instead, what we are looking for is an approach which will stop us from becoming part of the problem of the international arms trade, providing jobs for Canadians by meeting human needs instead of killing human beings.

June 5, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretaiy to the government House leader.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there have been discussions among the three parties, and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, Mr. Speaker:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 119.1(2), the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to permit audio tape recording, by the broadcast media, for the duration of its order of reference under Standing Order 108(2) respecting consideration of the immigration to Canada of Mohamed Al-Mashat.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the word of the parliamentary secretary but we have attempted to verify this with the opposition House leader who I understand will be here momentarily. I am just wondering if the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader would not mind waiting to put the motion perhaps after the next speaker terminates in 10 minutes or so. I understand we are on to 10 minute speeches.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, perhaps what we could do is indicate that the House supports the motion, subject to the approval of the House leader who would come in at a later time if he objected. I have no problem with that. It is just that my schedule pulls me away from here now so I do not want to tie up the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that on behalf of the New Democratic Party we certainly support this motion in an effort to clarify some of the proceedings that are taking place in that committee.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I attended the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade where this subject matter was discussed. I believe there is unanimous consent from all parties, particularly from this party.
Perhaps, while I am on my feet, the parliamentary secretary might indicate whether he is in a position today to tell us whether the television broadcasting of those particular hearings is a matter which can be adjudicated with the same speed with which this particular matter has been resolved. Can he give us any indication with regards to television?


Albert Glen Cooper: I thank the hon. member for his representation. I can inform him that at the House management committee we have begun discussions relating to the whole question of the televising of committees. We are presently seized with the report of the previous Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The committee, I hope in the very near future, will be developing the necessary guidelines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there were no questions or comments. Debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-6, an act respecting the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am naturally delighted to participate in this debate. I wanted to begin with a quote from the book of Isaiah regarding the changing of weapons into ploughshares. I will do that later if time permits.
June 5, 1991

I want to quote from a past President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Many years ago he made the following comment: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in this final scene, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed; those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the houses of its children. This is not a way of life. Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron".
What we are discussing today is nothing short of sinister. What we are discussing is really a complete reversal of what I think most Canadians believe to be one of the very fundamental theses of Canadian society, and that is that we are a peaceful country. We believe in peacekeeping. We believe in promoting peace in whatever way possible. This government is asking the House of Commons to permit Canada to enter the arms race in a serious way.
I think what we are being asked to do today is absolutely disgusting. I think it is absolutely incredible that the government is now taking this particular action after the comments of some of the critical spokespersons for the government. I want to quote from a speech made by the Prime Minister in this city on February 8, this year, referring to the gulf war: "One of the main lessons to be learned from the war is the danger to us all of the proliferation of both conventional and non-conventional weapons".
He went on to say:
"The major arms exporting firms and nations have contributed to the current crisis. The great majority of weapons in Iraq's arsenal came from suppliers in the countries of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This problem must be brought under control and the time to act is now".
We all thought the Prime Minister meant that the world would be moved to get out of the arms race, to start de-escalating the arms race. We thought that was what he meant. He went on to say: "When the war is over, the world community must co-operate to prevent the proliferation of these weapons and to roll back that proliferation which has already occurred".
The people of Canada thought the Prime Minister said that Canada ought to play some leadership role in the
Government Orders
de-escalation of the arms race. On February 20 of this year, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and I quote from a speech that he made in London, England: "I believe it is imperative that the world declare that there be no Middle East arms bazaar. Ninety-five per cent of the weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein came from the five permanent members of the Security Council". He goes on and on to say that Canada ought to be playing a leadership role.
Again, we thought the leadership role was to take Canada in positions in which we de-escalate. What we have is the spectacle, in spite of the comments of the Prime Minister of Canada and the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member from Alberta, of the government introducing legislation to encourage the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.
Not hundreds of vehicles but nearly one thousand vehicles, mounted with automatic weapons, were negotiated on a government to government basis from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Government of Canada to enable General Motors of Canada to get into the arms race in a major way.
Another deal is to encourage automatic weapons sales to the Netherlands. It goes on and on and on. If I had time I would read into the record pages and pages from this armaments book from Canada which lists all of the various technologies, all of the weapons that Canada produces for sale abroad. There is this sort of attitude on the part of most Canadians that Canada is not participating in this activity.
Year after year in the city of Ottawa we have the ARMX bazaar. This is the arms bazaar to which weapons' buyers come from all over the world to look at all the displays. I have been there myself and I could not believe what I was seeing. There were all kinds of machine guns, tanks, rocket systems, explosives, things that you can throw, things that you can shoot and it goes on and on and on. In other words, it is a whole bazaar of weapons of destruction sponsored and encouraged, in part, by the Canadian government. It happens right here in the capital city and arms merchants from around the world come here to shop.
At Suffield, Alberta, we have ongoing research into chemical warfare, but today while the government on one hand is bringing in legislation to restrict Canadian ownership of shotguns and rifles, it is bringing in legislation to encourage Canadian firms to get into the arms

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
exportation business. There is a certain element of conflict here and a certain element of hypocrisy.
When we listen to the statements by the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs condemning the arms race and at the same time slipping in, via the other hand, legislation to encourage arms exports, it is no wonder the people of Canada wonder what on earth this government is up to.
Last year Canada's arms export was worth nearly $2 billion. This places Canada in the top 15 arms exporting countries of the world. I do not think Canadians know this. I do not think Canadians want to know this.
I know that the explanation by the minister, who sponsors this piece of peculiar and odd legislation, is that it will create jobs. I suppose, using that argument, we can get into the heroin business, we can get into the prostitution business and we can get into the drug dealing business. They all produce jobs, if that is the motive. Surely to goodness there is not a single member of Parliament who is not aware that a dollar invested in education, in construction of housing, in child care or in hospitals is a dollar that will create a lot more jobs than a dollar going into the arms industry. We all know that. If we want jobs, well then let us invest more into housing which Canadians need, and let us invest more into education and hospital care which Canadians need. If that is our motive we should be doing that.
The argument that we need this to create jobs is a bogus argument. If we permit this legislation, and this is why I oppose it so strongly as do all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, then what is next? This is a sale of troop vehicles, with automatic weapons attached to them, to Saudi Arabia. All right, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is going to get hundreds of these vehicles from Canada indirectly through the United States.
What else do we get into? In other words, what we are saying is that if this passes the door is open to get into the arms export business in whatever way Canadian firms wish.
I want to say that it was one of the saddest days of my life when we decided to discuss legislation here to privatize Canadian Arsenals. You remember that day, Mr. Speaker, you were here. We wanted a Crown
corporation in place to facilitate the development of military equipment and so on when Canada needed it.
It was a Crown corporation that permitted us in the threat of war or allowed us very quickly to mobilize an industry that could expand to fulfil and support Canada in its obligations. But when the threat of war was over and when the need was over, it could shrink up very quickly and those people could find jobs elsewhere. That was the theory of that Crown corporation.
It was in the ammunition business as well, and for us it made a lot of sense.
Now, of course, we have increasing numbers of private sector firms in the arms business. Their motive is one thing only: not the protection of Canada, not the protection of our sovereignty, but to maximize profits for their firms. That is the legitimate motive.
Once we get into that business of encouraging firms to get into the arms business, we are not just going to encourage them to keep expanding their businesses, which means expanding more and more into the arms production industry.
Is this what Canadians want? Is this the kind of country we want? No, it is not.
I see that my time is very limited. I simply want to say that we are speaking today on the principle of the bill. The principle is: Do we as a country wish to get into the arms export business? Do we as a country want to have legislation to facilitate private sector firms getting into the exporting of arms and weaponry throughout the world?
That is the question. That is the principle we are debating. I say no, we do not. I am extremely proud to say that the party with which I am associated says no, we do not want Canada to become a major arms player in the world.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to another quote from the former President of the United States, as referred to by the previous speaker.
I would also like to congratulate the previous speaker on a very fine speech and for so succinctly assessing the situation as we found it.

