1991-05-30

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the official visit to the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-16, an act to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act and to provide for other matters in relation thereto.


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

Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff in consequence thereof.


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

Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an act respecting the establishment of a compensation fund for members of the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a couple of sentences about this bill. The purpose of the bill would be to set up a fund to help members pay the costs of any libel suits which they may incur in pursuit of their work.
Libel charges sometimes aimed at harassing the member in his work are occasionally brought against members as a result of statements they make in the House, to the press, in public and in private. The purpose of this fund would be to provide legal assistance so that the member is not stuck with a $20,000 or $30,000 bill for simply carrying out his functions. It would stop harassment by some heavily financed pressure groups and corporations which sometimes use legal suits as a way of stopping the member's actions on very important issues.


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

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present to the House a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands who call upon this House to pass an act to make unlawful the desecration or destruction of the flag of Canada.
I note this particular petition is a thick one with several hundred signatures.

May 30, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to table several petitions from the people of Sainte-Blandine, a group of citizens who got together and set up a committee for the survival of the local post office.
These people had already met their federal member, the minister, but to no avail. She who did not even bother to acknowledge the 1,500 letters she received on the subject.
This petition was signed by the people of the parish of Sainte-Blandine, including Father Parent; members of the credit union; representatives of the Conseil regional de developpement du Bas-Saint-Laurent; the MPP for Rimouski, Mr. Tremblay; representatives of Urgence rurale and the AFEAS du Bas-Saint-Laurent; representatives of the Ficelle group, who want women to have access to employment, and even by Mgr Ouellet of Rimouski.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present nearly 2,000 names on petitions of people from across Ontario asking the government to legislate that all automotive fuels must contain at least 3.2 per cent oxygen. Ten per cent ethanol blended gasoline has a dual environmental advantage over regular gasoline because the high energy and oxygen content burns more efficiently and the need for toxic gasoline additive such as MMT is eliminated. It also removes 5.9 per cent more carbon dioxide from the emissions. It removes 25 per cent more carbon monoxide from the emissions, 8.5 per cent volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxide and urban ozone.
As we head into the summer months, we have to be aware of the high pollution levels in the various cities. Last Monday Toronto's was extremely high from automotive pollutions.
I ask the government to pay attention to what these citizens are asking for and take to immediate action.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned about the government's decision to cut back by millions of dollars the support of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. With the information from Statistics Canada yesterday indicating an increase in the levels of violent crimes, this becomes even more of a problem. The petitioners point out a variety of concerns they have as a result of these funding cutbacks and are urging the government to consider restoring proper funding to the RCMP.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 41.

M.P.'S INDEX OF TAXPAYER SERVICES *


Ms. Phinney: With respect to the publication M.P.'s Index of Taxpayer Services
(Revenue Canada, Taxation-February, 1991) (a) what was the cost to
produce it (b) how many copies were distributed (c) to whom were
they distributed?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: It has cost Revenue Canada, Taxation $5,250 to produce the M.P.'s Index of Taxpayer Services. To date, 900 copies of this publication have been distributed. Copies have been provided to the parliamentary and constituency offices of all Members of Parliament, and to senior managers and public affaires managers of Revenue Canada, Taxation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered.



WAYS AND MEANS


Mr. Loiselle (for the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tkx Conventions Interpretation Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and related acts,
May 30, 1991

laid upon the table Tuesday, May 28, 1991 be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Income Tkx Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Thx Court of Canada Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and related acts be read the first time and be printed.


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


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade) moved: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, after much reflection and very careful examination, I introduced Bill C-6 in this House. The amendments proposed in that bill provide for the selective and severely restricted import, possession and export of automatic weapons for certain narrowly defined military and related industrial purposes.
Under present law, alone among Canada's few manufacturers of military material, our producers of automatic firearms and related equipment are effectively prevented from competing on a level playing field, even in that small part of the international market to which Canadian foreign policy would quite properly limit their access.
Government Orders
As things stand now, these firms can only manufacture such equipment for the Canadian military and police forces. They may not even produce for Canada's allies and closest defence partners, while foreign firms are at liberty to sell to Canada's Armed Forces. The restrictions put Canadian companies at an unnecessary disadvantage and threaten the viability of some. They could eventually preclude Canada from meeting its own future requirements for weapons.
Introducing carefully defined new flexibility to permit exports of automatic firearms to our NATO allies and close defence partners will demonstrate Canada's commitment to meeting its own requirements for basic defence products from Canadian sources. It will also enhance Canada's contribution to joint allied preparedness, most notably in its role in the North American defence industrial base.
As everyone in this House knows, Canada's role in UN peacekeeping is longstanding and widely respected. Imagine Canada's peacekeeping forces in country x. Did they do the job without the appropriate weapons? If our troops were there with other UN peacekeeping forces, be they Swedish, Australian or whatever, would it be wrong for those Swedes or Australians to be armed with Canadian firearms? I think not.
Bill C-6 will place very tight controls on exports of automatic firearms from Canada by establishing a new automatic firearms country control list under the Export and Import Permits Act. Such controls are in keeping with Canada's traditional strict policy on exports of military weapons. They are also fully consistent with Canada's program of action to bring greater transparency and consultations to the international trade in conventional weapons. Our objective is to encourage restraint when excessive build-ups of conventional weapons begin to develop, particularly in regions of instability and potential conflict.
This in a nutshell is what Bill C-6 is all about.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will comment further on arms control issues later in this debate.
For my part, let me now explain Bill C-6 in greater detail.

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
Canadian defence industries are at present allowed to export military goods, including sophisticated weapon systems and components, to Canada's allies and other countries under export controls administered through the Export and Import Permits Act. The discretionary authority of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to issue or deny permits for the export of automatic firearms is not fettered in any way. Permits can in theory be approved to export automatic firearms to any country. The problem is that this authority is of no consequence because under the 1977 amendments to the Criminal Code automatic firearms fall within the definition of prohibited weapons. Automatic firearms are deemed to be weapons that fire more than one round per squeeze of the trigger. The code specifies that such weapons may be possessed or imported only by or on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of Canadian police forces.
As a result Canadian defence firms could face criminal charges if they attempt to repair or manufacture automatic firearms for Canada's allies and close defence partners. In contrast, competitors from other countries may sell their automatic firearms to the Canadian forces.
This anomalous situation has created an uneven playing field for the Canadian defence industry and its workers. Changes are needed to help them.
In short, the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian police forces are simply not sufficient to enable Canadian firms manufacturing automatic firearms and military equipment, which includes such weapons, to remain economically viable. Due to our relatively small domestic market, Canadian defence industry must have access to selected legitimate foreign military markets. Like other Canadian producers and manufacturers, it needs to export to survive. Foreign sales lower per unit costs and make the manufacturers less dependent on domestic contracts and government funding. They also help ensure supplies in times of emergency.
The government recognizes the shortcomings of the unintended effects of the 1977 amendments to the Criminal Code. For some time it has sought to find a satisfactory means to provide the Canadian defence industry with the necessary increased flexibility. In considering the options, the primary consideration was to ensure that the discretionary export of automatic firearms would be subject to effective licensing and enforcement.
The nature of automatic firearms and their potential use make tight control on their import, possession and export an absolute requirement. We know only too well that automatic firearms can be readily bought and sold on the international market, frequently without any effective national or multilateral controls.
They are widely used by terrorists, criminals and those involved in the narcotics trade.
It was precisely because of these factors that the government decided not to introduce new flexibility with respect to exports of automatic firearms until it was satisfied that effective licensing and enforcement of exports of such goods was possible.
In particular, we wanted the controls to be as stringent as possible and at the same time to ensure that the discretionary authority to issue permits for automatic firearms was clearly constrained.
We also wanted to increase substantially the penalties for violations of export controls. Bill C-6, tabled in the House on May 23, meets these criteria. Under the Export and Import Permits Act, the authority of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to approve permits for exports of automatic firearms will be limited to those countries listed on a new Automatic Firearms Country Control List. The minister's authority to refuse inappropriate applications remains total and undiminished.
The list is to include only those countries with which Canada has an intergovernmental defence research development and production agreement.
The bill applies only to automatic firearms. It does not affect controls on other weapons prohibited under the Criminal Code. All other controls provided under the Export and Import Permits Act remain unchanged.
In keeping with the concerns shared by most Canadians for restraining the arms trade, the required defence production arrangements will be concluded only with Canada's NATO allies and close defence partners. Those countries will be made known through the publication of the automatic firearms country control list.
Applications to export automatic firearms to countries not on the list will be denied. Exports of automatic firearms will be permitted only to a government with which Canada concludes the necessary arrangements. Sales will be permitted only to governments and accept-
May 30, 1991

Government Orders
able designated consignees approved by the Canadian government. Sales to civilians will not be permitted.
Canada currently has defence production arrangements with 10 countries, of which Sweden is the only one not a member of NATO. An arrangement with Spain is under negotiation. Once the amendments are passed by Parliament, cabinet could include those countries on the automatic firearms country control list through a single Order in Council.
Proposals to include other countries on the list will be subject to an intense, case-by-case review to confirm that (a) the requirement for automatic firearms is legitimate and reasonable; (b) that defence co-operation with Canada will enhance regional co-operation and security; and (c) the country being considered for defence co-operation does not threaten regional or world security and does not maintain an excessive level of armaments.
Automatic firearms are military goods and are included in the Canadian export control list under item 2001. Each application to export automatic firearms to an approved country must therefore still be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and normal licensing requirements will still have to be met.
These include providing an end use statement and supporting documentation, and most notably an international import certificate from the country of final destination.
In addition, applications will be subject to the normal intense interdepartmental review and the guidelines adopted by the governments in 1986 will be applied, that is, exports of military goods will be closely controlled to countries which pose a threat to Canada or its allies, countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities, countries under United Nations Security Council sanctions or countries whose government has a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of its citizens, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population.
Exports of automatic firearms will be reported in the annual report on exports of military goods from Canada. All production facilities in Canada for automatic firearms have to meet existing rigorous DND and DSS security standards and are subject to regular, rigorous inspections.
Bill C-6 also increases penalties for offences of the Export and Import Permits Act as follows:
a)	for summary convictions, fines are increased from $5,000 to $25,000, and imprisonment for up to 12 months or both.
b)	for indictment, fines are increased from $25,000 to an amount that is in the discretion of the court, which in practice means that there is no ceiling, and imprisonment for up to 10 years instead of 5 years or both.
These increased penalties are intended to ensure that an adequate deterrence is provided for, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the value of goods that might be involved. These penalties will apply to all offences under the act, not just those related to automatic firearms.
To address the issue of criminal liability, complementary amendments will be made to the Criminal Code to permit import and possession of automatic firearms for an industrial purpose in accordance with the Export and Import Permits Act.
The Criminal Code was never intended to regulate legitimate defence industry activities, which are more properly administered and controlled under the Export and Import Permits Act. The current provisions of the code create unnecessary confusion as to what can be exported and imported and which legislation and regulations the government applies to controlling exports and imports of military goods. Except as specifically provided for by Bill C-6, possession and importation of automatic weapons remain illegal and subject to criminal prosecution under the code.
The EIPA is being amended to introduce new, additional controls on the export and import of automatic firearms. Exports of automatic firearms will be permitted only to those countries listed on the automatic firearms country control list. Applications for permits to export

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
automatic firearms to countries not on the list will be denied. A country's inclusion on the new control list does not in itself constitute authority to export automatic firearms to that country. It merely establishes the necessary ground to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The controls will be applied in two stages:
1.	A defence research, development and production agreement will have to exist between Canada and the country of final destination, and that country will have to be included on the automatic firearms country control list maintained under the Export and Import Permits Act. If an arrangement does not already exist, one would have to be negotiated and the proposal to add the country to the automatic firearms country control list would have to be approved by cabinet through an Order in Council.
2.	Applications to export automatic firearms will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to the same strict guidelines and licensing procedures applied to all exports of military goods from Canada.
The effect of the changes will make Canadian controls on exports of automatic firearms among the most stringent in the world.
The changes to the Criminal Code complement those being made to the Export and Import Permits Act. Adoption of Bill C-6 will end the anomalous situation created by the 1977 amendments to the code. As a result, it will no longer be a criminal offence for Canadian firms to import or possess automatic firearms for the purposes of repairing or manufacturing automatic weapons for our NATO allies and close defence partners.
Adoption of Bill C-6 will also demonstrate Canada's commitment to meeting its own defence requirements by helping to ensure the survival of production facilities established in Canada as part of the North American defence industrial base.
Canadian defence requirements include the need to ensure that we have the capability to repair, overhaul and upgrade military equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. With the exception of the 1950s and part of the 1960s, the post-war evolution of the Canadian defence industrial base has been characterized by a general decline and an increasing inability to meet the operational requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces. Despite successive efforts to re-establish domestic capabilities in such key defence industrial sectors as small arms and ammunition, the Canadian forces remain highly dependent on non-domestic sources of supply for
critical end items and specialized equipment and components.
In the 1970s, the number of non-domestic sources relied upon by Canada to meet peacetime operational requirements increased dramatically. As a result, Canada became vulnerable to a broad range of supply disruptions, both in peacetime and in wartime. This reliance, combined with insufficient quantities of operational military equipment and war reserve stockpiles, seriously eroded Canada's capability to deal effectively with a protracted conflict. The importance of the domestic defence industrial base to the implementation of any defence industrial preparedness policy cannot be overstated.
The 1987 DEFENCE Industrial Preparedness Task Force identified the following strengths in the Canadian defence industry:
The ability to convert civilian production to defence production in several areas;
A developing capability to repair and overhaul major capital equipment;
A small arms and ammunition production capability;
An abundance of raw materials essential for wartime production;
Benefits, via joint production, from proximity to the United States.
On the other hand, the task force noted numerous serious weaknesses, including most notably:
A lack of skilled labour;
Dependency on non-domestic sources of critical items;
Long lead time for military production;
Insufficient defence related capital investment in new technology, facilities and machinery.
The task force concluded that the Canadian Defence Industrial Base was "fragmented, highly specialized, and not geared to meet the operational requirements of the Canadian forces".
The task force noted that Canada had purchased a diverse range of military equipment from an equally diverse range of non-North American suppliers, including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland and Sweden. It recommended that Canada recognize that joint allied industrial preparations strengthen overall security, and that Canada work with its allies to enhance national and NATO preparedness. It recommended in particular that Canada "continue to pursue co-operative arrangements in the interests of rationalization, standardization and interoperability when they
May 30,1991

clearly contribute to the readiness and sustainment of the Canadian forces".
Bill C-6 seeks to reinforce defence industrial co-operation with our allies and defence partners in key defence product areas, including small arms, automatic firearms and light armoured vehicles. The automatic firearms are manufactured for the Canadian forces by Diemaco of Kitchener and the light armoured vehicles by GM Diesel Division in London. Neither production facility can survive on the basis of Canadian requirements alone. Both will fail if new flexibility with respect to exports of automatic firearms to selected countries is not introduced. In this regard, Bill C-6 is of critical importance both for the specific long-term requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces and for the Canadian defence industrial base generally.
Diemaco was established by DND in 1976 as the centre of excellence for the provision of small arms to the Canadian Armed Forces, to ensure that Canada would not be totally dependent on foreign suppliers in times of emergency. Its facility is unique in Canada and is important to DND's long-term operational readiness.
The awarding of a contract in 1984 to produce the new family of weapons for the Canadian Armed Forces created 300 direct jobs at Diemaco's plant in Kitchener; 200 direct jobs at its 75 Canadian subcontractors who manufacture components; plus an equal number of indirect jobs. This contract is nearing completion and Diemaco must now be able to secure export contracts. The requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces alone cannot sustain Diemaco over the long term.
Of particular concern is the possibility of Canada losing Diemaco's $40 million computer-based manufacturing capability, which includes product design, engineering, metal finishing, plastic moulding, precision casting, forging and machining, and extrusion techniques. At a time when Canada must upgrade the competitiveness of its industry, it would be extremely unfortunate and regrettable to lose Diemaco's related worker skills and technical expertise.
Government Orders
Diemaco, supported by its numerous subcontractors, is currently competing for a contract to supply the Dutch armed forces with automatic rifles. The Dutch government has asked for assurances that Diemaco would be able to export the weapons if it won the contract. Owing to the current provisions of the Criminal Code, it may be illegal for Diemaco to manufacture automatic firearms for the Dutch armed forces. Failure to adopt the proposed changes to permit the proposed exports to the Netherlands will jeopardize Diemaco's future and could mean that the entire small arms manufacturing capability of the Canadian defence industrial base will be gone before long, possibly by as early as June, 1992.
The only solution is for Diemaco to win selected, legitimate foreign contracts and for the government to permit the company to export its modern, high quality products to our allies and defence partners. Success in winning the Dutch contract will mean an initial 7,680 person years of direct Canadian employment with the potential of almost doubling over the life of the project. Success will also ensure the ability to continue the development work necessary for new small arms for the Canadian Armed Forces into the next century.
Since receiving its first contract from DND in 1977, General Motors Diesel Division has become a world class producer. To produce the light armoured vehicle, General Motors Diesel Division employs 600 skilled workers at its plant in London, Ontario. In addition, GMDD draws on suppliers and subcontractors from across Canada including companies and workers in Richmond and Vancouver, B.C.; Edmonton; Winnipeg; Quebec City; Saint John and Moncton and New Brunswick; Mulgrave and Bridgewater in Nova Scotia; and St. John's, Newfoundland.
Last year it won a contract to export light armoured vehicles to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This capped a marketing campaign that spanned more than a decade. It was first approved by the Liberal government in 1981 and has since been supported by successive Canadian governments. However, the anomalous situation under the Criminal Code may limit GM's ability to those few, but

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
irrtportant, foreign markets to which Canadian foreign policy would permit access.
The government proposes to resolve this anomaly by adopting the amendments proposed under Bill C-6; negotiating a bilateral defence research, development and production agreement with Saudi Arabia; and including Saudi Arabia on the Automatic Firearms Country Control List.
The export of the LAVs has been reviewed and again approved-after all licensing requirements were met and after careful review and study. In doing so, particular attention was given to the requirement to control closely exports of military goods to countries "threatened by or engaged in hostilities". In the end, it was decided to approve GM's application.
A primary consideration was that the results of the Gulf War ensured that Saudi Arabia is not now, nor, in the immediate future will it be, an imminent threat of hostilities. Another was that the export of the LAVs by Canada to Saudi Arabia will not threaten Saudi Arabia's neighbours and will serve to enhance regional security.
Saudi Arabia has a legitimate right to self-defence. Its requirement for LAVs armed with automatic weapons is reasonable given its need to maintain a defensive military capability sufficient to continue to deter aggression. The LAVs are lightly armoured. Even when armed with automatic machine guns and cannons, they are designed for and have a particular military use, such as patrolling the oil fields, the oil pipelines and other strategic sites. Because of their light armour, the LAVs are not as effective in an offensive role for which heavily armoured and heavily armed vehicles such as main battle tanks are best suited.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia shares with Canada and with other members of the allied coalition, a commonality of interests in supporting the UN Security Council resolutions and in strengthening regional security arrangements. It is currently working closely with other states in the region, and with members of the coalition, to develop appropriate regional security arrangements for the post conflict period. These efforts are fully supported by Canada.
The requirement to control exports of military goods, including automatic firearms, is clear and obvious. The
Export and Import Permits Act provides the government with the necessary means to do so. Enforcement of controls requires vigilance, intelligence, and close international co-operation. It also requires the support of exporters and clear licensing guidelines. The 1977 amendments to the Criminal Code place unnecessary restrictions on Canadian companies established to support Canada's defence requirements. Our NATO allies can export automatic firearms to Canadian forces, but Canadian firms cannot export to meet their requirements for the same goods.
Adoption of the proposed amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code are necessary and pertain only to automatic firearms. The amendments do not pertain to other military equipment, nor do they alter Canada's longstanding policy on stringently controlling exports of military goods.
The new, additional and strict controls on exports of automatic firearms were developed to meet a specific and limited requirement of the Canadian defence industry. Increased flexibility in certain areas is being created only with respect to a single category of military goods, namely automatic firearms. Other export controls remain in place. Adoption of the automatic firearms country control list and limiting exports of automatic weapons to our NATO allies and close defence partners, to those countries with which we have bilateral defence research, development and production agreements, will help ensure that Canadian manufacturers of automatic weapons and equipment with automatic firearms remain viable. They will also ensure that Canadian controls on such goods remain the most stringent in the world.
These exacting Canadian controls reflect the government's commitment to arms control. They are fully consistent with recent Canadian arms controls initiatives including the proposal to hold a world summit on the instruments of war and weapons of mass destruction. They are also consistent with the program of action on conventional weapons.
Canada's concern is the build-up by certain countries of levels of armaments in excess of legitimate self-defence requirements. Certainly no permit would ever be approved to export automatic weapons from Canada to a country which undertook such a massive build-up of arms. It simply would not happen. If a country with

May 30, 1991
which Canada had a defence production agreement began to develop its military arsenal to the point of threatening its neighbours and regional security we would simply stop issuing export permits and suspend all outstanding ones.
Such action is within the discretionary authority by the Secretary of State for External Affairs provided for by the Export and Import Permits Act. It has been exercised in the past in response to changing security considerations and would be used in the future without hesitation if necessary. For example, no Canadian military goods were approved for export to Iraq after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war, an indication that Canadian controls are applied and are effective.
Our intention is to control more effectively, not to prohibit, the sales of military equipment. Canada will be extremely careful in deciding which countries it should sell firearms to. We will also make known which military goods are exported and to which countries.
To conclude, the proposed amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code will create a framework for Canadian defence firms that will enable them to compete more effectively under very closely controlled conditions. Canada needs a strong defence industrial base to lower per-unit costs and ensure Canadian sources in times of emergency. With these amendments, Canadian firms will be better able to meet Canada's defence requirements and those of our NATO allies and defence partners.


Mr. Allmand:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if the minister would accept a technical question for clarification which I consider to be very important. Would he mind accepting such a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments but we could do it by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's speech he said that only those countries with which Canada has an intergovernmental
Government Orders
defence, research, development and production arrangement would be eligible for the automatic firearms country control list. I think he used the word "only". But in the text of the legislation in clause 2 on page 1 it says:
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-
The wording of the text of the bill suggests that while you would include all those countries it would not be limited to those countries.
I wonder if the minister would clarify that because there is quite a difference. If it is as the minister said in his speech that the list is restricted to those countries, then I think that the text of the bill should be amended and I would support that. It would provide more control. But the way the text is written it seems to be contrary to what the minister said in his speech because it says those countries must be included. It does not say it is restricted to those countries.
If you look at the French text it seems closer to what the minister said and I think this is extremely important. Also on a technical point, Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the minister has already prepared such a proposed list and, if so, would he be willing during the debate to make it available to the House so we know exactly which countries he proposes to put on the list.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question which the minister could perhaps answer at the same time as it flows from the same point. Are there any arrangements with Saudi Arabia? The minister has said that one of the purposes of this bill is to permit this particular deal with Saudi Arabia. Are there any arrangements with Saudi Arabia which the minister could tell us about, as we proceed with this debate, which fit within the definition set out in the act?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are two questions for the hon. minister. Under this section we will allow it this time, but let us not make it a precedent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments with respect to the question from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
I will have to check on the specifics and whether there is a reason the wording in the bill is that way. The countries will have to be on the country control list and it will be those countries with which we have a defence arrangement, as I described in my remarks.
In response to the member from Victoria, we have not completed an arrangement with Saudi Arabia. That would have to be completed before exports would be provided for.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the most striking thing about Bill C-6, which the Minister for International Trade has just introduced, is that it seems both unnecessary and inopportune.
It appears unnecessary because for more than 13 years the export of conventional weapons has been satisfactorily regulated within the existing terms of the Export and Import Permits Act.
It is surely not beyond the ability of the government's legal counsel to identify ways in which such regulations could continue to be utilized without the cumbersome necessity of Parliament amending legislation which until now had been found satisfactory. In that sense, the bill is inopportune.
In an additional sense it is inopportune. By lumping together questions of the legitimate export of conventional weapons with amendments to the Criminal Code, the general impression is left that somehow such exports, unlike other exports, raise questions that must ultimately be encompassed within the Criminal Code rather than within trade legislation. This inopportune impression will only be reinforced by the fact that the government has also chosen this same day to introduce- or reintroduce-its long awaited gun legislation.
Such juxtapositions of separate policy questions can only be described as unfortunate. With Bill C-6, which essentially addresses an anomaly in the Criminal Code, much larger questions are being opened, questions which were never intended to be covered by the Criminal Code. I have already noted that the fact that exports of conventional weapons are spoken of in the context of the Criminal Code is an unfortunate juxtaposition.
As a result of introducing amendments intended merely to permit the continued sale of small arms to certain nations or the import and re-export of weapons incorporated in Canadian-built vehicles, a range of much more fundamental questions is inevitably raised.
In the past, Canada's policy has been to authorize the export of light weapons-never weapons of mass destruction-to countries designated by a minister upon the recommendation of officials. For example, the sale of Canadian-made automatic weapons or light armoured vehicles has been covered by such policies. Against such a background, Canada exported to NATO allies and other designated countries some of the military equipment necessary for their self-defence.
Aircraft, light weapons, radios and other materiel were exported, helping to sustain the equipment of Canadian forces, creating thousands of jobs among suppliers across Canada and, in a number of instances, enhancing Canada's high-tech capabilities, whether in the automotive, marine, communications or aeronautical industries.
Now, however, it seems that an anomaly has been identified in the Criminal Code. We are to understand that since 1978 fully automatic weapons have been classified in the Criminal Code as prohibited weapons and accordingly cannot be either imported or exported under defence contracts. Such a prohibition, it is now discovered, prevents the further export or even the import and re-export of such weapons.
How can this be? Since 1978, such weapons manufactured in Canada have been exported. Similar weapons, manufactured elsewhere for incorporation in Canadian-made vehicles, have been imported and re-exported.
Is the government now saying that any such exports during the past 13 years were in error? Is it saying that those officials and ministers who reviewed and authorized such shipments in the past were acting, unwittingly of course, in contravention of the Criminal Code? If the ministers were not then acting in contravention of the Criminal Code, why would they be doing so today by authorizing identical or similar shipments?
What has occurred that requires the government to introduce these amendments, opening a host of questions which do not belong here but in other debates? What is it that the government has suddenly discovered about the Criminal Code that requires this extraordinary procedure? Is this the way in which to initiate a review of the controls that Canada exercises over the export of arms? Is this the way to back into a debate or discussion of disarmament? Is this yet another instance of the government's lack of a clear policy direction? What
May 30, 1991

assurance can Canadians take from this incident that the government knows where it is going and what it wants to do in our trade policy, in our defence policy and in our foreign policy?
Nothing in this bill relates to the sale or possession of automatic weapons in Canada itself. That is a matter which rightly belongs to the gun control legislation introduced earlier today. That long-delayed legislation will, we hope, deal effectively with all questions pertaining to the sale or possession of automatic weapons in Canada.
By way of contrast, the bill now before us relates only to the export or import and re-export of automatic weapons in commercial contracts. However, in raising such a question the government inevitably creates confusion and invites debate on what constraints we Canadians choose to exercise over the export of conventional weapons and how effective our controls are over their export.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs raised some relevant questions in February. I quote from his speech: "The practical problems here are considerable. What weapons are defensive and what weapons are offensive? How much is enough? How can arsenals be controlled when political conflict persists and how can political conflict be brought to an end when arsenals continue to threaten? How can countries which have developed economies so dependent on the arms trade with the Middle East accept tighter controls which will cost jobs and profits? And what efforts can be mounted to bring all countries into a control effort so that restraint on the part of some does not simply lead to bonanzas for others?"
Government Orders
The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Export and Import Permits Act, particularly how the automatic firearms control list will function, are questions best considered in committee. It is for that reason that we in the Official Opposition believe that this bill should now proceed promptly to the committee stage so that the questions it inevitably raises can be dealt with effectively there, taking into account the commercial, the defence and the disarmament considerations that are all involved in the control of Canada's export of conventional weapons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments. The hon. member for Victoria is next on the list. He will have 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to address the issues put before the House. The government has introduced this bill to authorize cabinet to waive the provisions in the Criminal Code permitting the import and export of automatic weapons anywhere in the world. That should be understood by the House.
Today we debate second reading, that is approval in principle of this bill. I am fascinated by the statement of the official spokesman for the Liberal Party, that the Liberal Party wants this bill quickly moved to second reading where it can receive technical amendments. The issue before the House today is the principle of this bill. We in the New Democratic Party are firmly and unalterably opposed to this bill which will permit the export of automatic weapons anywhere in the world and runs completely counter to every effort to restrain arms sales: the bane of the existence of humanity in this century.
.	.	....	, Just as the government begins an effort or said it was
These and other complex questions raised indirect y by beginning an effort to tiy to restrain sales, what is one of the bill now before us will continue to be debated by thg &st ieces of legislation it brings before the House Canadians. They properly belong m the realm of foreign ^ sessjon? b js a bjn to permit further export of and defence policy. They should be raised m that we around the world by Canada, context, not in the much narrower context of correcting an anomaly in the Criminal Code. For our part, we in the
Official Opposition would welcome an early review of It is an irony that this bill comes before the House on Canada's armament and disarmament policies, of Cana- the same day in which the government has introduced a da's policies with regard to the export of convention arms gun control bill for Canadians. Why is that what is good and, more broadly, of Canada's foreign and defence for Canadians is not good for people who live in Saudi policies.	Arabia and other parts of the world?

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
This bill drives a hole through the government's policies and constraints on arms sales around the world that directly led to the horror of the gulf war, that directly led to the massacre of millions of people in this centuiy. A policy was proclaimed by the Prime Minister in February. Let us listen to the words, first of all, of the government in its official policy statement set out in September 1990. The Arms Control and Disarmament Division of External Affairs prepared a document outlining the Canadian position. That document says that it is Canada's objective:
- to ensure that Canadian military exports do not contribute to the violation of human rights nor to the exacerbation of conflict, while ensuring that we meet our requirements for national security and obligations for collective defence.
Further:
Canada believes that increased restraint by all states with respect to the transfer of arms would contribute to the promotion of peace and security, particularly, in the areas of actual or potential conflict.
The House of Commons defence committee said earlier this year, following the gulf war in a report released in April:
Governments have a responsibility to exercise controls over military equipment, from its design to its sale or transfer and wherever possible, to its ultimate end use.
However, listen to the words of the Prime Minister, who said on March 13 the following:
There is a general view, without getting into the question of a total interdiction for the moment, that clearly a lot of these weapons, to understate the case, fell into the hands that should never have had them in the first place. We could be much more active in that area if we wanted. We have all the technology in the world. We have all the resources we need.
This is the Prime Minister speaking. He continued:
We could be big arms merchants. We have chosen 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.
That is a direct quote from the Prime Minister of Canada. What happened to his policy? Where did it disappear to?
The minister has carefully explained that behind this bill are two immediate potential sales of arms for Canadians and for Canadian companies or Canadian based companies. The first is the potential sale of
automatic weapons to the Netherlands. The other is the sale of 1,117 light armoured vehicles by a General Motors plant in London to Saudi Arabia.
The significance of this bill is that it would permit those light armoured vehicles to be armed with automatic weapons. Without that waiver of the Criminal Code, this deal is not likely, at least in a complete way, to come to the plant in London.
In attempting to justify this deal, the minister says that these are not weapons of mass destruction. What I say to the minister is that in this century more people have been killed by automatic weapons than any other weapon invented by humanity, and most of those who were killed were civilians. How can the government say that this is not a weapon of mass destruction?
The weapons that are going to be mounted on these light armoured vehicles and sold to Saudi Arabia are almost certainly going to be used by that country in controlling its own people. What kind of country is this going to?
Let us listen to the report from Amnesty International on Saudi Arabia:
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 reported 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 people were executed, 16 of them for political offences.
Information about political prisoners was limited because of strict official censorship and restrictions on freedom of movement within the country and access from abroad.
Let us look at the United States Senate report and that of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1990'. It states about Saudi Arabia:
There were no significant developments in human rights in 1990; significant restrictions remain on the freedoms of speech and press, peaceful assembly and association, religion, the right of citizens to change their government, women's rights and worker rights. There were credible reports in 1990 of the mistreatment of prisoners and incommunicado detention.
We all learned unfortunately during the gulf war a little more of the kind of regime that there is in Saudi Arabia.
May 30, 1991

Listen to the words of the former trade minister, the current minister responsible for Atlantic development. He said in the House of Commons of March 7 of this year: "We are discussing automatic weapons, that is rifles and other small arms of that nature, machine guns and the like which are necessary for armies, police forces and civil authorities to have if they are to be in a position to keep order in their own countries".
Project Ploughshares has said of these weapons, according to a GM spokesperson: "Military leaders of small countries may like its capacity to 'quell' civil disturbances".
We have here a weapon which this government proposes to permit to be exported to Saudi Arabia. Let me make it clear as well, the bill does not just specify Saudi Arabia. The bill gives the cabinet a licence to add any country in the world to the list of countries to which these weapons may be sent.
I come back: If gun control is all right for Canadians, why is it not all right for other countries and other people? Are we not a common humanity? Are we not our neighbour's keepers? How can we in this House, in conscience, pass a bill which will permit the export of automatic weapons to other countries if we do not permit those weapons in this country except for our own national security?
No case can be made that the export of automatic weapons to Saudi Arabia or most of the rest of the world is in our military or common security. The only case made by the government for the export of these weapons is one of jobs here at home. No case can be made on the basis of conscience, no case can be made on the basis of our national security for this bill and for the provisions within it.
In March the government spoke for Canadians when it set out a policy that might at least begin to turn back the arms race which has caused such destruction in this century and when the government called for a world summit for the transparency in arms deals and for restraint at home in arms deals. We supported the government when it said those things. We supported the government in committee, in the House and in public.
What has happened to that initiative? Where has the government gone? Is it because we have had a change of
Government Orders
minister? Is it because this government never was serious about trying to restrain arms sales?
My friends in the Liberal Party asked me during the course of this debate: "What about jobs?"