President Eisenhower referred to one of the major threats to democracy, to the United States and to the freedom thereof. I am paraphrasing. We all know that he was referring to the military industrial complex.
I do not think there is anything to be gained by Canada in the expansion of the military industrial complex in this country as certainly this legislation would do. For that reason alone-a good enough reason and there are others-I stand here very proud to be opposing this legislation.
I guess it is impossible to address the matter of arms so soon after the conflict we have had in the gulf without somehow or another putting that conflict into the discussion.
I have a list here. There have been references made to the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations having sold arms to Iraq, but there are others as well. I would be a bit repetitive in mentioning that the United States has sold weapons to Iraq. We are still referring to the gulf conflict.
Egypt sold weapons to the country of Iraq. Kuwait sold weapons to Iraq, as did China and the Soviet Union. Italy and Great Britain did the same. This is not an exhaustive list of those who sold, but the point is that certainly the United States, Egypt, and the United Kingdom were directly involved in the confrontation in the gulf.
If there is anything that can come out of the gulf that we should be grateful for, it is that the devastation of lives was not more extensive than it was. It was bad enough.
If you look at the state of Kuwait, one cannot help but notice that it suffered the greatest devastation of all outside the country of Iraq itself.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the joy-we can hardly call it that-which must today be felt by the citizens of Kuwait as they realize that they themselves helped to arm the very country which has wrought such destruction upon the country of Kuwait? To a greater or lesser extent that is the kind of situation which any country gets itself involved in whenever there is selling of arms.
There have been references made previously to Canada and the arms industry here. There have been references to what my party has said in relation to the
Government Orders
production of arms. I would like to reiterate, as one of the previous members of my party has already said, that of course there is no question Canada should not have Armed Forces. There is no question that the armaments for the most part and to whatever extent is possible, should be manufactured in Canada.
What we are saying is that we are not interested in expanding the military industrial complex in this country to the point where we are arming other nations and the very weapons we sell are used against us. Hopefully our peacekeeping capability and integrity will be restored.
The present legislation as it refers to the sale of arms from Canada is predicated on four different things: that there be no threat of selling arms from Canada to our allies; that we not sell arms to a country that is involved or is in imminent threat of becoming involved in hostilities, to a country that is under UN sanctions, or to a country where violations of human rights are occurring in any way.
I do not think there is any point in singling out Saudi Arabia, which happens to be the country most directly involved in this arms sale. I would not suggest for a moment that there is anyone here who would possibly believe an assurance that this legislation was brought in only for the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. This legislation is just the opening of the door for the sale of Canadian arms, wherever possible the expanded military industrial complex can sell them.
I think in the immediate context it should be pointed out and reiterated that Saudi Arabia has been cited by Amnesty International. This is the same Amnesty International which the government quoted extensively, pointing out how vicious the Iraqi government was and using Amnesty International records to show that.
If we are going to stand in a debate in this House and cite Amnesty International in one context where hostilities are occurring, we have to do it in all cases.
I realize I only have 10 minutes to speak, but I would like to perhaps summarize a little bit later on. I only have two minutes left.
I have to point out now that Saudi Arabia has also been cited by Amnesty International for violations of human rights. This is something that I think should be emphasized as strongly as possible.

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
There are alternatives to the manufacture of arms. For years and years, if anyone cared to listen, such imaginative people, inventors, philosophers, whatever, such as Buckminster Fuller, have proposed alternate uses of the facilities for the production of destruction, ways to be able to turn them into peaceful uses.
There are alternatives.
For a member of the government to sit there and say that because we take this stand on this legislation that we are somehow calling the United Auto Workers murderers, for God's sake, is to lower the level of this debate to something which we on this side of the House have become accustomed to, I grant you, but certainly takes it to a lower level than we have ever had in a debate in this House before.
There are alternatives. I would suggest that rather than trying to sell more arms, what this country ought to be doing is showing leadership within the United Nations, where I would suggest we should be saying: "Listen, world, this situation has gone far too far; we have to start, for example, paying attention to what Amnesty International is saying". We should be saying to the world that we are willing to let the United Nations become involved in our internal affairs. That could be dangerous for us as well, but we should also be saying that if we are in a new world order, then the United Nations has to be able to become involved in the internal affairs of all nations. Perhaps we can do a lot toward eliminating the need for even the manufacture of arms itself.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to put my hands on the quotes from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I will do that in a minute.
I just want to make a few remarks on this bill. I am very interested in the issue of arms exports. I have been in this House of Commons some 12 years and I have constantly raised the issue of the transport of arms, especially to the Third World.
I raised the subject before in the context of "Irangate" where Trans-World Arms of Montreal was right in the thick of sending arms both to the Contras in Nicaragua and to Iran. Quite frankly, it was quite hard to get the
Canadian House of Commons or the Canadian media, and consequently the Canadian people, interested in this issue until the issue finally appeared in the American nightly news with Dan Rather, and when people found out that in Ollie North's safe in the White House there was evidence that a Canadian company was deeply involved in the illegal transport of arms.
It has been an issue that I am particularly interested in. I raised it again here in the House of Commons with respect to this particular deal, that is, the export of light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, about an $800 million contract, and the other $100 million or so contract for the sale of guns, ammunition and so on to the Netherlands.
I had a press conference and no one came to it. No one seemed to be interested until the government brought forward a bill and now they are really interested. I think there has been some really interesting debate on this issue in the House of Commons.
It is not an easy question; it is a sad question, and it is a difficult question. It is easy to give rhetoric to it and one can shout about it from both sides, but I would just like to spend my short period here in this debate on a couple of points.
One of the points is a small but important point that was emphasized by the member for Kamloops a few minutes ago. That was the point of privatization. What happens when you privatize Canadian Arsenals, for example, and make it a private company? What can happen?. When we had a company like Canadian Arsenals, we could build it up when we needed it in the second world war or the Korean war and we could employ more people and make more guns and ammunition for the Canadian Armed Forces. Then, when we were a country at peace again, we could phase it down, because it was a matter of government policy. It was a Crown corporation and we could make other jobs for the workers. We could move them around to other jobs in the civil service or we could make sure they were looked after properly.
By and large, that worked. Once you privatized it, you got Diemaco of Kitchener. In order to survive, it has to go farther than the Canadian government contract for the armed forces and it has to export arms.
Once again, then, Canada becomes like many other countries in the business of exporting arms.
June 5, 1991