Mr. Fontana:: CAW supports that bill.


John F. Brewin: Let me speak on behalf of the CAW. My friend asks me to do that. The CAW have been long supporters of the New Democratic Party and we are proud of that support. I want to put on record the fact that the local in the area, Local 27, calls on this House to support the bill.


An hon. member:: Pat Clancy too.


John F. Brewin: I will get to Pat Clancy in a minute if the member will just restrain himself. CAW makes the case that the jobs are vital for its members and for that community. We respect and honour the position that it takes.
Let me quote directly from a letter from Pat Clancy, the area director for CAW Canada. It reads:
The CAW has for years taken the position that Canada should not become a major international arms dealer. We have taken a position that workers in plants producing armaments should not just be thrown on the unemployment roles, but that their jobs would be protected by conversion methods, building products for peaceful use.
The problem with the current situation at GM Diesel in London is that the workers have in fact been building these military vehicles for some years now for the U.S. military. No doubt, many of those ended up in places like Saudi Arabia. If these orders were to be cancelled, it would mean a lay off of approximately 700 workers because there are no plans to convert this facility to produce alternate products.
As far as the NDP is concerned, we realize that the party represents a broader constituency and therefore should feel free to deal with this issue consistent with party policy. I am sure you realize however, as a union, we cannot take a position that would mean the immediate loss of 700 jobs.
Our caucus took those views carefully into consideration, but we feel that even though the immediate prospect may be the loss of jobs in Kitchener in respect of Diemaco and in London in the case of the Saudi Arabian deal, we have no choice but to oppose this bill with all the vigour that we can muster. We say, in the broader interest of the Canadian national interest and the broader questions of the world interest, that this is a bad bill and this is a bill which must not be accepted by this House.

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
This is the time to begin to turn around the whole inevitable race toward the escalation of arms sales. When we begin seeing what happens with this bill and we look back at the developments over the last number of years, we begin to see how the government will be back in a few years with yet another arms sale and another arms sale.
Here is how it works. The minister referred to the fact that Diemaco was started by DND in 1976.
It was supported initially as a producer of arms supplies for the Canadian forces. Most Canadians would support that initiative, but what all of us should have realized and must now realize is the down escalator that displaces our economy and our community.
Once a company finishes producing arms for the Canadian Armed Forces, which in the world scale of things is relatively small, it then is faced with a choice. It either stops the production altogether, or seeks new markets. To stop production means a loss of jobs. Obviously, everybody starts looking for new markets. The first and most automatic is the United States with which we have a defence production sharing agreement. We sell a certain amount of the weapons to the United States, but after a period of time the United States' market dries up. We then look to our "allies" in Europe and other places. We begin seeing what arms we can flog to them.
That is what has happened in the case of the light armoured vehicles. That is what has happened in the case of automatic weapons. We have run out of our own markets. We have run out of American markets. We have run out of European markets, so now we start turning to the Third World. We start with a country like Saudi Arabia with which our government has relatively friendly relations, notwithstanding its human rights record and its place right in the heart of one of the most turbulent and tense regions of the world.
What about next week? What about next year, when the Saudi Arabian deal runs out? Where are these companies going to start looking? They will be back with the same argument, but now they will be looking for less and less savory regimes, such as El Salvador or South Korea where they may need arms to turn on the students.
Where next? Iraq? The government will make a case, and the case will be exactly the same as the case brought by the minister before this House today. The case will be that notwithstanding the human rights record, notwithstanding the tensions in the regions, notwithstanding our policies about arms control and notwithstanding the human cost that will ultimately result from this, we have to do this because of jobs.
The time has come to say "stop." The time has come to begin looking at alternatives, for ways in which this country and our people can earn their living. We have a program, DIPP, Defence Industry Production Program. Those funds should begin being used now to divert military equipment and military production to civilian production.
The whole direction of government policy must shift and it must be done in consultation with the communities and the workers involved. We must begin a serious program of conversion so that we no longer find ourselves in the invidious position that this escalator has put us on.
Mr. Speaker, let me refer you to the article by John Lamb who is executive director of the Arms Control Centre. He writes about this very deal.
The record of the government over the long period of time has been eroding step by step by step. Since the 1930s, Canada had a very restrictive arms export policy, but in the 1970s, under a Liberal government, this policy began being reversed. First, it was decided that in future, commercial considerations would be taken into account in the evaluation of export permit applications. Then the onus on who should make the sale was reversed. In the 1980s sales were being approved which had previously been turned down. By 1986 we were selling to known human rights violators and now we are on the slippery slope.
Let me finish by referring the House to a number of very wise comments, the first by Surgeon M. Keeny, Jr. in the Arms Control Association article called Focus in which he concludes:
The New World Order should not be inaugurated with a massive buildup of sophisticated conventional arms in this most dangerous, unstable, and unpredictable region.
He was referring to the Middle East.
In such a world, the president's "level playing field" would soon become the "floor of the jungle."
May 30, 1991

Also let me refer to a very persuasive article in Newsweek, the edition of April 8, 1991, by Anthony Sampson, the author of a number of books on international players, including the arms bazaar. He says:
It will not be easy to withstand national pressure to sell weapons for short-term economic advantage. But if we cannot face up to the danger and the opportunity this time, we may not have another chance.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the wisest words of all come from the prophet Micah, who said:
He shall judge between many peoples,
And rebuke strong nations afar off;
They shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war any more.
This House has a chance to say "stop." I plead with the government to withdraw this bill. Failing that, I plead with the House to defeat it. I ask all Canadians who are watching this debate to let their members of Parliament know that they want this bill stopped.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member of the New Democratic Party. He makes a compelling argument that yes, it is incumbent upon all countries, including Canada, working in concert with the international community, obviously, to work towards peace and towards the eradication of weapons. But it has to be a collective and an international agreement.
What Canada does in isolation will not solve the arms control problems of the world. We are a very small player in this particular area. While we all agree that peace should be something we all work towards internationally, one has to be veiy realistic. I find it rather peculiar and hypocritical in a way-


Mr. Barrett:: One has to be realistic.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: I find it rather peculiar that the New Democratic Party, which says it stands for workers and labour, would suggest it is going to add to the human misery of people and put them on the unemployment pile. Not only 700 people from London, Ontario, but close to 5,000 other people across this country, in New Brunswick, British Columbia, Quebec, all these other people are directly related to something which is legal at this point. In fact, the New Democratic Party's sugges-
Govemment Orders
tion is that we ought to get rid of Pratt & Whitney, which develops engines that go on helicopters. We ought to get rid of the aircraft industry, Buffalo aircraft, for instance, which are sold to other countries. They may or may not be used for military purposes. The fact is that you are talking about 50,000 or 60,000 people. You are prepared to put them on the unemployment rolls. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question of the member of the New Democratic Party, who professes to be standing for the working people. The CAW in London and CAW across Canada supports this measure. I want to ask what he is gong to tell the workers in those plants, not only in London, but across this country, who depend on these jobs. You know, 10 or 15 years from now, who knows if the world can get its act together and talk about the kinds of things that he just talked about. If it can, that is fine. But what is he going to tell those men and women on the plant floor that need those jobs? We have 1.5 million unemployed in this country and our industries are going down the tubes.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the member voices the very dilemma that this House is called upon to resolve. I would be very interested at some point in hearing what the Liberal Party's position is going to be on this question. I hope we will hear sooner or later from the member on that.
But let us just pull the dilemma right up. First of all, the precise answer to the employees in that area, is that the government should immediately sit down with the company, the community, and the employees involved and begin developing alternate industries and alternate ways of earning of a living. The transition from a military economy to a civilian economy is one that has been long delayed and it is time we got on with it.
He says that maybe in 15 years the world will get its act together. It is not going to get its act together if the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party persist in nibbling away, step by step, at the restraints in arms control we have. If we do not get our own house in order, how can we ask the rest of the world to do that?
But let us also look at the economics of this. There are workers today, as the member has pointed out, who may face a job loss if this bill does not go through. But if this

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
bill goes through and next year they make the sale, what are they going to do then?


An hon. member:: It is ten years of work.


John F. Brewin: Ten years. All right. If some other company comes in next year, in ten years they are going to have the problem, then they will have to sell to somebody else and to somebody else. In terms of jobs and a sound economic base, it is very clear that the defence industrial base has some major flaws. We are dealing with a world military situation now, where the markets in Europe and in the United States, because of the end of the cold war, will be shrinking. So the industry is forced to move to other places. It is time that we had a thorough review of all of these issues and got our act together.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, was it not the former President of the United States, a former leading general in World War II, President Eisenhower, who said, "beware of the military industrial complex," back in the 1950s, almost 40 years ago. This same nibbling away and rationalization has been given for massive arms build-ups. Is it not correct?
Rather than talking about 40 years ago, 40 days ago members of this government were saying publicly that Canada would not participate in building up arms in that particular region after the Iraqi war.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Defensive weapons.


David Barrett: Defensive weapons-Twiddle-de-dee, twiddle-de-dum, commonly known on the streets as BS. I will not go beyond the initials. But tell that to a child who has been shot and killed by an automatic weapon that it was only defensive.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Cars are killing people too.


David Barrett: Oh, cars. Now cars are causing wars. Okay. If that is the Liberal position, let it be the Liberal position. I am anxious to hear the Liberal position.
I want to ask my colleague a question. The Liberal Party is just as hypocritical as the Tories. Was this government not in the forefront of pious statements just 40 days ago saying: "We will lead the world in restricting arms sales"? Was it not the former minister of external affairs who went to the region alone, ahead of the United States Secretary of State and said: "Canada has a different position. We will not contribute to sales in this
region"? Was it not those self same people? I have a short memory. Perhaps you could remind me.


John F. Brewin: I am glad to assist the hon. member in getting on the record of the House statements made by the former minister of external affairs who said in January: "Unrestricted arms sales in the Middle East are no longer acceptable and constitute a threat to the security of all members of the United Nations".
This is one of the particularly invidious issues, the sale of arms into the Middle East region. When one country has additional weapons, then its neighbours feel obliged to get into the market and add to it. Saudi Arabia, in the last year in which statistics are available, was second only to Iraq in the world for the importation of arms. It spent 22.7 per cent of its Gross National Product on arms sales and arms purchases.
We think it is time this stopped.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am always astonished when I hear the position taken by NDP critics on Canada's defence. This morning, however, I am absolutely flabbergasted. I would like to remind the hon. member that in Canada 300,000 workers earn a living in the defence industry.
This morning the hon. member suggested that to keep Canada looking pure as the driven snow it should no longer produce the weapons it needs for its own security, but he knows perfectly well that both our industry and our purchasing power in this country are too small. What he is suggesting but does not have the courage to say outright is that in future, to keep up its virginal appearances for the NDP's sake, Canada should no longer manufacture its own weapons but purchase them abroad, in other words provide jobs for people in other countries so that we will at least have the means to ensure our own security.
I would like to know whether the hon. member will finally come out and say so in this House.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the member who asked that question by throwing back at him the words of his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, who said on March 13: "We could be big arms merchants. We have chosen not to be although it is a very lucrative business. We have chosen not to be
May 30, 1991

because it is fundamentally inconsistent with our policy to develop it, to peddle it, to finance it, and then to deplore its use". That is why we are against this bill.
This bill says nothing about the production and sale of arms within Canada. It deals with the export of arms to any country in the world. The bill does not limit cabinet in any way as to the countries that it could be selling arms to. There is no practical limitation. All the cabinet has to do is enter into some kind of arrangement with any tinpot dictator, any violator of human rights, anyone who could turn against us the next day. That is what this bill authorizes and that is what this bill is about.
With respect to the defence industry within Canada, what we have said in this debate and what we will be saying again and again until the lesson gets through to the government is that there is a fundamental problem with engaging in defence production which we must resolve in this country. It is a difficult problem. If we want to make arms for our own forces then we have to think of the ultimate consequences. At the very least we should say we are not going to further weaken the restraints and constraints on arms sales abroad. We should be sitting down across this floor and across this country, having discussions between employers and employees, companies, and the defence industry, and working the answers to this fundamental dilemma.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today on Bill C-6, an act respecting the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of, and dealing with certain weapons.
I would like to comment on the nature of this bill, what it is doing, some of the history behind the bill and the stringent controls that are built into it.
In effect this bill will allow Canadian manufacturers of automatic weapons to broaden their marketing efforts to compete for foreign defence contracts. Currently Canadian firms are restricted to selling to Canadian military and police forces only. Under this new act the export of automatic weapons will be subject to a new regime of Canadian government controls, already among the most stringent in the world. It is important to remember when we look at this topic that these are among the most stringent in the world and we are adding to them, not subtracting from them.
Government Orders
A new list called the Automatic Firearms Country Control List will be created. It will set out the names of those countries to which Canadian manufacturers can sell.
Only countries with which Canada has defence, research, development and production bilateral agreements will be eligible for inclusion on that list. Automatic firearms will not be sold to countries that are not included on that list. I want to emphasize that Bill C-6 will help companies such as Diemaco, which is in my riding of Kitchener, become more competitive.
As the Minister for International Trade stated: "I am delighted that the government has seen fit to make these changes at this time. Canadian companies that are only able to rely on domestic orders are in danger of losing their viability. Once the changes are adopted Canadian companies like Diemaco will be able to help our NATO allies and our close defence partners to meet their requirements for small arms".
I would also like to say that my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Cambridge was in the Netherlands last week with the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. He, too, is pleased with this decision and said that: "The awarding of the international contracts would help keep defence companies viable, thereby allowing the Canadian forces to continue to purchase, repair, and maintain their equipment in Canada, rather than having to seek foreign suppliers".
It is important that under these amendments companies which violate the new regulations could face fines amounting to the total value of the illegal transaction, and officers of such companies could face jail sentences of up to 10 years.
Complementary changes to the Criminal Code have also been introduced. If we look back historically at what has taken place on this issue since January 1, 1978, fully automatic weapons have been classified in the Criminal Code as prohibited weapons. Importation or possession of these fully automatic firearms has, therefore, been illegal except in the case of the Canadian Forces or Canadian police.

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
The amendments to the Criminal Code will correct this situation. However, the prohibition on the general sale to civilians of automatic weapons in Canada will remain unchanged as was established back in 1978.
As chairman of the special committee on Bill C-80 on firearms, I can say that nothing we are doing in these amendments, either now or during the previous session, will in any way frustrate the new gun control bill that was also introduced and tabled in the House this morning. I have to make it very clear that they are two separate issues. This bill deals with the export of weapons, while the other bill on gun control concerns Canadian civilians. Canadian Armed Forces and police always had an exemption from the prohibition that applied to all civilians in Canada.