In a way, I have some sympathy. I will be frank and honest with General Motors in this particular contract. After all, it was the Department of External Affairs that went out and helped it get this contract with Saudi Arabia and promoted these contracts.
That seems to be the new role of External Affairs. It used to be that it was Canadian foreign policy. It used to be that it helped Canadian citizens when they were in trouble abroad or when they needed help as they went to a foreign country.
Now, its major role seems to be as a big trade department to promote sales of Canadian goods. Of course, one of the Canadian goods is arms. It leaves the government in contradictory situations making contradictory statements.
I was just examining the exchange in the House of Commons that I took part in on May 23 of this year. I cited the previous minister of external affairs, the right hon. Joe Clark. He said: "If there is one lesson which the world must learn from this war, it is that an unrestricted arms trade in this region, the Middle East, is no longer acceptable and constitutes a threat to the security of all members of the United Nations".
Of course, it looks contradictory to the average Canadian when the government then brings in this bill saying: "All right, let's export arms to the Middle East."
I asked this question of the Minister for International Trade in the House of Commons.


An hon. member:: What did he say?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He tried to weasel out of it, quite frankly, by saying: "Mr. Clark meant restricted weapons".
Examine the phrase: "Unrestricted arms trade in this region". We are restricting the arms trade to this region. Who is he trying to kid? The fact is that the government has this contract. It has to change the law, and it is doing that.
It puts the government in a contradictory situation. The Prime Minister and the former minister of external affairs said: "Look, the Middle East is a dangerous area". There have been 26 wars since 1945 and there is only one peace treaty, which is between Israel and Egypt.
Everybody knows what kind of area it is and that there can be other wars there. The Prime Minister was right
Government Orders
and the minister of external affairs was right. Now, there is a contradiction here.
We cannot be holier than thou in this matter, and we should not pretend to be. Sweden has a socialist government. France has a socialist government. Name some other countries with socialist governments that export arms.
The late Rajiv Gandhi got into trouble when he was Prime Minister because of contracts with Sweden involving kickbacks and so on. This arms industry is a cancer in the world, and we have to blot it out. It takes political courage to do it.
One person who had some real political courage was the head of the machinists' union in the United States. He is now retired. His name was William Wimpensinger. They used to call him "Wimpy". He was no wimp, this man.
He went around to the machinists in the States and said: "I know we are going to lose some jobs if we cut back the arms industry, but by God, we have to do it or we are going to kill this world. We can find better jobs, brothers and sisters, outside the arms industry." That took political courage.
It is not easy for our party, quite frankly, to get up and oppose this bill.
I want to conclude by saying that it is easy to make a buck off arms, and we are starting to do that. However, we know that disarmament is tied into world development. Both of them are related. There are really two steps to the development of the Third World in the 21st century.
One is that the major powers give up making those weapons, and put some of that money into development. There is another aspect. This is where the Minister for International Trade missed again in the House of Commons when he said to me in his reply: "We were talking about weapons of mass destruction, and not about guns and light-armoured vehicles".
A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. If someone is killed by a bullet, they still are killed. If they are killed by a nuclear bomb, they are killed. If they are killed by a light-armoured vehicle and a bullet, whether in the townships of South Africa, in Central America or in the Middle East and so on, they still die.

June 5, 1991
Government Orders
More important, we keep sending these weapons- they are small weapons it could be argued-to Third World governments and governments throughout the world which use them on their own people, which use this kind of police force and this kind of anti-democratic system of government. This keeps down development.
There are two steps to development. One is eliminating the big weapons to have a peace dividend and the other is stopping the distribution of smaller weapons.
It would take political courage for a government to say we are not going to do it, we are not going to get into the international arms trade.
I sometimes think it might be nice to be an American congressman. They have a lot of power, a lot more power than we have as members of Parliament. Sometimes I really feel sorry for the American congressmen in many ways. They constantly have to defend weapons and defence contracts in their own constituencies and they cannot eliminate that cancer or oppose it. We are lucky here. We can oppose it. We can say to our union brothers and sisters: "Sorry, but the principle is more important. We can't get into this international arms trade".
The government is inconsistent. The government is wrong. It is so ironic that tomorrow we are going to debate gun control in Canada and today we are debating gun export to the world. It is wrong. It is simply wrong.
My friend, the member for Kamloops, was going to quote the Bible and I think he had to finish before he could do that. That is appropriate. In the past there have been numerous politicians from Kamloops who have been very good at quoting the Bible but he is right on this. The biblical quote was essentially the one about turning your swords into ploughshares.
One of the great times of my life was when as a young student I went to the United Nations for the first time and saw that great statue in front of the United Nations which is literally a picture of a sword being turned into a ploughshare. This government is not doing that. It is turning ploughshares into swords. That is shameful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the legislative committee.


Mr. Chartrand:: Mr. Speaker, I did not arrive in time for the vote, but if I had been here, I would have voted with the government.


Mr. Hawkes:: Point of order. There have been some informal consultations and I think you would find a consensus in the House to call it seven o'clock, which would enable us to move immediately to private members' hour.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being seven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30 the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake) moved:: Thai, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish a Bill of Environmental Rights to empower Canadians to fight polluters and guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthy environment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the importance of this motion to all Canadians could never be over-stated and it is most important that I am presenting this motion on World Environment Day during Environment Week, 1991.
Canadians from coast to coast to coast are all too aware that our environment teeters on the brink of irreparable destruction. Cynical attempts by governments to buffer big businesses' continued practice of sacrificing our land, our air and our water to cheap and

June 5, 1991
Private Members' Business
easy profits do nothing but sell off our childrens' right to a healthful future.
Tracts of forests one-third the size of Japan are sold to Japanese industry while our Prime Minister travels to that country and cosies up to their top big business executives to encourage more selling of our deteriorating forest. Our forest is shrinking. It is not being regenerated at the same rate that it is being removed. These forests are our lungs and home to countless disappearing species with which we share our country. We should be stewards of wild life, not executioners. Much of our disappearing forest will simply not be there for our children.
Water, air and land pollution continues to fume, spout and pour forth from industry and communities at an ever-increasing rate. Our fragile ecosystems cannot cope with the ravaging of violent toxins slathered across our environment. Government continues to support businesses' efforts to avoid often costly cleanups and environment impact studies of projects. Northern and remote residents, cottagers and tourists alike watch with frustration, shame and disbelief as acid rain continues to kill our lakes and rivers. The government's refusal to accept plans to phase in a long-term strategy of zero discharge for toxic effluents confound increasing attempts by individuals and communities to combat toxic biocide.
But our laws have not kept pace with the times. During the 1960s and 1970s, more and more Canadians raised their voices against environmental destruction and more and more of these people spoke with one voice. DDT, destruction of farm land and mercury poisoning were but a few of the key issues of the time. But our legal system still favours the polluter and environmentally hazardous developers over those who would give of their time and energy to protect, not to destroy, our environment.
Our citizens do not currently have the right to take sufficient action to protect the environment. The government's refusal to proceed with a serious environmental assessment bill serves only to underscore the unwillingness of cabinet to protect our nation's skin and tissue from pollution by eager developers who would sacrifice not only our environment but entire cultures, like the Cree facing the James Bay II project. The solution is no mystery. The collective expertise and experience of environmentalists and environmental organizations have produced reports which lay the basis for a very clear and effective environmental assessment bill,
but the government instead, turned the volume up on big business opposition to effective environmental assessment and refused to listen to what environmentalists had to say.
Our government may have the power to stop these acts, but as is the case, time after time after time, with Point Aconi, Kemano James Bay, Rafferty-Alameda and so on, our government has not the will or the backbone to listen to Canadians and put a stop to treating the environment like a sacrificial lamb on the altar of quick profit.
In fact, just last week the government had the opportunity to demonstrate a real commitment to the environment, but they chose not to do so.
All previous parliamentary business died when the House began a new session with a new throne speech on May 13. The government's then C-78 legislation, an act to establish an environmental assessment process had not passed and all testimony heard by the legislative committee studying that bill suggested that this was the best thing to happen to C-78, that it should have been put aside and the bill rewritten.
The government was given the opportunity to bring in new legislation which reflected an understanding of the need for a sound, well designed assessment process. But instead, they chose to reintroduce C-78, as if it had never died. C-78 is now C-13, a bad news number for a bad news bill. C-13 is the same old flawed and unsatisfactory bill that C-78 was, and it should not be that way.
The new Minister of the Environment had a golden opportunity to demonstrate that he had a real commitment to the environment and that he had listened to the experts on this bill. Instead, the new minister has taken up where the old minister left off and none of us are any better off. There is still no environmental assessment legislation in place in Canada.
I remain committed to developing a better assessment bill, and will continue to work to secure one for Canadians and their children who will inherit this mess that we are leaving behind.
The green plan had also presented the perfect window of opportunity to turn the comer away from continued escalation of pollution. But the government chose to turn this window of opportunity for positive change into a door to the trough for the friends of government. Green plan moneys are being squandered on pre-election ploys and we all lose because of it.
June 5, 1991

According to information gained through Freedom of Information requests, the federal government has spent more than $7 million on advertising-and public relations exercises around the green plan. To me, if the green plan was as good as the government says it is, no selling job would have been required, nor would the government have had to spend $12,000 on picture frames, $10,000 on lapel pins or $150,000 on communications advice from a private consulting firm.
Canadians already know that they want their government to work on the environment. The polls tell us that the environment rates high on Canadians' list of priority issues. Canadians are willing to support action on the environment. But $10,000 for lapel pins does nothing for the environment.
Obviously the sales job was not for the environment, it was for the Conservative party whose free trade agreement and goods and services tax have angered Canadians from coast to coast. Seven million dollars in taxpayers' money on the green plan should not have been directed for this clearly partisan purpose. The Tories should have used their own money in this shameful promotion.
It is equally shameful that we still have no measures to ensure that such a basic right as safe drinking water for all Canadians, a disgrace made absurd by the amount of fresh water available within our borders and made criminal due to the government's trade deal and the move to export more water to the United States industry, while so many Canadian citizens are denied fresh water to drink.
The current round of constitutional talks provides an opportunity to renew the values upon which our nation is founded, values of environmental respect and stewardship. I am proud that the leader of our party has called for an environmental accord to protect not only our resources, but our jobs as well. Any new constitutional accord must include a stronger recognition of environmental as well as social and economic rights.
What better measure to unite Canadians from coast to coast to coast? Polls and simple logic both show that our environment, the world in which we live, work and play, is a top priority for Canadians. This tremendous will to do something before it is too late should be harnessed to build a strong Canada. Pollution does not respect boundaries, it is a preventable disease which knows no borders.
Private Members' Business
A bill of rights would go a long way to dealing with these issues for many, many years to come. It would be central to the much needed integration of economic planning, social considerations and environmental protection. Instead the government continues daily to push changes which make environmental matters worse.
The Mexican trade deal is a case in point. Our government has mouthed the words of United States government and business by refusing to integrate environmental concerns into the trade negotiations. What shameful and backward thinking.
A bill of rights is the step that is needed to bring our laws into the last decade of the 20th century. A bill of rights would guarantee: "That people have the right to clean air, pure water and the preservation of natural, scenic, historical and aesthetic values of the environment."
Those words were from a private members' bill introduced some time ago by Ruth Grier, a member of the Ontario legislature and now the new Ontario Minister of the Environment. As minister, Ms. Grier has begun a process which will see the province of Ontario try to fill the gap created by this federal government as Ontario moves towards its own environmental bill of rights.
I have just returned from the Yukon where another NDP government, led by Premier Tony Penikett has introduced its own environmental bill. Here too we see that the territory is enshrining the right to a healthful, natural environment in their legislation and is therefore a leader among all legislators in this marvellous land we call Canada.
The federal government, in turn, has the obligation to conserve and maintain our environment for future generations. This is not a new idea. The Canadian Environmental Law Association has been pushing for an environmental bill of rights since at least 1970.
Any one person, or group of persons, who believe that a polluter is contaminating or degrading our environment, deserves the right to know the minister responsible will proceed in a serious way to determine the extent and nature of the problem, and be supported by legislation to give the government the power to stop, alter or otherwise change any existing or proposed project. Such a bill of rights would shift the burden of proof to the polluter, after establishing that environmental damage is the likely result of their action or their proposed project.