John F. Brewin: What about the Saudi police, are they okay?


John Henry Reimer: The hon. member likes to speak from his seat. I did not interrupt him. I would wish that he would not interrupt me.
The new gun control bill tabled by the Minister of Justice this morning will deal with civilians in Canada. This bill will deal with exporting weapons that are not available to civilians in Canada. That is the important difference we have to keep in mind.
Also, Canada is the only NATO country which prohibits exports of automatic firearms to its allies and defence partners. If the tables were reversed, our defence requirements would suffer and we would protest to our allies. It is ludicrous that Canadian firms can export rockets, missiles, bombs, F-18 aircraft, in fact any defence equipment, but they may not export automatic firearms to our NATO allies and close defence partners.
That is the only restriction and that is the one we are addressing today in this bill. This restriction which came about in the 1977-78 gun control amendments for civilian use, not Armed Forces use, never was intended to restrict companies such as Diemaco in their exports or their hopes to export to our NATO allies and defence partners.
I discussed this with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace who is here this morning. I am glad he is here. I asked him if, when he was minister and introduced the bill back in 1976 for gun control in Canada, it was the
intention in his bill-which later was taken by another minister to fruition two years later-and if it was ever the intention of the government through him as the minister at that time, to stop exports to our defence partners or NATO allies of fully automatic weapons. His answer was no, he did not think that in any way that was ever intended. It was an oversight.
That is fine. That is the history. That is where we have come from. Today we are correcting that oversight and that is all we are doing today.
This issue has been before me for six years, since 1984. When I was elected as the member for the federal riding of Kitchener this company came to me and said: "We've discussed this with the former administration and it has admitted to us that it was an oversight. Please take our representation to the government and see if we can make this change". This change was almost accomplished in 1987, but for a variety of reasons it was deferred. Now we are facing it again. I am glad that we have now finally bit the bullet and said: "Let's face' the question and let's act on this issue".
I think it is necessary to put this action into the full range of foreign policy and international security considerations as well, not just within our own domestic question with respect to gun control.
All the production facilities in Canada must meet rigorous Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services security standards and all are subject to regular inspection. All exports and imports of automatic weapons will continue to be tightly controlled and will be subject to the same stringent controls long applied to all exports of military goods.
Exports of all fully automatic weapons will be permitted only to those countries on the Automatic Firearm Country Control List, which will include only those countries with which Canada has concluded intergovernmental defence, research, development and, production arrangements.
In the international arena the government is seeking support for proposals to increase controls on the world arms trade, in particular exports which contribute to programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. We are also working at the United Nations to encourage greater transparency in arms transfers through the establishment of an international arms transfer register. In a unilateral effort to bring greater transparency to
May 30, 1991

arms transfers, Canada has begun publishing annual reports on exports of arms from Canada.
Should this bill go through and should Diemaco in my riding which makes all of the rifles for the Canadian Armed Forces be permitted and win the contract with, say, the Netherlands, then that would be put into this annual report. A full accounting of every gun we sell to the Netherlands would go in that report. It would be fully transparent for all to see.
At the same time we recognize that all countries have a legitimate right to self-defence. Canadian firms should have the opportunity to meet their requirements within the strict limits imposed by Canadian arms control policy and export control licensing requirements and procedures.
These controls will be applied in two stages. First, a defence research, development and production agreement will have to exist between Canada and the country of final destination, and that country will have to be included, as I indicated earlier, on the Automatic Firearm Country Control List maintained under the Export and Import Permits Act.
If an arrangement does not already exist, one would have to be negotiated. The proposal to add the country to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List would have to be approved by cabinet through an Order in Council.
The Canadian government will closely control proposals to establish arrangements with other countries. There are four criteria which I would like to go through:
1.	Countries that pose a threat to Canada or its allies would not get on the list.
2.	Countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities would not get on the list.
3.	Countries under United Nations Security Council's sanction would not get on the list.
4.	Countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious human rights violations, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against their civilian population, would not get on the list.
Government Orders
Those are four very clear criteria.
Exports of automatic weapons would be permitted only to a government with which Canada concludes the necessary arrangements, or to a consignee authorized by that government. They would never go to civilians. This is a government to government sale under these stringent controls.
Applications to export automatic weapons will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to the same licensing procedures applied to all exports of military goods from Canada. Military goods are defined as those listed under Group 2 of the export control list. Automatic weapons are listed under item 2001-small arms and machine guns. These procedures include providing an end use statement and supporting document, and most notably an import certificate from the country of final destination. Applications to export automatic weapons to countries which comply with the above criteria would be closely controlled. In particular, all such applications would be subject to an interdepartmental review and would have to be approved personally by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The creation of the new stringent export controls, in particular the creation of the Automatic Firearms Country Control List, completely satisfies my concerns and those of the government with respect to arms control.
Canada will continue to advocate increased international restraint and effective controls on the export of conventional weapons. At the same time Canada continues to recognize that all countries have the right to self-defence as guaranteed under article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This bill will give Canadian firms the opportunity to help Canada's close allies and defence partners meet their legitimate defence requirements.
The bill does not represent any relaxation of Canada's export control policy. All exports of these weapons will be tightly controlled using the same stringent guidelines long applied to all exports of Canadian military goods. I might further add that Canada currently has defence production arrangements with 10 countries, of which Sweden is the only one that is not a member of NATO, hardly a country that we would say is a country we would not want to have this type of opportunity to export to.

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
An arrangement with Spain is under consideration at the present time. Cabinet could only include those countries on the Automatic Firearms Country Control List through an Order in Council should they qualify under the stringent controls that I have already pointed out.
This bill is of vital concern to the Canadian defence industry in general and, at this time, to the plant in my riding called Diemaco in particular.
In 1976, Diemaco was established by DND policy as the centre of excellence for the provision of small arms to the Canadian Armed Forces so Canada would not be totally dependent on foreign suppliers in times of emergency. This facility is unique in Canada and is fundamental in allowing the Department of National Defence to maintain its operational readiness.
Diemaco was awarded a contract to produce a new family of small arms for the Canadian Armed Forces back in the mid-1970s, resulting in 300 jobs at Diemaco and 200 jobs at its Canadian subcontractors, plus an equal number of jobs with other associated firms.
The end of this production for the Canadian Armed Forces is, however, approaching and this important industrial preparedness capability provided by Diemaco and its approximately 75 subcontractors stands to be lost now to Canada.
It must be stressed that these are high quality, technology-oriented jobs. The investment by the Canadian government of some $40 million in technology and computer-based manufacturing capability had made and will continue to make a significant contribution to Canada's competitiveness. The capabilities supported include product design engineering, manufacturing engineering, metal finishing, plastic moulding, precision casting forging, and machining and extrusion techniques.
Over the past few years Diemaco has been competing for a contract to provide the Ministry of Defence of the Netherlands with a family of small arms valued at more than $120 million, potentially followed by a further $100 million worth of spare parts and other support. Securing this contract will mean an initial 7,680 person-years of Canadian employment, with the potential of almost doubling the employment over the life of the project. Success will also ensure the ability to continue the development work necessary for new weapons systems
for the Canadian Armed Forces into the next century. The Dutch have now begun a new testing phase with DND, supplied with rifles from Diemaco. Without this legislation in place the credibility of this proposal will obviously suffer.
The United States Department of Defence will be looking to Diemaco and its subcontractors for components to maintain its inventory of rifles and machine guns. This could involve 20 Canadian companies and export sales of $5 million.
Let me wrap up. We are correcting an oversight in the gun control legislation of 1978 for civilians, not armed forces. That is number one.
Number two. What we are doing is keeping a Canadian centre of excellence which the people of Canada, through the Government of Canada, have asked a firm to provide. Go out and hire the people. Go out and do the research. Together we will build this centre so that you can make the weapons for our Canadian Armed Forces.
We have a limited need. If we want that expertise to exist in Canada-I think we do-and if we want those kind of people to develop that expertise into the future, then they have to be able to export, at least to our friends and our allies.
That is all we are asking in this legislation. We are talking about basic military equipment for law enforcement and simple defence needs. These are not weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, such as the fully automatic weapon made in Kitchener, or the light armoured vehicle from GM in London, are for law enforcement and simple military defence needs.
This will be regulated with the the stringent controls I have outlined. With those stringent controls, this is a responsible piece of legislation correcting an oversight of the past.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, let us just examine those stringent controls a little more carefully. The member has waxed eloquent about stringent controls. The English language gets completely twisted on its head. It reminds one of George Orwell.
This bill sets out in section 2 the following new section
4.1.
May 30,1991

The Governor in Council may establish a list of countries, to be
called an Automatic Firearms Country Control List, including
therein -
And I emphasize the word "including," not restricted to, but including therein-
- any country with which Canada has an intergovernmental defence, research, development and production arrangement and to which the Governor in Council deems it appropriate to permit the export of a prohibited weapon described in the paragraph (c) or (e) of the definition "prohibited weapon" in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code, or components or parts thereof, that is included in an Export Control List.
As the member knows the bill goes on to say that the minister may issue an export permit provided the country of destination is one of the countries listed on the Automatic Firearms Country Control List.
There is no constraint whatever on cabinet as to what countries can be countries of destination. Any country on the globe, any dictator, any violator of human rights, any country that is a market for these weapons of destruction can be on this Automatic Firearms Country Control List. Parliament is imposing, through this bill, no constraint whatever on the cabinet. The country that this year makes a case a year ago could not have made a case. It 10 years ago could not have made a case on the basis of human rights violations, on the basis of being in the middle of the Middle East, an area of intense tension. Those countries could not then have made a case, but today can.
Next year, 10 years from now, even less savory dictatorships will be able to make that list. This bill provides no stringent controls. Not a scintilla of control is imposed by this bill.
The member is simply completely wrong. Why does the member not just come out clearly and say that this bill now permits the complete, unrestricted export of these weapons of destruction, weapons which have killed more human beings in this century than any other weapon ever invented. How does the member answer that?


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the member opposite is saying that. The member opposite is saying that there is an absence of any control whatsoever, if I understand him correctly.
That is not what I said. I went through four specific criteria.
Government Orders


John F. Brewin: That is just a matter of policy.


John Henry Reimer: These four specific criteria are veiy clear. They are very clear.


John F. Brewin: That policy can be changed overnight.


John Henry Reimer: Any country that poses a threat to Canada or to its allies cannot be on the list. That is number one.


David Barrett: That is not in the legislation.


John Henry Reimer: The member keeps talking from his seat, Mr. Speaker. He will have his opportunity, I am sure.


David Barrett: That is not in the legislation.


John Henry Reimer: Second, with respect to these criteria which must be met before any country can get on that list, they are there for the Government of Canada to follow. It is openly publishing them here right now. It is saying that these are the criteria we will be following before a country can be on that list. I think, therefore, they are criteria that are very significant. However, the member is not listening.


John F. Brewin: I was listening very carefully. On a point of order, the member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the hon. member for Kitchener has the floor. I would like him to reply to the questions and comments and get on with the debate because I have another great speaker coming up. The hon. member for Kitchener.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: Just as it is not fair for a member to suggest another member is not in the House, it is not fair for the member to suggest that another member was not listening when I was listening to him and listening very-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kitchener will complete his remarks, please.


John Henry Reimer: Permit me to try again, Mr. Speaker, if I may. There are stringent controls and the criteria are very clear. Before any country can get on that list through an Order in Council, it must meet these four criteria: that country cannot pose a threat to Canada or its allies; it cannot be involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities; it cannot be under United Nations Security Council sanctions; and it cannot be a country which has a persistent record of serious violations of human rights. How much clearer do we have to be? The

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
criteria are there and you cannot get on the list if you violate any of those four.
I have to say that the criteria are there. They are clear, public and known. Every year-


John F. Brewin: They are changeable.


John Henry Reimer: The opposition likes to say "and they are changeable". These criteria are the new regime of stringent controls, which are being introduced in this bill and-


John F. Brewin: No, they are not in the bill.


John Henry Reimer: If I may continue without the interruptions of the hon. member, they are the criteria by which the Government of Canada would add or consider adding a country to that list.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that I am the next speaker. It comes as a great surprise to me that the great Liberal opposition has disappeared today on this particular debate. We know that the government has abandoned its principles, but now we find that the opposition is sitting on the fence. Where does the Liberal Party stand on this issue? We know the hypocrisy of this government and I will deal with that chapter and verse in a moment. You must help me in my shock and disappointment, Sir, to find that the Official Opposition refuses to take its place in this debate.


Mr. Belair:: Stop talking about others and talk about yourself.


David Barrett: 'Falk about others. This is politics, my friend, and the political matter is clear on this issue. The government has taken one position, the New Democratic Party has taken another position, and the Liberals are hiding again. I have to say that because it is political. I do not like being political in this place because on occasion it has been noted that people have been partisan in this Chamber but the government has set a new arena for being partisan. You have to go to Japan to do that. Far be it from me to be partisan here at home. I am not in Japan, but I have to take my place in this debate.
The member who just spoke misspoke accidentally, but he left himself with the impression that the criteria he was talking about were in the bill. Nothing could be more incorrect. The member who spoke did an eloquent job speaking about something that was not in the bill and
that confuses me. I know it is not out of order, but it confuses me. So how can he say the policy was in the bill when it is not in the bill? I did not get a chance to ask him what section of the bill he was referring to, but that is the way it is.
I have decided that what I would do is speak through the government's own words. I find it preferable, rather than giving an unrestricted point of view of my own, that I show some respect and dignity to the government of the day. This is not a change of temper in my approach to politics. It is just that once in a while I read things that the government says, and once in a while I would like to believe it. I have been shocked again even though I am young and ingenue in this whole process. I am shocked that the government is also playing a game of politics, saying one thing in one location and something else in another location.
The example I am going to give is appropriate because it took place in western Canada, a region largely unknown to members of this House and albeit it is a superior region of this country, we are modest about that superiority. This is what the former minister of external affairs made in his very pious mode.
I love to see him in his pious mode, when the fount of all wisdom comes down and says: "This government is going to take its place internationally and present this point of view".
Here he is with his best pious views out on his home turf, none other than Calgary. The Right Hon. Joe Clark at a luncheon hosted by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, a hotbed of radical politics. What did he say on page 3?
Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring this to your attention because you are listening more than anyone else. This is what his rationalization was about the current follow-through on the war we voted against in the Middle East. I quote page 3 with some pontification.
"Canada did not put the lives of its men and women at risk for the sake of a few cents a litre on oil. No, no, no". He goes on to say: "Nor was this war about democracy"-that is interesting. "Kuwait is not a democracy of the Canadian sort, although there were signs before August 2 that it was moving in that direction".
May 30, 1991

If I may permitted an aside. Kuwait just sent a guy to jail for 15 years for wearing a T-shirt. I can imagine what is going to happen if this government goes down further in the polls and some bad youth comes out with a terrible picture of the Prime Minister on a T-shirt. Is he going to get 15 years?
"Kuwait is not a democracy. It is possible that Canadians would not choose the Kuwaiti system". It is impossible, but that is his definition. That is not the point. "Peace is not the province of the privileged who are lucky enough to be in democracies, the universal right. Aggression is a universal wrong". Piety number one.
Piety number two is on page 4: "That is why we are in the gulf. Not for oil, not for democracy, not for others, but for the principle that Canadians have always defended, a principle Canadians need if this country requires its security and prosperity to prevail. We are there based on the universal principles of international law".
I am going to get to more claptrap, but at this point I am just reading little excerpts.
This is a government that says, as a justification for going to war against Kuwait, and this is Mr. Clark in Calgary-


Mr. Hockin:: Why are we talking about war. This is a different bill.


David Barrett: We are going to get to his quotes on arms control. Just do not get nervous. He has even said things about arms control that are attached to this. He spoke to the Chamber of Commerce.


Mr. Volpe:: Are you going to table those, Dave?