June 5, 1991
Private Members' Business
Such a bill of rights would give people the right to sue polluters, thrusting us finally into the role of nurturing stewards of our land. In this way we have much to learn from our indigenous people, who for so many years have tended and respected our environment.
It reminds me of a meeting this afternoon of the environment committee of this House where the Minister of the Environment told the members of the committee that he would like to see, through the green plan, the empowering of people on the environment. Nothing would empower the people more than a bill of rights. Such a bill of rights would ensure whistle blowing protection so that any worker has protection of the law in blowing the whistle on an employer who causes serious pollution, excessive waste of energy or deliberate or accidental contamination or degradation of our land, air or water. Workers deserve this right because not only will that go a long way toward preventing pollution at the source, but these workers who see big business pollution going on, know full well it is their children who will suffer from the effect of this environmental damage. Buyers and users of land have the right to be protected from buying polluted tracts of land, and consumers have the right to be able to choose and expect increasingly environmentally friendly products and packaging when there must be any packaging at all.
The people of our communities across this country deserve the right to sue the government and ensure that laws are enforced. There have been hundreds of cases in the United States where the Environmental Protection Agency has been sued on this basis. The majority of cases has been successful.
A bill of rights must also deal with the issue of compensation for workers who lose or must alter their livelihood because of essential environmental protection measures. Of course, workers through their organizations must be central to the decision-making process which concerns all dealings with the environment and particularly those which impact on industry and their jobs. Most importantly, all citizens must have the right to
be directly involved in this process through tribunals and panels.
Community based input is essential to ensure community based support for serious long-term environmental protection. People in communities deserve to be involved in all aspects of environmental decision making, the setting of standards and controls, the review of permits and regulations. They should receive adequate notice about all orders and regulations relating to control standards and public participation in decisions.
All members of this House should support this bill. Our environment is not something which we can leave until another time. There is no other time. Environmental organizations and community groups have made it all too clear to each and every member of Parliament in this House.
Today is the day to act. Today is the day to become a government with a commitment to the environment, a commitment to our children's future and our planet's future. Tomorrow is far, far too late.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, for introducing this bill which, I must say, I fully support.

I want to congratulate my colleague. He and I sat on the committee on Bill C-78 together. I know the environment is something he takes very much to heart. I support the bill. I support the initiative.
That being said, there are certain nuances that I would like to draw in the differences of opinion between him and me, and then there are certain fundamental differences which I would also like to bring to the attention of this House.
In terms of the nuances, the smaller differences, I do not believe that it was necessary in presenting this bill, which as he so properly said should involve all members of this House and indeed all of the Canadian people, for him to engage in a particularly blanket and vicious attack on Canadian entrepreneurs. It is not fair and it is not appropriate.
June 5, 1991

I am sure that if he were to review his remarks, he would really understand that it is not all business, not all of the private sector that engages in unlawful pollution. Yes, there are some businesses which do so and they should indeed suffer penalties. Let us not engage in universal condemnation.
At the same time I am sure that the member would want to recognize that there are other bodies who pollute, governments for instance, and municipalities that are not prepared to clean up their act. I am sure that the member, again if he were to go through his remarks, would not be so fulsome in his praise of the NDP government of Ontario. Indeed, the major environmental thrust in Ontario was due to the hon. James Bradley, the Liberal minister of the environment in that province. 1 am sure he would share again with me, if he were to review what he had said, the deep disappointment of the people of Ontario with the fact that the NDP government which did not expect to take power simply engaged in a lot of promises and has let the environmental community down very badly.
Let us go now to some of the more substantive differences of opinion between myself and this member, whom I admire greatly, and his legislation which indeed I ultimately support.
There is no doubt that the member for The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake is right when he says that the purpose of this legislation is to empower people to force governments to obey their laws.
He is also right when he examines the evolution of the EARP guidelines brought in by a federal Liberal government. Those guidelines, which were meant to bring polluters to heel by this unfortunate Conservative government, were simply regarded as guidelines. It has been successive court decisions which have forced the government to live up to its responsibility.
The member is right as well when he says that what is now happening is that we have guidelines that have the force of law. This government with C-78, now C-13, is attempting to bring in legislation which would only have the force of guidelines.
An environmental bill of rights is necessary to empower people.
Where I would disagree, with the member however, is how to empower people. It is not sufficient to only bring in an environmental bill of rights. That bill of rights must
Private Members' Business
have certain teeth. There are two suggestions that I would make to the member, within the context of the goodwill that exists and my support for his bill. The first is the absolute need for third party intervenor funding. It is not enough to simply empower people if, as a result of empowering them, we are ultimately going to bankrupt them as they begin the lengthy degree of court cases in an attempt to force government to live up to its own legislation.
Third party funding, which the current government has refused in the case of C-78, now C-13, on any kind of a reasonable level in virtually every court case, is essential if the Canadian people are to be allowed to expand democracy in the way that we all believe should happen. It would allow the Canadian people, not only to decide after the fact, but to have input into decisions as they are in the process of being made.
The second suggestion that I would make to the member in beefing up his bill is the necessity, within this House, of having an environmental auditor who would- and I have heard the member speak about this and he is nodding his agreement and we obviously share that view-have the same power as the Auditor General. He would report to Parliament whether the government was obeying its legislation and what progress the government had made on its commitment. He would be an environmental auditor who would really empower the people of Canada through their elected representatives.
I support the philosophy behind the member's bill and I would hope that this government would take the member's speech into account.

I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to ask the government, when it accepts the member's request which was so well formulated, to agree also to my suggestions regarding an environmental Auditor as well as third party intervenor funding. And I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to see the hon. member for lire Battlefords-Meadow Lake, give up his attacks against the private sector and not indulge in his desire which is quite understandable to praise the outdated NDP Ontario government.
I hope the government is really going to tackle the basic issues we are considering. I am sure, because I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment very well who is a man of high calibre and who shares our philosophy, that the government is going to accept these issues in an effort to really help the hon.

June 5, 1991
Private Members ' Business
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake win acceptance for his vision.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am happy to participate in a debate and particularly a debate on the environment, like the one called for by the motion of the New Democratic Party.
This motion is asking the House to endorse the establishment by the government of a Bill of Environmental Rights. Such a Bill would give Canadians a chance to fight polluters and guarantee them the right to live in a healthy environment.
I must state, Mr. Speaker, that protection of the environment and improvement of its quality are amongst the top priorities of this government. Our track record clearly shows to what extent we are determined to work to that end. On December 11, 1990, we made public our environment action plan entitled "Canada's Green Plan". The basic principle of this plan is shared by all Canadians: To guarantee to the present and future generations a healthy and safe environment and a strong and thriving economy. The best way to guarantee to the citizens of this country a clean environment is to set ourselves very definite goals and keep people abreast of the progress we are making toward them. This, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of the Green Plan. It contains specific objectives and timetables. It provides for regular consultations and detailed reporting on the environment, to allow the public to follow closely the progress being made.
Mr. Speaker, the commitment made by the government to improve the environment will be enshrined in the legislation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which establishes the federal environmental assessment process, states, in its preamble, that the government seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between economic development and the preservation and enhancement of environmental quality.
Mr. Speaker, impact studies were done in my riding concerning the completion of highway 50 between La-chute and Mirabel. Of course, these studies have held up for quite some time, the construction of that highway which is necessary, if not essential to the development of the large region of Argenteuil. And I can tell you that the people of my riding were very aware of the quality of
the environment. They, of course, wanted to preserve the environment, but not by having to go through red tape and additional delays. The latter are often welcomed by the government's financing the construction of those highways, who end up making commitments over several years, but which in fact are detrimental to regional development. A balance must therefore be found and I certainly agree with the government's objective of achieving an appropriate balance between economic development and the environment.
That bill also provides that all departments and federal agencies must make an environmental assessment for all the projects concerning which they have a decision making power. The legislation also gives far reaching powers to the Minister of Environment, so that he can ensure that the process is applied fairly, efficiently and openly. Moreover, and this is a very important aspect, those powers will ensure that the public can contribute to a large extent to the decision making process regarding projects which may have serious consequences on the environment.
Over and beyond this legislation, the Prime Minister has pledged unequivocally, on behalf of the government, that the environment would be a priority in all the decisions concerning policies and programs. Mr. Speaker, the government realizes that the Prime Minister's actions have a bearing on the life of the Canadian population in ways that are not always directly linked to his projects. That is why the government now requires that policy and program proposals submitted to Cabinet which may have a substantial impact on Canada's environment, must be accompanied by a statement of their environmental impact.
Thanks to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the policies of the Canadian government, almost every important measure contemplated by the government will be examined from the environmental perspective. Canadians will have the right to be directly involved in the process or at least have access to the results.
The Minister of the Environment is responsible for implementing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This legislation confers very broad powers on the minister for issuing regulations to protect air, water and soil quality in Canada. Furthermore, the legislation requires the minister to report regularly to Canadians on the state of the Canadian environment.
June 5, 1991

Thanks to this legislation, the public can be actively involved in decisions that have an environmental impact. The legislation also gives the public the might to prosecute polluters who violate the Act.
The government is also very much aware of the importance of providing information on the environment, Mr. Speaker. In the course of consultations with Canadians as the government was developing its Green Plan, it was often said that the government should set a very high priority on regular dissemination, on a broad scale, of easily understood information on the state of the environment and any changes that have been corded.
Canadians also told us, Mr. Speaker, that they wanted to be able to base their environmental decisions on solid ground. They wanted good, solid information to determine whether their individual actions would help reduce the deterioration of the environment. They also wanted to be able to judge whether the government was also doing its share to leave a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations, and to be able to make an informed assessment of the performance of industry with respect to the environment.
To provide regularly quality information on the environment is one of the principal commitments made in the Green Plan. Although much remains to be done in this very complex field, the government is committed to providing Canadians with the information they need to make enlightened decisions regarding their own activities and those of others-including governments and industry-as they affect the quality of the environment.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the government feels that the steps we have already taken are indeed the best way for the Canadian people to fight polluters and for the government to fulfill its commitments. We have already taken the necessary steps to ensure that all Canadians have the right to live in a healthy environment. I think this Bill of Environmental Rights would duplicate many existing provisions. It would be better to let the voters concerned about the environment be the judge of the government's performance. That is true
Private Members' Business
accountability! The Canadian people will decide if we have not achieved our goals regarding the environment.
In my riding as in others, Mr. Speaker, I think that most of the people involved and active in local environmental associations know very well that, while working towards a healthy and sustainable environment, they have to bear in mind that economic development must go on. We cannot stop the march of time unduly and prevent the implementation of an industrial project designed to provide employment for fear that a bee will not be gathering nectar.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I hope that my constituents will take part in the green plan implementation process. There will be programs to encourage participation in special projects. Being a member yourself, you know very well, Mr. Speaker, that people interested in doing various things, be it recycling bottles, newspapers, whatever, are coming to see us regularly in our ridings. For years now, one of my constituents has been wishing that the government would come up with a little program to finance the purchase of a vehicle, allowing him to expand his business and gather more cardboard for recycling and resale to companies prepared to buy it from him.
So, I am convinced that the green plan will give my constituents the opportunity, or so I wish, to be more directly involved in the protection of our environment.


Mrs. Finestone:: Happy birthday, Lise! You turned 41 today, did you not?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in this debate and support the motion moved by my colleague, who calls for the government to establish a Bill of Environmental Rights to empower Canadians to fight polluters.
I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau had to say. Of course, she praised the green plan introduced by her government, but, at the same time, she opposed the motion before the House asking the government to establish a Bill of Environmen-

June 5, 1991
Private Members' Business
tal Rights to empower Canadians to fight polluters and everyone who is destroying our country's environment.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have some difficulty understanding the arguments put forward by my colleague from Argenteuil-Papineau. I also have trouble figuring out why she is against this Bill, or should we say this initiative, since it is not even a Bill.