David Barrett: Table this? I will give you 1,000 copies. He goes on to say: "This government does not necessarily defend democracies". We saw that. This policy shifts day to day. When it says: "this is just defensive weapons," one begins to wonder about further hypocrisies.
This is the one that will grab your attention, Sir, and perhaps the attention of the Liberals. The former minister gave four reasons why we have to take the position we have.
Third, he said: "A durable peace will require addressing the full spectrum of problems that have plagued that region. That means dealing with other conflicts, includ-
Govemment Orders
ing the Arab-Israeli conflict. That means addressing the symptoms of conflict, the proliferation of weapons and destruction and the arms trade, the constant chase for spheres of influence". How in the world is selling these arms to Saudi Arabia, a consistent violator of human rights-which my friend referred to as a policy matter-going to be consistent with the policies of that minister, the ones which say we have got to stop selling arms?
You cannot say one thing in Calgary and do something else when you are a government here in Ottawa, because someone will accuse the government of being hypocritical. If no one else does, for want of such an accusation, I will make it myself. The government is being hypocritical.
It says one thing in one part of the country. It says one thing in other speeches, but does something else by this bill here today. I am shocked, disappointed and, frankly, hurt. In my tender years I do not like to experience those emotions.
The government was fibbing. The minister in that speech could be accused of fibbing, and guess who did the accusation? No one other than Douglas Roche. I was not serving in this House when Douglas Roche was a member here, but he was a Conservative. He would never reach the low of being a Liberal; he was a Conservative. He sat in this House and he was appointed by this government as the ambassador for disarmament. He has an article in today's edition of The Toronto Star saying that the arms sale must be killed and gives all the reasons, as a former ambassador and a former Conservative, and this government is bringing in this bill.


John F. Brewin: And supported by the Liberals.


David Barrett: Is it supported by the Liberals?


John F. Brewin: We don't know.


David Barrett: We do not know what the Liberals do. This is the best in Liberal tradition. Maybe yes, maybe no; it is the old tango. The Liberals play the game any way they want. They can run out of here and say: "We are not for arms sales, but not necessarily for stopping the sale of arms". The Liberals invented Orwellian doublespeak. They are the experts at it. When they cannot even dance on the fence they do not dance at all. They do not even participate in the debate. Where are those great spokespersons from the Liberal Party?

May 30, 1991
Government Orders


Thomas Hockin: Now you're talking, Dave.


David Barrett: That is true. When the government becomes a hypocrite it is right up front about being a hypocrite. You have got to admire its honesty. When the government is hypocritical it is open, honest hypocrisy which anybody can understand. The Tory's hypocrisy is there for everybody to see, but the Liberal's hypocrisy is being hidden and that is not fair in the political arena of this country. Hidden hypocrisy is worse than principled hypocrisy, even though the government practises principled hypocrisy.
Look at this quote on page 6 from the hon. former minister of external affairs. This is a lovely quote. This went over with senatorial tones by the former minister. This is what he said in Calgary, Alberta, where nobody in central Canada would report it. He said: "28 nations supplied both Iran and Iraq during the eight-year war. Between 1984 and 1988 the dollar value of major weapons exports to Iraq was higher than any other country in the developing or developed world. During the same period, middle eastern countries occupied five of the top six spots as destinations for arms. The Middle East, much of it underdeveloped, has spent a larger portion of its Gross National Product on arms than any other region in the world. There is a worrying, parallel phenomenon of the growth of new suppliers in the developing world, many of whom put few restrictions on their arms exports".
Hypocrisy, shocking, naked, unvarnished hypocrisy coming from this government denying what the minister himself said in Calgaiy. He said he would not do it and that it is a shame on developing countries that are doing it. Who the heck is now selling guns into that region? Oh, they are just automatic weapons. They are okay; they are safe. You only have to pull the trigger once, so when you kill somebody you spread it around. It diminishes your moral responsibility. If you have to pull the trigger every time then you are more morally responsible, but since they are automatic weapons it diminishes the morality. That is the kind of quixotic thinking that goes on over there in its sheer naked hypocrisy.


Thomas Hockin: Nonsense.


David Barrett: It is nonsense. I am glad that the member agrees with me. I am glad that I have got one Tory who has come to his senses. If I only knew his name and the
seat he represented, I would broadcast exactly who yelled out "nonsense" at the government's policy. I welcome his frank, open admission here on this day of our Lord, May 30, 1991. I will take your name and mail what you said to your constituents.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I resent that the hon. member does not know my name or my riding. It is London West. I do have to object to what he just said by way of hypocrisy. The government is very clear in this bill that we are not dealing in weapons of mass destruction. We have made that point very clear right from the beginning. That is why I am rising on the point of order.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, now we have a new dimension of doublespeak. The Conservatives are trying to get into debate under points of order, something that I have wanted to do on occasion I confess. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true on occasion I have violated parliamentary rules the same way. That is why I am able to recognize it so quickly.
Nonsense is the operative word. The government says in a speech in Calgary that sending arms into that region is a violation of all common sense and then three months later it is in the business of peddling guns there.
Will we be confronted with the same kind of pious nonsense when the next outbreak of war takes place in the Middle East and the government rushes in to assist, declaring peace must be brought to the region and we find that it is our own arms and it is our own vehicles that have been part and parcel of the killing in the region? Is there a question of morality here? I think so. But the overwhelming morality is the hypocrisy of the statements, as I go on reading from the speech of the minister.
I want to go to page 8 of the same speech in Calgary by the minister. He says: "We will propose that the countries who are signatoiy to the conventional forces agreement in Europe undertake not to export arms affected by that agreement to countries outside Europe". Here is a clear-cut statement of Canada's position by that minister. The statement was made on March 8. Here we are on May 30 violating what the minister said would be Canada's position. If that is not hypocrisy I do not know what is.
May 30, 1991

The minister, speaking for the Canadian government, announced to all Canadians at a Chamber of Commerce meeting: "We will propose that countries who are signatory to the conventional forces agreement in Europe undertake not to export arms affected by the agreement to countries outside Europe". Is Saudi Arabia outside Europe? Unless the map has been dramatically changed, unless there has been another heretical view by the Papal Nuncio on Galileo's view of the world, Saudi Arabia is still not in Europe. It is a direct contradiction of what the minister promised the Canadian people and said the Canadian government was going to do.
I know this bill is being brought in on a day when the Prime Minister is not in the country. The Prime Minister would not stand for this hypocrisy. If the Prime Minister were here today he would defend the policy announced by his government. It is a rebellious group of government backbenchers and cabinet ministers who have grasped this opening and decided to revolt against the statements of the Prime Minister no matter how revolting those statements are and contradict the position of the government.
I ask the government before it is further embarrassed to withdraw this bill and consult with the author of the statement who promised that the Canadian government position would be no sale of arms outside of Europe. If they do not do this, someone will use stronger language and call the government liars. They might do that. They cannot do it by name but they can certainly call a party liars.
That is my fear. Some young witness on television or in the gallery here today might say: "My goodness gracious, the government is lying". I do not want that to happen. I suggest they either withdraw the bill or get the government to clarify the promise made by the minister that they would not sell outside of Europe.
I want to confess. Those admonitions I have been giving to myself and others about my being an ingenue are not true. I have seen hypocrisy before but I have never seen it as clear as this. I do not want to mislead the House, Mr. Speaker. I have come to the conclusion that this government is hypocritical, that this debate is a farce, when this government goes outside of this Chamber and makes promises elsewhere and comes in and does something else.
Government Orders
If you are going to sell arms, come up front, do not lie about it to the people of this country and to our European neighbours and say you are not going to do it. Do not tell them to do something you are not prepared to do. Do not go around lying in the world that somehow you are some kind of wonderful paragons of virtue when in fact you deny your own promises made just on March 8 of this year by the former secretary of state.
Do not lie to the Canadian people. Be up front and say that you are in the arms sale business. We understand your position, but the hypocrisy and lying from this government is what is completely unacceptable.
As for the Liberals, my last word to them is: "Stay on the fence". They might win an election that way. Never again will the Canadian people put up with the kind of claptrap with the Liberals denying any position at all and hoping to get votes for it.
Where the heck do you stand on this issue, you Liberals in the Official Opposition. We know where they stand. What are you hiding from? How will you vote on this? We are anxious to see.


John F. Brewin: First, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, my neighbour in the Victoria area, on another very powerful speech.
The issues that this bill addresses are far broader than that of the sales of particular arms. They go right to the very fundamentals of where this country is going with respect to its international policy and its role, as it sees it, in the world.
We have the comments of the former Secretary of State for External Affairs as referred to-


Thomas Hockin: Question. Question, Mr. Speaker.


John F. Brewin: I know I am a new member and I have a lot to learn but I understood this is questions and comments.
I am prefacing, eventually, a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member does have an opportunity to have a short comment, and then put a question to the hon. member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the underlying long-term basic policy issue that this bill puts front and centre is the issue of whether we are going to be a leader in restraining the sale of arms or we are going to continue to

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
participate in the business of selling arms around the world.
The most recent figures show that the average annual sales or export of arms by Canada reached $1.5 billion, earning Canada a place in the top 15 military suppliers in the 1980s, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The real issue now is how we are going to begin to turn this around.
The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has been for his whole political career a defender of the position of workers in British Columbia and across Canada.
I would like to give him the opportunity to outline his thoughts on how workers in this situation should best be looked after and protected. Is it to pass a bill like this, or does the member have, as I know he does, alternatives in mind?


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, someone suggested that was a planted question.
Unfortunately, our planning was not good today and it is not a planted question.
I will address it in terms of a global view since the minister whom I quoted was taking a global view. Let us take, for example, one area of government policy, the export of oil and natural gas.
If this government were serious about building a sovereign, firm, industrial base in this country to provide meaningful jobs for Canadians, it would cut down on our export of raw materials, particularly oil and gas, and start building an industrial base on those energy products.
Why, for example, are we shipping our Canadian oil into the United States and subsidizing American truckers' jobs with cheap Canadian crude oil that is made from both light and heavy oil into industrial products, and for industrial use in transportation? Why are we doing that?
We could put a surtax on exported oil to force the Americans to bring the price of their transportation costs up to our level. Just as this government acquiesced to a surtax on forest industry goods from British Columbia, we should do the other.
What would we do with the money? We would expand the industrial base. Alberta could be the foundation of a major petrochemical industry. Certainly the export of LNG should be a consideration for western Canada. We should be building ships in this country after the United Nations' admonition that 40 per cent of all raw materials leaving any nation should go on that nation's ships, built by that nation's shipyards, and manned by that nation's crews. We don't have a merchant fleet left any more.
These are not things of startling revelation, but my colleague asked me to give a couple of examples of what we could be doing if we were a government of determination. Those are things that are simple and that would more than employ tens of thousands of people in this country. Part of the price of doing business with the Japanese in terms of the export of LNG, which I favour, would be to do it through ships built in Canada, manned by Canadian crews. Why not? There is a whole range of things.
Is the selling of arms the only thing that we have left to create jobs. Is that the lack of vision? I cannot believe it. We have highly skilled and highly paid professionals within the bureaucracy of this government who can come up with these ideas and many others.
I am not a Christian, but I noted with some interest that the member ended up his comments with a quote from one of the prophets, about beating your weapons into ploughshares. I puzzle about Christians sometimes. Do they really mean what they say? All those prayer breakfasts that the members of Parliament go to, is it a charade? This trade in arms is immoral. It is against what we say in daily prayer in this Chamber, and yet we are going to go ahead with it. That is hypocrisy, too. I wonder about it.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in a quiet temperate way on this bill, because it does not deserve the kind of hyperbole that we have had to listen to for the last 25 minutes. The facts behind this bill are rather dull and mundane and bureaucratic. They have nothing to do with the great questions of principle that the hon. member wanted to bring forward, nothing to do with the
May 30, 1991

Old Testament or the New Testament, and nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
This bill has to do with export permits and restricting export permits for these kinds of weapons. It also concerns redressing an anomaly that existed in our industrial base for a very limited class of military equipment. Certainly it has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. The hon. member tried to, in his hyperbole, drag in images of mass destruction, the Old and New Testaments, Middle East conflict and so on. None of that is really relevant to this bill.
I will not repeat what the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and the Minister for International Trade has said earlier today. He has outlined the details of the bill.
I wanted to outline two things, first of all from the point of view of being a minister of state in the department of industry, and second as a member of Parliament from London, Ontario. Close examination of this bill will make it clear that it is totally consistent with all that the government has said concerning the proliferation of weapons and controlling the arms trade. The government is seeking support for proposals to increase controls on the world's arms trade, in particular exports which contribute to programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. This remains a policy and we have put in place to that effect.
We are also working actively in the UN to encourage greater transparencies in arms transfers. That is exactly what this bill does. It makes everything transparent. It is not hypocritical. In fact what we are doing is transparent, greater transparency in arms transports through measures such as establishing an international arms transfer register. In a unilateral effort to bring greater transparency to arms transfers, Canada has begun publishing annual reports on exports of arms from Canada. This is not hypocrisy; this is transparency.
We believe this is an important subject and must be handled properly and with clarity.
At the same time, we recognize that all countries have a legitimate right to self-defence. What the hon. member misses is that every country must have a limited stock of rifles, for example, to defend itself through its police forces as well as its military, and also for internal peace purposes. Even more important, you have to transport your troops. You put your troops in a truck; you can put
Government Orders
them in an open truck or you can put them in a covered, light armoured vehicle which can have a turret for defence, but not a weapon of mass destruction. That is really what we are talking about.
They take those two very mundane parts of the storage of any police force or any military and they make them sound like weapons of mass destruction. They are not. It is a very pragmatic supply for one's own security.
It means that we are going to be making these things in Canada. Is that not a good idea? Do we have to buy everything? Does the hon. member want to buy all of these light armoured vehicles from other countries? Does he want to buy all rifles from other countries? We are going to be making these. We do not have a big enough market here in Canada to make them just for the Canadian market. If we are going to be world class and have a centre of excellence in this particular product, we have to export. That is what this bill is allowing to happen.
This bill is a bureaucrat's delight in the sense that there are a number of permits that have to be achieved before any kind of export can take place. Designations have to take place; agreements have to take place; there has to be a publishing of the regulations. This thing is so transparent it is the very opposite of hypocrisy. It is being honest and straightforward with the Canadian people.
The bill is one that does not deserve the kind of hyperbole and high temperature that the hon. member tried to bring forward.
What does it mean? In my home town the hon. member would expect me to stand up as a member of Parliament from London West. I notice the Liberal member from London East has also supported this, along with the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Auto Workers and intercorporate council for General Motors. This means 10,000 person years of employment for not just the London area, but for subcontractors across Canada.
I want to give some sort of sense of what this would mean. If we decided to buy our light armoured vehicles, for example, from another country, close down that business, we would be saying goodbye to close to 1,000 workers in the London plant, to say nothing of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of subcontractors helping with this product. It is a benign transport vehicle with a

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
rifle on a turret. That is all it is. It is not a weapon of mass destruction.
These are integral to our own defence. They are integral to other countries' defences. Why do we not make them here? That is all this bill does. It allows it to be done and to give employment. It is very interesting.
You would expect a member from London to stand up and just talk about its impact for London, Ontario. Ultimately it is more important for reasons beyond that. I am also talking about jobs in Richmond, British Columbia; Vancouver; Edmonton, Alberta; Winnipeg, Manitoba; I am talking about high-tech skills being maintained in Quebec City. I am talking about industrial benefits and export earnings centred in Nova Scotia, in Mulgrave and Bridgewater.
The economic benefits of Bill C-6 extend all the way to St. John's, Newfoundland, directly, indirectly in the short term, in the long term and most importantly, in terms of jobs and dollars. The economic benefits for the country as a whole which flow from this are really quite astounding. The potential immediate contracts in the offing are close to $1 billion. For any country's military, an industrial source of contracts for $1 billion is an immense job creator, an immense centre of excellence, and that is what this bill will help do. It gives economic spin-offs, perhaps double or triple, direct employment perhaps approaching 10,000 person years, and future contracts, as yet unvalued, but similar in magnitude to what I have just mentioned.
Mr. Dickerson, the secretary-treasurer of the intercorporate council of General Motors, supports this bill very much. He would not support it if we were making weapons of mass destruction, but when we are making essentially a transportation vehicle, he does support it. He supports it because of the jobs for his union and the jobs for the subcontractors and their employees.
The heart of this bill is that we are restricting access through restricting the Export and Import Permits Act. We are creating jobs and we are dealing with a bureaucratic anomaly. The bill does not deserve a great deal of debate in this House.
What we should do is look at what it is. It is a pragmatic solution to a bureaucratic anomaly. That is all it is, but it also does help us to have a centre of excellence in two industrial categories which are very important for thousands of Canadians.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member who has just spoken could answer one question for me and maybe even a couple.
Would the secretary-treasurer of the CAW, who was quoted as saying that he supports this, not be equally supportive of any move that was going to create the same number of jobs or sustain the same kind of employment?
It is not this particular work that the secretary-treasurer is interested in. It is just that he would rather have employment than unemployment. That is the question, really.
The other one is this. The hon. member mentioned it is just automatic rifles and light armoured vehicles that we are producing. Canada needs those for the defence of its own country.
From what potential aggressors would we be defending ourselves with a lot more rifles and a lot more light armoured vehicles?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member's first question, you have to live in the real world.
There are no contracts for General Motors diesel division, outside of the locomotive division, in the offing. There are contracts for this transportation vehicle. That is what we are dealing with.
We cannot deal with potential jobs that may or may not arrive for some other product. There is no other product on the horizon. This one is there. It is a transportation vehicle which could be used by the UN. It could be used by any civil power that wanted to transport its police. It is a transportation vehicle.
It is equipped with a turret and an automatic weapon just to defend it. For example, if you were defending your own country in a state of siege, and you were under attack from hand grenades or whatever, you would have to have some sort of facility. You are not just going to be a sitting duck but you are going to deter that kind of attack.
May 30,1991