With this motion, the government itself would still be drafting the bill along with its content. If there are concerns on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment or anyone else across the way, and if they fear that the bill would be too strict and would stop the economy from functioning, or if they have some other morbid fear which they may be motivated to use as an excuse, then I say to them: Draft your bill in such a way as to provide the equilibrium that you say is necessary. I say that if that is their position.
They are taking the position that the bill the government would produce would be wrong. From time to time I am partisan and do not always support the government across the way, but not even I would accuse this government of being so incompetent that it could not possibly propose a bill such as the one requested here.
I would say that this government probably is able to draft such a bill. We should allow it the opportunity to do so. Here I am supporting giving the government the power to propose such a bill.
Let us assume, for instance, that this government is totally incompetent. I know it is not beyond possibility, but we on this side of the House will help the government to produce such legislation.
My colleague from LaSalle-Emard would be more than pleased I am sure to assist the government and the parliamentary secretary in preparing the kind of legislation that we need in the event that the government is as incompetent as some of the Tories across the way think it is.
The Tories were talking about the green plan. I can think of two reasons why it is called the green plan: the environment is green, and it is a green slush fund. The only thing green is the money coming into the government advertising agencies which are benefiting from the green plan.
I say to the government across the way that if its green plan is going to mean anything, the government will have to stop using the money for its advertising-


Mr. Stevenson:: Are you not in favour of cleaning up the Fraser River?


Don Boudria: I am not in favour of cleaning out the taxpayers' pockets to reward the friends of the Tories across the way in government advertising agencies.
What I am in favour of is taking the money to clean up the environment, not to clean out the taxpayers' wallets. That is what I am favour of.
If the members across the way think differently, if they think instead that we should reward the friends of the Tories, they have a right to think that. I suppose they have a right to be wrong and they can continue being wrong if they wish to do so.
They now have the popular support of a very large proportion of the population, somewhere in the area of 13 or 14 per cent, but that is okay. If they want to continue along that line, they can do so.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from LaSalle-Emard has shown today that the government's Green Plan is clearly not enough. What we need are specific initiatives to protect Canadians. Today, we are asking this House to approve a motion authorizing the government to propose legislation, which of course we could accept or reject, or improve, once we get it. If the government feel they are unable to propose such legislation they just have to step aside, Mr. Speaker, and we on this side of the House will be ready to move over to the other side and we will be ready to provide real, specific initiatives to protect the environment of this country.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on what is a very interesting proposal, one for which I am afraid there may be excessive expectations. Those are the kinds of issues which I would like to address during the next few minutes.
All members of this House irrespective of party share a very common and strong desire to protect the environment. As a result of an enhanced amount of environmental awareness over the last perhaps five to ten years, I think there is a widespread realization not only in this
June 5. 1991

House but throughout the country that Canada's environment, the environment of other nations, and indeed the global environment is very much under attack.
While some individual members may have led in the forefront in their efforts in this House to increase awareness, I think it is true to say that at this time there is not a single member in the House who is not in broad agreement that an immense amount of work needs to be done in order to undo many of the mistakes of the past.
A question which is uppermost in my mind is how we should go about addressing what is obviously a very monumental problem, a problem which faces us as a federal government, a problem which faces each of the provincial governments throughout the country, a problem which faces the municipal governments as well, faces us as individuals and within the international community.
At first blush the thought of an environmental bill of rights is certainly an attractive one, and I would congratulate the hon. member for making sure that it is a point of debate in this House. I would encourage him to continue with a suggestion that even if he is not successful on this particular occasion, it may well be that the idea with the passage of time will develop to the point of a broader degree of understanding.
It seems to me that what we must address right now is the question of what we would expect of an environmental bill of rights and how we would best go about achieving those several objectives. I believe what we are looking for as Canadians and as parliamentarians is some sort of assurance that the various levels of government will work together among themselves, with the environmental groups, with the business community, and with citizens at large in order to ensure there is a broad framework in place to try and protect the environment in the future from some of the ravages of the past.
I see this broad framework including many facets. I see it including federal legislation. I think of the Canadian Environment Protection Act which is already law. I see it including many regulations, many of which will emanate from that Canadian Environment Protection Act, and I am veiy conscious in my responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment that we still have a significant distance to go in the establishment of those regulations.
Private Members' Business
As I say that, I am also conscious that government alone will not accomplish a great deal if it simply passes regulations without working in close consultation with other jurisdictions of government and with those whose actions should be regulated. Very often that is, but not solely, the business community, the industrial community. Of course individuals must be a part of that process as well.
I believe that the provincial governments' jurisdictions must be a part of this process, part of this multi-faceted approach to achieve the over-all objective which we are pursuing. I am very conscious of the constitutional fact that the provincial governments are largely responsible for the control of natural resources within the Confederation of Canada. To be frank, many provincial governments today are fearful that the federal government either is or may be on the verge of intruding upon what it perceives to be its jurisdiction.
In my own mind I am very clear on the fact that I believe Canadians are asking this federal government to accept a major role of leadership and I believe it is appropriate it should do so. But I also believe it will be more effective if we can work in co-operation with the provinces rather than confrontation with the provinces. They are a very important part of the multi-facet approach.
I would like to say that I believe the NGOs, the environmental non-governmental organizations, have a major role to play in this process. To me they bring a wealth of experience, a vast amount of knowledge and as well some very obvious, sincere convictions on the need for the environment to be protected. I see them as partners in the process, just as I do individuals who are becoming increasingly conscious of the need to protect the environment.
I spoke once before in this House about an individual constituent who wrote to me some time ago. I would like to remind the House of that one single letter because the message, I thought, was so meaningful, somewhat symtomatic of what I see happening in Canada. She was an older woman, according to her letter, living alone in a very small community within my constituency of Brandon-Souris. She wrote to say that she was concerned about the manner in which she was heating her house and whether or not in using the fuel oil which was available to her she was in any way endangering the