I am not going to hypothesize what kind of civil disturbances in Canada might occur which would give rise to this or what kind of disturbances could occur elsewhere which might give rise to this.
All I am saying is that you cannot have a transportation vehicle with no means to deter people who want to throw a hand grenade at it or whatever. That is what this is for. It is not a tank which rushes into an offensive position.
It is a transportation vehicle which is very lightly armoured and has this automatic capacity simply as a defence against any kind of rush that might occur against it.
That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about weapons of mass destruction. We are not even talking about a tank.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the member for London West says that this is just a transportation vehicle.
Let me see whether he would agree with the following description of the light armoured vehicle: "In its many variations, all of which are included in the Saudi Sale, it can be used as a troop carrier, a communications command centre, a towing vehicle, a mortar launcher or an anti-tank weapon. Virtually all vehicles carry machine guns. Some may carry rocket launchers or cannons."
According to a GM spokesperson: "Military leaders of smaller countries may like its capacity to quell civil disturbances."
Let me ask the minister if he agrees with his colleague, the former trade minister, who said about these weapons: "We are discussing automatic weapons, that is, rifles and other small arms of that nature, machine guns and the like, which are necessary for armies, police forces and civil authorities to have if they are to be in a position to keep order in their own countries."
This bill is not about the vehicles. This bill is about the automatic weapons that are to be placed on these vehicles. The sale of the vehicles themselves was approved before this bill saw the light of day. The change that the government is seeking is a change in the Criminal Code which presently prohibits the export and import of automatic weapons. It is changing the Criminal Code, in section 8 of the bill, to permit a waiver of the Criminal Code provisions in respect to export of otherwise prohibited weapons, namely automatic weapons, to any country the government chooses.
Government Orders
The purpose of the bill deals strictly with the weapons themselves, not with the vehicles. As noted, the former minister of trade says: "We are discussing weapons which civil authorities may need if they are to be in a position to keep order in their own countries". How does the government justify this on any moral or ethical basis whatever?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I must ask the hon. member a question. If we have a peacekeeping operation, let us say in Cyprus for example, there are transport troops. If there are terrorists surrounding this transportation vehicle, the troops need some means of deterring those terrorists. That is why it has this turret. It is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is like a policeman who is carrying a gun. The hon. member wants our peacekeeping forces, wants UN peacekeeping forces, to be in a vehicle with no means of deterrence whatsoever. That is all the light armour does. That is all the automatic weapon does.
He would like to ensure that any peacekeeping operation, any NATO operation is completely denuded of this capacity. This bill makes certain that there is a deterrent. As a matter of fact, without this bill we could not allow exports to a country that was going to engage in a peacekeeping activity, for example, in Cyprus, the Middle East or whatever. Without this bill we could not export to our NATO friends.
I know my hon. friend across the aisle does not care about NATO but Canadians support NATO. Three-quarters of Canadians support NATO very strongly. We cannot export this product to them either.
This product allows us to be a centre of excellence in this particular industry. This is a transportation vehicle that is very lightly armoured and can be used for peacekeeping, can be used for police purposes. In nine cases out of ten, if not every case, it will be used in a context which we will approve of, which is primarily peacekeeping in nature.
The hon. member's particular suggestion would mean that our peacekeeping forces, if they use this vehicle, would not have any means of deterrence whatsoever. It would make them a sitting duck and highly vulnerable. Therefore, this bill is responsible. It is transparent and, frankly, it is just a bureaucratic change to remove an anomaly that was in the Criminal Code.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the minister might well make any observations with respect to this particular vehicle. As I understand this

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
new bill, the Canadian government would be permitted to distribute in this instance this particular vehicle with a gun on its turret-whether it would be for peacekeeping or for its potential use in a war zone situation-to any country. The government has not put any restrictions in this bill as I understand it.
Could the minister please enlighten me as to how the government would control which countries would be allowed to get access to these vehicles from Canada? Is there going to be any kind of control? Is there going to be any list of criteria? Will the human rights criteria which we have supported so ardently and feel so strongly about be a fundamental criterion?
If it were, where would you put Saudi Arabia in that regard? I do not think Amnesty International has given Saudi Arabia a very fine grade or mark. I could understand our distributing or giving access to the Netherlands, as a NATO partner, or to be a participant in the forces that would be the new forces in Europe. However, I certainly do not see how we can have no restrictions, no accountability and no yardstick of measure in the distribution of any kind of war games and war toys.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the controls come in two stages and I will be very careful in outlining them here.
If these amendments are adopted today, it is quite right, as the hon. member asked, to say: "Well what controls will apply to the export and import of automatic weapons?" It is a reasonable question and it is a responsible question.
The controls will be applied in two stages. First of all, a defence, research, development and production agreement will have to exist between Canada and the country of final destination. That country will have to be included on the Automatic Firearms Country Control List maintained under the Export and Import Permits Act. If an arrangement does not already exist, let us say a country
wants to be a customer and we do not have an arrangement, one would have to be negotiated and the proposal to add the country to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List would have to be approved by cabinet through an Order in Council. The Canadian government will closely control proposals to establish arrangements with countries.
Let us say we are uncomfortable with a country that applies. These are some examples of where we will closely control any proposals to establish arrangements: first, countries which pose a threat to us or our allies; second, countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities; third, countries under United Nations Security Council sanctions; fourth, countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population.
Export of automatic weapons would be permitted only to a government with which Canada concludes the necessary arrangement or to a consignee authorized by the government.
Applications to export automatic weapons will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to the same licensing procedures applied to all exports of military goods from Canada.
As we all know, these include an end use statement, supporting documentation and so on. This, frankly, is a bureaucrat's delight. There are a great many transparencies in the act. It will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
I think that will deal with the hon. member's very responsible question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
The House took recess at 12.53 p.m.
May 30,1991



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, just before he left on his far east trip, the Prime Minister received a letter from our Hong Kong Veterans Association reminding him that Japan had never apologized for its treatment of them.
On Tuesday, we saw how effectively that message was carried across the Pacific when Japanese Prime Minister Kaifu apologized for what he described as the "unbearable suffering" his country brought to the Canadian servicemen. The apology, according to at least Southam News, went far beyond anything expected.
We realize that nothing can properly make up for what our Hong Kong veterans went through in the war. However, it is some consolation to know that their ordeal was a big reason why Canada became one of the first countries in the world to pay prisoner of war compensation.
In fact, our country has paid out over $50 million in POW compensation to former prisoners of the Japanese or their dependants. No amount of money can fully compensate our Hong Kong veterans for what they endured, nor can words, but yesterday's apology in Tokyo shows that their bravery in action and courage in captivity is acknowledged.
On behalf of the veterans in my riding, I want to say how pleased we are with this result.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, 1991 marks the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Disabled and the end of the Decade of the Disabled.
In 1985 Canada showed its support for disabled persons by issuing a declaration on the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons. Since then, however, Canada's record of leadership and action on disability issues has been poor.
The rights of disabled persons have still not been officially acknowledged by a United Nations convention. Such international recognition would go a long way to ensuring the rights of all persons with disabilities.
The theme of National Access Awareness Week is "Access is a Right". This government must take the initiative and make that come true at both a national and international level.
I call on this government to show real leadership and true commitment to disabled Canadians and to disabled persons throughout the world, and ask that it seek to establish a United Nations convention that will recognize and support the rights of all disabled persons.


U.S. IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the House aware of recent actions by U.S. government officials which amount to nothing more than paranoid harassment.
Six members of the Moravian Church in Nicaragua travelled to Winnipeg last week as part of an exchange program with the United Church. Two of the six, a 60-year old fisherman and a 25-year old secretary, did not have their U.S. entry visas before the group left Managua.
When the group arrived in Miami they had to stay overnight to wait for their connecting flight to Winnipeg. U.S. Immigration officials quickly separated the two from the group, forbade them to communicate with the others, and held them under armed guard. In fact, the two were escorted by armed guard all the way until their flight left the ground after a stop in Minneapolis.
The actions of the U.S. Immigration officials were way out of line. These people all had valid travel documents, Canadian visas, return air tickets and a letter from the Moravian Church naming the six as members of an inter-church exchange program.
It is bad enough that they had to go all the way to Costa Rica and pay $40 to get their Canadian visas to go on this trip. This harassment from the U.S. officials just made matters worse, and I call on the U.S. ambassador with the hope that our Nicaraguan friends will not be subjected to the same treatment on the way home.

May 30, 1991


GUN CONTROL
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the gun control bill, as you know I would have preferred legislation with stricter controls on firearms. I would have preferred to see military, paramilitary and modified semi-automatic weapons taken out of circulation altogether.
However, I must consider the pros and cons, which means whether to keep the present legislation which is defective in the extreme, or accept new legislation as a compromise solution that may not be perfect but will at least restrict access to firearms.
Finally, since I am being asked to look favourably on this bill and accept a compromise, I hope my pro-gun colleagues will do the same.


INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I said that Edison could not have invented the electric light bulb if he depended on this government's science and technology policy. That is still true today. Do we need further proof that the government cannot be taken seriously when it promises to ensure the prosperity of Canadians? Once again, we have it in the form of the government's reply to a recent report by the Standing Committee of the House on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development.
The government rejected all the recommendations made by the committee. It does not seem to understand the challenge that globalization represents for our economy. It does not seem to understand that the jobs of Canadians, economic prosperity and maintaining our social programs all depend on increased investment in science and technology.
The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology has now promised Canadians a new debate on prosperity. We do not need a debate. We need action. Unfortunately,
this government's actions are a clear contradiction of what we were promised.


PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, last week the government released a further example of its commitment to deficit reduction because of a crisis in its popularity.
The 1990 annual report of the Public Service of Canada showed that for the second consecutive year the size of the public service actually increased, for an increase of 6,335 since 1988. As well, for the fourth consecutive year the highest paid levels of the public service, the management category, increased.
Last fall the Auditor General had pointed to a certain lack of urgency in the government's efforts to control spending. Despite all its talk about restraint, we see a government which sees urgency the result of crisis, not commitment. It should be of little wonder that this government's budgets do not balance when its words and deeds do not.
If Canadians want sincere commitment to fiscal restraint, they need to send Reformers to Parliament.


RURAL CRIME WATCH
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, breaking and entering, theft, vandalism and trespassing are steadily increasing in rural Alberta. Rural Crime Watch, a co-operative effort by rural people and the RCMP, is confronting this situation.
Rural Crime Watch is an organization of rural people working together to reduce crime and protect property. They are creating public awareness and promoting crime prevention.
Three basic elements of the Rural Crime Watch are: property identification, house and building security, and range patrol. Rural crime is costing us millions of dollars each year. These costs are reflected in loss of property, increased insurance premiums and repair of equipment. Rural Crime Watch is helping to reduce these costs.
On behalf of the citizens of St. Albert riding, I wish to recognize the efforts of all those involved in Rural Crime Watch, working with the RCMP to make rural Alberta a safer place to live.
May 30, 1991


GUN CONTROL
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Justice announced the long awaited gun control bill.
The minister laboured and brought forth a maybe. While the intentions may be honourable, we are worried on this side of the House about the follow-through. Much of the heart of the matter will be left to subordinate legislation, that is regulation.
I call on the minister today to present with the greatest of speed her proposed regulations so that all sides of the House may study them and so that she may show to us that her much vaunted statements about public security and public safety are backed up in the appropriate manner.
We also call upon the minister to reduce the life of the firearms acquisition certificate from five years to two years, to impose its acquisition for each firearm acquired, and to extend its use to the purpose of ammunition.
We on this side of the House look forward to discussion on this vital issue. We look forward to the passage of a bill which shows Canada taking its place as the country on earth with the sanest gun laws.


TAXATION
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, every member in this House shares the view that measures have to be taken to strengthen the Canadian economy and has his or her own theory as to the best manner by which to accomplish this.
Let us throw this one out for discussion: a tax reduction, and more specifically a tax cut, in the level of Canadian income tax.
The United States tried this in the 1960s with great success and in fact spurred the strongest period of sustained economic growth in the history of that country.
In 1981, when the same strategy was again implemented, there was an economic resurgence that lasted eight years.
A 10 per cent cut in the Canadian income tax rate would go a long way in boosting investment and economic strength in this country.
Let us open it up for discussion. Would it work? Should we try it? Let us debate it.


FEDERAL SUPERANNUATES
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, federal superannuates across the country have been waiting for over five years for this government to make desperately needed reforms to their pensions. The government has promised but has not delivered.
There is presently close to $70 billion sitting in federal pension funds and increasing at a rate of about $3 billion a year. At the same time surviving spouses' benefits are largely inadequate, and it has been years since the death benefit payment has been raised.
Is it any wonder that federal superannuates want an independent pension management board with the power to manage the pension fund.
They also want the government to remove all forms of discrimination based on such factors as age and marital status. This is necessary to bring the legislation in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, and the House of Commons committee on equality rights.
Federal superannuates like other pensioners in this country have contributed much to the development and growth of this nation. Pensioners everywhere deserve to receive pensions that will allow them to live with dignity and respect. The federal government should be leading the way. Let us give pensioners the proper recognition they so rightly deserve.


ALLERGY AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the month of May marks allergy awareness month and I wish to take the opportunity to salute the Allergy Information Association, the largest voluntary agency in this field. For over 25 years it has alerted Canadians to the hidden dangers of living with allergies by promoting awareness, by lobbying for accurate textile labelling, and by provid-

May 30, 1991
ing authoritative advice to their fellow Canadians who may suffer from allergies.
Allergies to natural and man-made substances cause reactions that vary from person to person. Some find allergies to be minor irritations, others are handicapped, and in some instances allergic reactions are tragically fatal.
We need to increase our awareness and understanding of allergies and their causes. As is so often the case, education is the key. By knowing the ingredients in everyday products we use and by being aware of the pollutants in our environment we can learn to live safely with our allergies.


PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the performance of the President of the Treasury Board in the last 36 hours would be laughable if he were not playing tragically with the lives of half a million Canadians.
In a spectacular reversal of the February 26 budget announcement, the minister told Public Service union leaders yesterday that there will be no wage increase this year, not even for those who are earning $16,000 a year. No wonder the deficit and debt are so high if the government's idea of managing is to change its mind on a whim and leave others to deal with the fall-out.
This is the same minister who just a month ago said that with 12,000 reductions every year in the Public Service, there is no reason there could not be a 3 per cent increase.
Where were they for the last month? Did they not know what their budget situation is? Employees' livelihood and service to Canadians are in the crossfire while the minister blithely sits back and turns up the heat on the battlefield. Perhaps he should join his leader in Japan who seems to have an equally perverse sense of what he should do and say to benefit the country.


ABITIBI'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Opposition members have some catching up to do on the news from Quebec.
On April 21, 1991, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announced that the minister and member for Roberval, the hon. Benoit Bouchard, would be Minister of National Health and Welfare and also the minister responsible for regional economic development in Quebec.
Since 1984, together with Benoit Bouchard, I have fought for the economy of the region, in co-operation with local communities. Since 1984, federal Liberal members, members of the New Democratic Party and, today, Bloc Quebecois members have avoided any involvement in decisions on issues such as: CANMET; tax benefits for isolated areas; airports servicing Val-d'Or, Amos and Lebel-sur-Quevillon; the shelter in Barraute; the Article 25 and Defi etudiant projects; the establishment of community development projects in Senneterre, Barraute, Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Amos, Matagami, Jou-tel, Val-d'Or, Malartic and Cadillac, and many other important issues in the riding.
Mr. Speaker, the minister and member for Roberval, Benoit Bouchard, has worked hard to ensure that Abitibi gets its share of federal money, and he will continue to do so in Quebec.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future says that while a great many Canadians see bilingualism as a worthy personal goal, they reject the present official languages policy and favour a more flexible and practical approach such as delegating language jurisdiction to the provinces or having French as the official language in Quebec and English as the official language eveiywhere else.
Professor Jean Laponce of the University of British Columbia suggests that we can address these concerns by
May 30, 1991

adopting the Swiss solution, where money, goods and people move freely across the country but language rights do not. They are attached to places and not to people.
Since the minister responsible for constitutional affairs says that the government has decided to give this House the opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to serve the interests of the country in the most open and innovative way, is it not time we tackled this head on?


DISABLED PERSONS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, during National Access Awareness Week, all Canadians are urged to work together to make our country equally accessible for all its citizens and to think about ways to integrate persons with visible and invisible disabilities.
National Access Awareness Week focuses on improving access to transportation, housing, employment, education and recreation. As was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, this government will propose a five-year strategy for ensuring equal access to employment, training, housing and transportation, and for promoting community integration and public sensitivity. Canadians from all walks of life must work together to remove the barriers faced by disabled persons.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On May 15 the secretary of state said with regard to the Al-Mashat affair: "A report was made. It is as complete as it can be and it tells people what they need to know. The report speaks for itself".
Today a second report was made public.


Some hon. members:: Order.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: There seem to be some interjections during the preamble of the hon. member's question. I would hope, unless they are very properly addressed, they would remain for some other time, until we make very clear whether there is any need for any interjections. The hon. member.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate your comments.
On May 15 a report was made public by the secretary of state which, as I quoted, indicated that all the facts, all the details, were full, complete and accurate.
Another report was made public today which totally contradicts report number one. Forty of the forty-seven paragraphs in the second report contradict or give new information.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs adopting the words that were used in another context by a U.S. President, that this first report is now inoperative? Is she still prepared to stand fully behind report number one as she said she would, even though report number two contradicts it?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I and two other ministers set aside two and a half hours to go through the very documents that the hon. member is alluding to.
I have since indicated that I am prepared to go through this again this afternoon, even though I am supposed to be in this Chamber this afternoon making a speech.
I am not going to be here making a speech. I am going to be before the committee, and I would hope the hon. member would come then and deliver his question at that time.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider this a game. I consider it very serious business of the House.

Mr. Speaker, my second question is directed to the same minister. On May 14, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in her report on the Al-Mashat affair, thereby contradicting every principle of ministerial responsibility, that Mr. Chretien, Associate Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, was the only public servant to blame for the way this case was

May 30, 1991
Oral Questions
handled. Today's report proves Mr. Chretien innocent. I want to ask the minister: Does she still blame Mr. Chretien?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of blaming anyone. We are only talking about a report. I will answer all questions before the committtee this afternoon, in English and in French.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I just simply point out that the minister is quoted as saying: "I don't think one should underestimate the impact this could have on their reputations". In other words, we now have another contradiction of a report.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this question. In report number two that was made public this morning, there is a very glaring discrepancy between statements that were made in this House in Question Period by the Prime Minister and by other ministers that they had no knowledge of any of these events until April 30. Yet in report number two, and I would like to quote, it states: "Copies of this note were sent to the legislative assistant and the deputy press officer at the Prime Minister's Office, the legislative assistant of the Deputy Prime Minister's office, the legislative assistant at the office of the Government of the Senate, the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs," and another long list of the offices of over eight ministers, plus their parliamentary secretaries, plus an armload of officials, all knew about it April 8, even though the first report said it was April 30.
I want to ask the minister, does she still stand by the first report and say that everything in it was the unvarnished truth when her own second report totally contradicts all those statements made in the House?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the minister is refusing to answer questions.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we now have two versions of what happened in the Al-Mashat case. We have version A that was released by the government on May 13 and we have version B that was released today.
I have a very specific question. In version A it states at page one and I quote: "Mr. Al-Mashat was not considered a valuable source of intelligence and that there was no evidence that his life was in any imminent danger". Version B, at page 7, it says and I quote: "He could provide useful information. In addition his life was considered to be in almost certain danger if he returned to Iraq".
My question to the minister is: Which version is the truth, version A or version B?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, both of these documents are before committee and this morning we were quite prepared to answer all of those questions. We are quite prepared to answer them this afternoon before committee and will be happy to do so at the appropriate time.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, version A says at page one that "the defectors committee had decided on March 1 that Mr. Al-Mashat did not qualify as a defector". Version B that was tabled today says that "on March 1 the defectors committee made no final decision concerning his defector status".
Again, I ask the minister, who is consistently refusing to answer questions and it is becoming-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I have allowed the question and the minister can answer it if she wishes. I want to point out to all hon. members and to the public, there is no particular rule, and in fact there is no rule, that says that a minister has to answer questions. If the minister does not answer the question, hon. members can take the reason for that as expressed. In the meantime, I will ask the hon. member to put his question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to draw whatever conclusions we might.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.
May 30,1991


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the first version says that the defectors committee had made a final decision on March 1. The second version says that the defectors committee did not decide or had not made a final decision on March 1.
Again I ask the minister, what version is the truth: version A or version B?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to answer all questions on this issue. I think it is unfortunate that hon. members are trying to pre-empt their own committee.
I do not have the documents with me because I came with them to the committee this morning and I will have them with me at the committee this afternoon. I will answer all questions related to these documents at that time, as will my two colleagues.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Where were you this morning, Svend?


Svend Johannes Robinson: The minister responsible for constitutional affairs says where were you. I was in the committee prepared to ask questions of ministers who, instead, were hiding behind civil servants.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know that this is not the committee this afternoon.


An hon. member:: This is the mother of all committees.


An hon. member:: And where is the father?


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member would want to put a very careful question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in this House ministers cannot hide behind public servants.
I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask if the members on the other side will allow members on this side to put serious questions of concern of Canadians.
I want to ask the minister this question. In view of the new report, the revised standard version of the government's response to the Al-Mashat affair, will the minister explain to Canadians, through this House, why it was
Oral Questions
that after she learned on April 16 that Al-Mashat had been allowed into Canada, why it was that according to the new report she did not take any steps whatsoever to order a full and thorough inquiry into what went wrong here? How can she explain her negligence as a minister in this important question?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have an answer to his question on the basis of the documents, even though what he has put before the House is not certainly the facts as I would perceive them. He will have that answer this afternoon in committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could then clarify, if she says she is going to be bringing answers to committee. Is the minister also prepared to table in the committee this afternoon all the documents that were requested by the committee on Tuesday, including the complete immigration file of Al-Mashat from Vienna? Will she come clean with Canadians on this file?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it was the people on this side of the House who came forward with a view that the committee should look at this. That was our initiative.
We are quite happy to have the committee look at everything that is appropriate to go before a committee as we have in the past.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would say that what is appropriate is the truth and that is what we are looking for on this question.
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the same minister.
I would like to ask why the minister, after learning on April 16 that Al-Mashat had been allowed into Canada, despite the earlier decision of both this minister and the former Secretary of State for External Affairs to deny admission to a previous Iraqi diplomat, did not tell the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, did not tell her successor as Minister of Immigration. Why did this minister tell no one about this flagrant breach of immigration law in this country? Why did she clam up and cover up this issue?

May 30, 1991
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member seeks all this information, I assume that the hon. member really does want the information, although it does come as a surprise that in seeking this information he walked out of committee.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On May 15, 1991 at page 99 of Hansard she stated, and I quote:
A report was made. It is as complete as it can be and it tells people
what they need to know.
Today she released a chronology of events which is 26 pages long; That is contrasted with the five pages of the first report. There are many additions and, more important, contradictions.
In version B on page 11, we are told that on March 8, immigration officials drafted a memorandum about the case for her attention. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever about that memorandum in version A. Why did the minister tell this House that version A was "as complete as it can be" when that was simply not accurate?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have all of these documents in front of me before the committee. I will be very happy to answer all these questions, as I was this morning when, let the record show, this member walked out too.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, if this memorandum of March 8 had been brought to the minister's attention in early March, this whole sorry Al-Mashat case could have been nipped in the bud.
Why was its existence suppressed until today? Why the cover-up?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has taken the position, I think, that the matter is going to be considered later on this afternoon. There may well be a lot more questions on the Al-Mashat affair and I think they had better be
carefully directed in such a way that they are clear and that they are appropriate to be answered.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The minister has indicated to members of this House and to the national media that he did not become aware of the particular subject matter of Al-Mashat until on or about May 7,1991, and this has been reported both in the English and French press.
The new report today states, and I quote:
On Hiesday, April 30, the Clerk of the Privy Council sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, informing him of Mr. Al-Mashat's arrival in Canada. This memorandum, based on proposed replies in House cards prepared for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, indicated that the ministers had been briefed to that effect and would respond.
My question to the minister is this: Would the minister indicate to the House why the contradiction?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be the same as that given by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At 3.30 p.m, the committee that was asked to consider this matter will be delighted to answer their questions in the presence of both ministers.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
Will the minister not admit that the statement of March 14, 1991, is seriously flawed, and that the statement released today, made public here in Ottawa, confirms beyond a reasonable doubt that the minister was seized of the knowledge on or before April 30, 1991.
I ask the minister, will he not now avail himself of the opportunity and explain the obvious contradictions of facts.


Bernard Valcourt: My answer is no to the first two questions. As to the third, it will be answered at 3.30.
May 30, 1991


GUN CONTROL
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. We are glad to see the minister tabling a new bill today for the control of firearms. Last time her own Tory colleagues prevented the bill from being passed. Is the minister prepared to keep her promise to the people of Montreal that the bill would be passed by June 21?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I recently heard the hon. member saying at a press conference that he intends to hold up my bill to examine various details and regulations that are not essential to the passage of the bill. I am therefore not in a position to make that kind of promise because it is up to the House either to accept or reject my bill. However, I hope my bill will be passed as soon as possible.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That was the Liberal Party she heard about. We said something different. We asked that the project go ahead.
The minister mentioned the regulations. Canadians are suspicious about this bill, because at the same time they are bringing in a bill to regulate guns today, her bill. The House is debating a bill to sell arms to the Middle East. Talk about hypocrisy.
Will the minister acknowledge that the guts of this new bill, her bill, will be decided later by regulation, including the magazine size, the definition of the military assault weapon, what is safe storage, all those definitions?
Will she acknowledge that she has put a provision in this bill to allow members of Parliament to block those regulations in Parliament. Has she not, in fact, made a deal with the Tory backbench: "Support me now and block my bill later"?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's imputations are offensive but, alas, not surprising. Because this is a contentious subject, when I brought forward my suggestions for change I tried to be as
Oral Questions
forthcoming as possible and bring forward not only my proposed legislative changes, but the use I intended to make of the regulatory power. Some of that regulatory power is conferred upon the Governor in Council by the legislation and some of it exists already.
With respect to the definition of military and para military firearms, I already have the power to make the determinations. What I lack is the technical advice. I have, therefore, constituted a national advisory council on firearms with a broad mandate, including the mandate to give me a list of criteria that will enable me to impose those regulations.
I am advised by my staff who monitor those meetings that that, in fact, may be the first project they finish. I hope, perhaps, to have that list of criteria in the month of June. But whether or not the hon. member supports my legislation and whether or not it goes through, I intend to act on those regulations. I do not need this legislation for it.
With respect to the limitation on magazine sizes, I have indicated how I propose to use the regulations. I do need the legislation to have that power. If the legislation is delayed, then for those who wish to see those limitations it is a matter of cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
I make no apologies whatsoever for allowing this House to review those regulations. I have every confidence that the majority of members of Parliament will support sensible regulations. I find it astonishing that the hon. member would now impugn a provision which empowers members of this House to review the acts of the Governor in Council.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In commenting on version A of the government's interpretation of the Al-Mashat affair, the Prime Minister said on May 15, 1991, on page 94 of Hansard with respect to the role of Mr. Paul Tellier, the Clerk of the Privy Council, that Mr. Tellier had said in speaking of

May 30, 1991
Oral Questions
Mr. Al-Mashat, "do not admit him". Those were the Prime Minister's words in the House of Commons in commenting on version A of the Al-Mashat affair.
In version B, made public today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it is clear that nowhere was such a direct order given by Mr. Paul Tellier.
Why did the Prime Minister in the government's first version of the Al-Mashat affair suggest to the House of Commons and through the House to the people of Canada that a direct order was given by the senior bureaucrat in the land to stop Al-Mashat from coming into Canada when clearly no such direct order was given?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using quotations of version A and version B.
This matter was brought before the appropriate standing committee so all of the information could be brought forward and all the facts ascertained. I am surprised that the hon. member now, after we have agreed to bring it before the committee so all the facts and relevant facts could be brought forward in an appropriate fashion, still insists on raising the matter on the floor of the House of Commons. I have no objection to that but surely it is a matter that should be properly questioned at the committee where all the witnesses they require and/or demand will be available to respond.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the only surprise today is the massive contradiction between version A and version B and the total inability of the government to explain the contradictions between those two versions.
The Prime Minister claimed he was not informed until April 30 of the Al-Mashat affair. The former Secretary of State for External Affairs said he was not informed until May 7. Why then does version B released today say that on April 8 a briefing note was sent to "the legislative assistant and the deputy press officer at the Prime Minister's office, the legislative assistant at the Deputy Prime Minister's office, the legislative assistant at the office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the legislative assistant for the Minister of International Trade", the legislative assistant to every bloody minister in the cabinet? How can they claim they
did not know? Even the chauffeur knew about the Al-Mashat affair.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is so interested in obtaining the facts he may attend the committee this afternoon and stay and listen to the information that will be imparted at that time.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The fact is that the laundered version of events that was first presented-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member no doubt has a question which will assist the House, but I would ask that she put it in terms that do not make it difficult for the Speaker or unnecessarily difficult for the hon. member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is also true that the first version wrongfully blamed the nephew of Jean Chretien. The fact is-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The fact is that today's version makes it quite clear that the responsibility for the whole affair lies directly in the office of the former minister for external affairs, the Right Hon. Joe Clark.
I believe, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. member:: That's enough.


An hon. member:: Order.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put a question and not put conclusions. We can argue about that later.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -that the hon. minister should take the advice that he gave on the RCMP affair in 1978 and accept ministerial responsibility and offer his resignation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe the rules of this House preclude me from answering questions relating to my former responsibilities. For that reason, I went today to a meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to make myself available to questioning by members of the House of Commons. For reasons that can only be related to the
May 30, 1991

Oral Questions
fact that the committee hearings were not televised and it is possible for histrionics and deliberate falsehoods to be televised in this House-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: -that the hon. member and her colleagues are pursuing the course of raising this matter.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister.
As you know, version No. 1, which was a whitewash, blamed Jean Chretien's nephew for what happened-


Mr. Speaker:: I asked the hon. member to not make accusations at this point in the House. If what I asked the hon. member to refrain from doing is repeated in the other official language of our country, it is just as much a matter of concern to the Speaker as it was the first time.
The hon. member can put a question and can perhaps draw whatever conclusions hon. members wish to draw afterwards, but let us put the question first and see then what the answer is.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I believe the former Prime Minister is an honourable man. I know that 12 years ago he tabled in the House a proposal relating to ministerial responsibility. Considering today's events, when we realize that all the other people in his office had the information, is he prepared to accept his responsibility as a minister and resign?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things, the first one in English.

I should not have used the phrase "deliberate falsehood". That is inconsistent with the rules of the House and I apologize for that and withdraw that phrase.

Second, as far as ministerial responsibility is concerned, the government's position was made clear today before the parliamentary committee. However, for some reason, Liberal and NDP members left the room and did not avail themselves of the opportunity provided under our Standing Orders to ask questions in a committee that had been appointed because the Opposition and the government had sought a way to get at the truth of the matter, the truth, without partisan accusations. That is what we are looking for here.