June 5, 1991
Private Members' Business
environment. She sought advice as to what she should do as a result of that.
I was very touched by that letter because here was evidence of an individual Canadian, perhaps without substantial monetary means, who was clearly prepared to make some sort of sacrifice in order to do her part in what she perceived to be a Canadian struggle in order to protect the environment.
I guess what impressed me about that particular letter was that she wrote out of a genuine sense of concern and conviction. She did not write as a result of regulations requiring her to do so. She did not write because of a particular piece of legislation on which she based her concerns. She wrote as an individual who had grown aware of certain dangers and she was willing to do her part and respond.
I think what I see right now in this country, and elsewhere in the world, is a tremendous need for the development of partnerships in which all people will understand-perhaps to say all would be naive-but a vast majority of Canadians and citizens throughout the world would understand that we have a common responsibility to address the problems which face us in a co-operative and partnership manner.
One of the reasons why I am hesitant to see an environmental bill of rights as being some sort of solution to the challenge which is before us right now is that I fear it would suggest that somehow or other we could depend upon a particular piece of legislation, and the courts, which would presumably be an important partner in the process, to absolve ourselves of any other responsibilities and to be some sort of panacea in itself.
I accept the fact that legislation and courts may be an essential part of the over-all process of protecting the environment. I am sometimes as frustrated as other members are when I see that sentences levied against polluters are not as severe as I would wish them to be. I really believe that the best guarantee for a safe environmental future lies in a widespread determination to accept our responsibilities as individuals and whatever level of government we may be a part of, or whatever role we play in society, rather than put all of our hopes in
a single piece of legislation or in the courts and ask them to enforce them.
We must work together and by working together we can succeed.
I was struck during the course of the green plan consultations how many hundreds, indeed thousands of Canadians who came forth, even though they came with a great deal of scepticism at the start, willing to be a part of the process. I would suggest that it is out of that sort of search for solutions that will come the strategies of tomorrow.
It may well be some time into the future that the environmental bill of rights will fit in perhaps to a multi-faceted approach as the hon. member wishes, but I believe right now the priority of this government, other governments and Canadians wherever they may be, whether individually or collectively, should be in trying to form the kind of partnerships the green plan is addressing.
While I congratulate the hon. member for ensuring that this issue is very much an issue to be debated now and again in the future, I would suggest perhaps that there are other issues and other solutions that are more important at this point in time. I look forward to that debate continuing on into the future.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to talk to the member's motion. The motion, as others have said, would have the government consider the creation of an environmental bill of rights to empower Canadians-and I think we should remember those two words clearly, empower Canadians-to fight polluters and guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthy environment.
I am sure veiy few of us would quarrel with the member's objectives on this issue. Certainly I would not and I know few people in my constituency would quarrel with that concept. We want a clean, healthy and productive environment for ourselves, for our children and certainly for future generations.
Let us not choose a means of questionable effectiveness to achieve an end which we can all support. The creation of an environmental bill of rights is an appealing
June 5, 1991

notion, but is it in reality the best way to achieve the
goals?
I would like to reflect just for a moment on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Certainly it provides Canadians with individual rights beyond those of most nations. Many people of the world would consider our Charter of Rights and Freedoms a model for their countries. Yet sometimes, when it is taken to an extreme, one really wonders if, in certain aspects, it is in the best public interest.
I will give an example of one of those extremes, what I think of as an extreme. I look at the situation of criminals in this country who are here claiming refugee status to evade punishment in other countries. I see how they use our laws, or maybe I should say abuse our laws, and I wonder whether this is in the best public interest of Canadians in general.
Sometimes one wonders if we have not taken individual rights a step too far in certain situations. Sometimes I wonder, when I think of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if we should not have brought along a charter of responsibility, or maybe a charter of responsibility and opportunity to go along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In drafting an environmental bill, again I am going to purposely use an extreme, one might very well draft around the sort of issue that I am going to bring up. Certainly one can look at the automobile. The automobile certainly pollutes the atmosphere. If a bill of rights for the environment were drafted in a fairly broad way, an individual could bring action against neighbours and against the public in general on the use of the automobile, a polluting device in our environment. Could the banning of the automobile result from that sort of action?
Again, that is an extreme, but certainly one has to be careful when one looks at what exactly pollution is and how it affects us as individuals.
I did not mean to be partisan in this talk today. The opposition took a few definite shots. I suppose one should reflect on the situation and I suppose, to a certain extent, I will be partisan in my next couple of comments.
I used to be a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It was interesting that during my years there, two members of the Liberal party had Private Members' Bills-actual bills, not just motions-suggesting that the government bring forward a bill of environmental rights. Interestingly enough, both of those members ended up
Private Members ' Business
in the Liberal cabinet later in the 1980s and neither one of them ever brought forward a bill of rights for the environment.
Subsequently, just a year or two later, the NDP critic for the environment brought in a Private Members' Bill almost identical to the bills that the two members I referred to previously had introduced to the Ontario legislature. Once again, now that the NDP is in power its promise of a bill of rights on the environment is at least delayed, and quite possibly we will not see it forthcoming.
Again, I think the problem is that while the concept is good and everybody generally supports the idea and individuals want more power to deal with environmental issues, when it comes to actually writing a bill, it is rather difficult to word it in a proper way so that it is not taken to an extreme.
Therefore, let us look at some of the possibilities of empowering people, giving them more ability to react and help in the improvement of our environment.
I am not going to talk at great length about the green plan because other members have done so. Certainly, the green plan is based on a vision which all Canadians will share in. When one looks at the individual programs in the green plan, a few of which have been announced and many more will be announced over the next six years, there are many areas where individual Canadians can take a very active involvement.
Just to briefly mention two. There can be individual attempts to reduce solid waste-whether by a family or a business-through recycling, judicious purchasing and reducing the amount of packaging in the products we purchase and the use of composting. There are a great many areas where an individual can take action, and very distinct action, to assist in saving our environment.
Another opportunity to assist in the environment is the community tree planting program. That will be announced soon, I hope. That will allow individual Canadians and local organizations to get very much involved in planting trees across Canada.
The other piece of legislation I had hoped to talk about is the Environmental Assessment Act but I see my time is rather limited. There certainly will be opportunities for Canadians to be involved in that. The one I wish to mention at the end is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That gives extensive rights to public participation and decision making affecting the environment. It also confers upon the public the power to take

June 5, 1991
Private Members' Business
court action when an activity contravenes the act. I think, to a significant degree, the empowerment within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the new assessment act when it passes, will go a long way toward giving individual Canadians the thrust that they wish to have to improve our environment.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin -Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the couple of minutes I have remaining to say a few words about Motion M-217 brought forward by my colleague from Saskatchewan.
The hon. member's riding is just west of where my riding is in western Manitoba. When you speak of the environment, if you come out to my part of Manitoba you can look up and see the clear blue sky, and about 300 yards away from my home in Swan River, Manitoba you see nature at its best. We have small mountain ranges with the grass and trees growing. People in the urban centres of Canada cannot appreciate the type of environment that we are able to live in. But, of course, if things keep going the way they have been going over the recent past, that is very much at risk.
I will give one example specific to my part of Manitoba. Back in 1989 the Repap Corporation purchased a
large pulp mill in La Pas, Manitoba, and in doing so acquired the cutting rights to a major portion of Manitoba, including the area around where I live in Swan River. Included in the purchase were plans of major expansions, both in La Pas and a chipping plant in Swan River. They had planned to follow up on several other areas. What has come to pass since that time is that Repap is subject to several environmental studies to enable the corporation to expand. So even in the pristine part of Manitoba and areas in western Canada, the governments and citizens involved are very very sensitive to the environment and are making sure that these projects are subject to environmental studies before they go forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 7.38 o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 6,1991