PUBLIC SERVICE
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, my question affects some 250,000 government employees and their families. My question today is directed to the President of Treasury Board. Would the hon. minister confirm that during some four months of negotiations with the alliance representing 150,000 government employees, the only offer that his negotiators were prepared or willing to discuss was the government's wage offer of 0 per cent increase in the first year, 3 per cent in the second, and 3 per cent in the third year of the contract.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to confirm that the guidelines set out in the budget were those on which our negotiator based discussions with the unions.
That being said, we also told them of the fiscal situation which commanded us to to take these measures. We are quite prepared to look at other aspects of the collective agreement, which is a very thick document dealing with a lot of other issues, but first we have to make sure that we agree with each other on the particular basis of the 0-3-3.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm that yesterday he told negotiators for all of the government servants that if they did not agree to this formula, 0-3-3, he would bring in legislation imposing the settlement on all of the

May 30, 1991
Oral Questions
workers, and if so, does he believe the government has been bargaining in good faith? Is this really free collective bargaining?


Gilles Loiselle: At a time, Mr. Speaker, when hundreds of thousands of Canadians are without work, at a time when there are great threats to our fiscal position, we decided in the last budget to take measures. The unions were not particularly targeted, but we indicated to them that we would ask them to make a contribution as they have over the last six years by accepting very reasonable settlements. It was made very clear in the House that if these settlements are not reached through agreement, through negotiation, we would eventually have recourse to legislation.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As members will know, the contracts for RCMP policing in two territories and all provinces except Ontario and Quebec expired March 31, and negotiations with the federal government have broken down. I join with the municipal authorities across the country in calling for an early resolution.
This matter is of critical importance to my constituents in the St. Albert constituency and, for that matter, for all Canadians.
Can the minister advise the members of this House and the public whether he has made any progress in bringing the provinces back to the table to negotiate a settlement?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that the federal government has offered to renew the present contracts with the provinces, the municipalities, and the territories for a further term of one year on the same terms and conditions as the last year of the present 10-year contract.
The provinces, for their part, have offered by telephone, and I expect to get it confirmed, that they are prepared to come back to the table to negotiate in good faith the issues of cost base, cost ratios, and accountability.
I think there is a new sense of urgency and a good feeling about the negotiations and I would hope that we can wrap them up as soon as possible.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Tbesday morning my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, submitted a letter to the minister requesting 18 specific documents related to the Al-Mashat case. We requested these documents in advance of this morning. These documents are still not in our hands. I would like to ask the minister why this is so and what has the government got to hide and why is the government inhibiting the work of members to have a full inquiry into the Al-Mashat case as promised by the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has been listening very carefully to questions, and I hope has been treating the questions and the issue properly. That is clearly a question for committee. The hon. member may want to put another question. It cannot be a question that should be put to the committee.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that this party requested these memos from the minister. It beggars the imagination to understand why they have not been provided to us. I am not saying to the committee. It was not within the context of the committee that these were requested in the first place.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Christine Susan Stewart: We cannot understand why they have not been produced to date. I asked the minister why they were not produced, and if she will guarantee to us that they will be produced immediately so that when the committee does resume hearings, we will be able to make proper inquiries.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the documents referred to are similar to documents that have been requested by the committee.
As I am only too happy to do, we will produce the documents. They are in the process of being gathered up to bring to committee. Let the record show that this hon. member walked out this morning too.
May 30, 1991


POSTAL SUBSIDIES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Northerners appreciated the Conservative government maintaining at $15 million the subsidy for air stage service to deliver food and other goods sent by mail to isolated communities in northern Canada and Quebec. Can the minister tell us today that priority will be given to perishable foodstuffs and a directive to that effect will be issued to users of this northern service, together with a fair postal rate for residents of northern Canada?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and share his concern that the postal subsidy really go for nutritious food so that inhabitants of remote areas can have access to such food for better health. Therefore in the coming weeks, we will define what is meant by "perishable food" in cooperation with the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Post Office, and the main distributors concerned.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
On May 14, he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement on the Al-Mashat case about which they released a report to Canadians. In that statement, the minister said: "There have been no hidden motives, no espionage capers, and no conspiracies by any individual or governmental agency either Canadian or foreign."
If this is all so straightforward, why are there two versions of the report, version A released on May 14 and version B released today? Will he answer that question?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I find it strange that members of Parliament opposite are yap-
Business of the House
ping their mouths all over Canada about the importance of this issue but they refused this morning to listen to the minister of external affairs and myself explain and answer all these questions. Theatrics will not help Canadians understand what really happened which is what this government wants.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if this minister and his government really wanted Canadians to understand what happened in the Al-Mashat case, they would not refuse to answer questions in the high court of Parliament before 29 million Canadians.
I ask the minister again if he stands by what he had to say May 14 and the statement released at that time? Why are there two versions of that statement, version A, released May 14 and version B, released today? Why can't he answer that before this Parliament and make clear what is going on to the people of this country?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I said on May 14. The only thing I can add is that this morning in committee the only thing missing was the kazoos.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is the regular question put to the government House leader concerning the business of the House.
I wonder if the government House leader would indicate what the business will be for the remainder of the day, for Friday, Monday, Thesday, and the remaining part of next week. Could he give us some detail?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary was seeking the floor on a point of order, but I would ask him to defer to the hon. House leader.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-6. Friday will be an allotted day for supply. Monday, we will continue second reading of Bill C-5, the Aeronautics Act

May 30, 1991
Points of Order
and, if time permits, and if not completed earlier, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-6.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 passed second reading and I do not think we want to go back and redo it.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some confusion between the Aeronautics Act and the airport devolution bill which was the one that we just put on the Order Paper. The numbers are wrong. I think the bill we are referring to is the airport devolution. I do not know its new number. It should be C-7 or C-8. I am not sure.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the time of the House, but to be clear, we will be on C-6 this afternoon. Friday will be an allotted day. Monday is airport devolution and Tuesday has yet to be decided.


POINTS OF ORDER
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to express my concern again that this side was denied any opportunity to ask more than two questions. I realize-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I would invite the hon. member to come and see the Speaker in the Speaker's chambers if the hon. member wishes. Nobody was denied anything.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: There are 45 minutes and I did the best I could today given the questions and the answers. Two members from the government side were heard. I would like to be able to do more. I would like to have more time. But it is not appropriate to say to the Speaker that somebody was denied their right to ask a question. That is not so.


EXTENSION OF QUESTION PERIOD
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, rather than listening to the daily new Conservative whine in the country, once again may I suggest that in order to
facilitate hon. colleagues across in terms of Question Period, let us agree now to extend Question Period for an extra half hour every day. It will allow more people an opportunity to participate.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the last session, in response to a point of order from the hon. House leader of the Liberal Party, there was a concern about the length of questions and the length of answers. There has been concern about the number of questions.
In Parliament, all members are supposed to be equal. There are 100-plus backbenchers here who do not get an equal opportunity to ask questions. There is obviously a need for change and reform. Beauchesne's is full of descriptions as to what Question Period should be. No one would recognize Beauchesne's description and what happens in this House.
I think it is highly appropriate that we do discuss this matter. Perhaps we should follow the example of the mother of Parliaments in Britain where they manage to get in 45 questions in a 45 minute Question Period as opposed to the average of 26 we get. There is strict adherence to all of the rules. About an average of 30 seconds per question and 30 seconds for answers is the way they do it. Perhaps we might experiment with that and see if we would not be serving this House and the public who is watching a little better than we do.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief question for the hon. member opposite. He makes reference to the quality and tone of Question Period here today and previous ones.
I would like to ask the hon. member: Who made you Speaker of this House? I would like to know that.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to seek the opinion of the Chair. I want to refer to three brief citations in Beauchesne's fifth edition: 358(l)(a), which were guidelines that were established by a previous committee, I think in 1964. It is still part of Beauchesne's and theoretically still part of our rules. It says:
May 30, 1991

(1) Such questions should:
(a) be asked only in respect of matters of sufficient urgency and
importance as to require an immediate answer.
I then want to go to Citation 359(5), which says, again referring to questions:
The matter ought to be of some urgency. There must be some
present value in seeking the information during the Question Period.
Citation 360 says:
A question may not:
(3) seek information about proceedings in a committee which has
not yet made its report to the House.
My point is this: we had a number of questions today that were raised on an issue which this House and the people who watch this House know is presently a matter before a committee. It is a decision of this House to have that undertaken.
I then put before you two questions, Mr. Speaker. The first one is the question of urgency. How can there be an urgency for these questions to be asked in the House of Commons during Question Period when there was a committee meeting this morning on the very same subject which, as you know from having listened to questions, members walked out of?
Second, there is scheduled a second committee on the same subject for this afternoon.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you consider the question of urgency.
Further, citation 360(3) refers to the proceedings of a committee. In fact, all of us are suffering from some confusion. We have been under the impression that if there was a hearing in a committee of the House of Commons, then there would be no need to repeat that hearing on the floor of the House of Commons, either in Question Period or at another time.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you examine those three citations in light of the questions I have put to you, because I think it is something that we as members of this House need to understand clearly. Quite frankly, if I can express a personal opinion, I am quite concerned that we are going to have a committee hearing on a subject and then have the same hearing here on the floor of the House of Commons.
Points of Order


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes three references to Beauchesne's in terms of the report of a committee and some urgency and immediacy.
Surely to God the hon. member opposite is not trying to have members of Parliament believe the contention that two documents on a very major, important subject matter are not of some urgency to the Canadian people. I think most reasonable individuals would come to the conclusion we have, that it is of great urgency to the Canadian people to know all the facts.
The second point is that the hon. member, not I, referred specifically to certain proceedings of the committee. The hon. member should know that members of this party have made requests of the Chair, of the appropriate ministers involved, to provide all the information in advance. In fact, 18 different documents have been sought. However, they have not been forthcoming.
Third, there was an agreed-upon schedule in terms of who would appear first and who would appear second. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you today that if you were to read the minutes of that committee, you would find a breach of the undertaking which the chairman of that committee gave to all members of the committee. Furthermore, certain witnesses arrived today who were not scheduled to arrive in accordance with the rules that the chairman had agreed to, which had been put forward by us. That is the second point.
The third point is that we did not make any reference to any committees here today in Question Period. We made reference to two public documents which are there for Canadians to read and to examine.
Finally, when has Parliament been denied the opportunity to ask questions on any particular subject matter? This is the Supreme Court in terms of democracy and Parliament, not a committee and not the back rooms of the Conservative Party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think these interventions are useful to clarify what is happening. All of us as members of Parliament have long lists of files of people having difficulty on immigration issues. I know that ministers who are active in these areas in the House will know that this is an ongoing major concern

May 30, 1991
Points of Order
of, I suspect, every single member of the House of Commons.
Today there was confusion in terms of two documents-virtually nothing to do with what is going on in the committee-regarding a certain individual who appears to have jumped the queue. We are seeking answers from the minister. The minister refuses to respond. As a matter of fact, on a number of occasions she did not even stand up in her place.
Mr. Speaker, I know you will say the minister does not have to do that. We appreciate that, but ministers, to give them credit, always attempt to reply in some form or another.
Today a critical issue right across the country, from one coast to the other, is this immigration issue. That is why we felt that the minister should have taken the opportunity to clarify on behalf of the government what the position was. She chose not to and made a mockery out of Question Period. That is why there is an element of frustration today.


Mr. Speaker:: There may well be an element of frustration, but as the hon. member clearly pointed out and as I pointed out earlier, hon. ministers do not necessarily have to answer any questions. Also, if this does anything to alleviate the element of frustration, I think on at least one occasion the minister said that this was going to be in front of the committee this afternoon and that there would be another opportunity to ask questions.
As I have said before, if the House wants to change dramatically the way we have been handling Question Period, discussions are always appropriate and the Speaker of course will always try to assist in those discussions.
The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester. Is it on a different point of order?


William D. (Bill) Casey: It is something the same, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect. I have tried to determine the rules of Question Period and have gone through the Standing Orders and through Beau-chesne's. Perhaps you could tell me or give me direction on where the rules for Question Period are. What rules can I go by?


Mr. Speaker:: I would be very pleased to discuss all of the rules, old and less than old, that we try to apply to carry on Question Period. I know what the hon. member would want is the very best possible way.
I invite the hon. member to come and have a discussion with me about it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I just want to assist Your Honour. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader read Your Honour certain citations from Beauchesne's concerning Question Period. I have one very brief citation that I think might be of assistance, and that is citation 417 of the sixth edition which states:
Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the
matter raised and should not provoke debate.
That is the citation. I think it would be very helpful, Your Honour, if the parliamentary secretary could instil that message into ministers opposite.
While I am on my feet, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary, or perhaps one of the ministers, could answer why it is that the standing committee on external affairs, which is dealing with this very important matter, which the ministers opposite say is so important and so crucial, and which they are so anxious to have explained before the committee, is not being televised so the people of Canada can see what is going on and the cover-up that is being perpetrated here.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to both comments of my hon. friend. First, I appreciate very much the citation that he referred to. I think it is important that ministers on this side be held to brief answers.
All of us, including the hon. member who has expressed his frustrations with Question Period earlier today, would be happy to see that happen. The quid pro quo would be that the questions on the other side also be briefer.
I would like to see a target of 30 seconds per question and answer.
Second, the hon. member wants to know why a committee is not televised. He knows exactly why the committee is not televised because he is a member of the House management committee which is going to be dealing with the issue and developing the guidelines
May 30, 1991

which will be established for the committees of the House of Commons.
For him to imply, directly or indirectly, that somehow this government is responsible for that, he should be ashamed of himself.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I am also a member of this committee ably chaired by the hon. member for Peace River, Mr. Cooper. Perhaps with the new Standing Orders we could also start to call each other by name and not by the name of our riding.
That said, I know that the House has many times adopted motions by unanimous consent. I am speaking to Mr. Milliken and Mr. Gauthier, two great parliamentary experts. If the House agreed unanimously right away, what I think is becoming an extraordinary committee could perhaps be televised at 3.30.1 am not a member of it, but I observe it very closely.

I am observing very, very, very closely because I have a very close interest in this committee.
First, instead of having quarrels, maybe we should have unanimous consent to have just this committee televised. It has been done before. The chairman is right. We are now discussing this issue, but that does not preclude us from doing it by unanimous consent, and you know what I think of unanimous consent. If I was in another state of mind I would speak in much more rude terms about what I think of it. A couple of times I was very unhappy about members of Parliament calling for unanimous consent, time and time and time again until those who objected were absent from the House. That is another debate.
My hon. friend and colleague said why not televise the debate? I would say to my colleague that if we start quarrelling now at the management committee there will be no work done, so I will try to distribute equally, not blame, but favour. Why do you not ask for unanimous consent to televise this veiy important meeting this afternoon? Why are we still debating among ourselves? On this point my friend from Kingston and the Islands is absolutely right, why are we debating how to do it?
Points of Order
I will be on the record. I object to televising the committee if there are no rules. I said in private and I will repeat it in public: I do not want members of Parliament to work with a camera under their noses. If you put it under mine, you will see what can come out on television if you look at my nose.
I would say that Mr. Speaker may wish to ask for consent to televise the debate this afternoon in an orderly fashion. I watch TV. I will not watch the members. I watch Canadian television. I want to have an orderly House. I do not want a circus. I am sure I would lack elegance if I used what I have in mind. I want an orderly, well-run House and committees. Television, yes with certain rules. The committee seems to interest so many members, why do you not ask for consent, Mr. Speaker? Why do my colleagues not ask for consent to televise the debate this afternoon? We may get it. I am anxious to see who will say no, but that does not preclude us from making very severe rules as to how we would televise the debate of committees.
As a matter of fact, my colleague, Mr. Gauthier asks: "Is there unanimous consent of the House to televise the debate this afternoon in an unorderly fashion, since we do not yet have orderly rules to televise the debate"?


Nelson Andrew Riis: After that short intervention, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we seem to be at a crucial moment. My hon. friend, in his usual thoughtful way, has presented us with a way out of this slight dilemma.
There is a concern that Canadians ought to hear the statement by the ministers and officials. There was a feeling that the House of Commons was not the appropriate place but that a committee was. It seems that we have a suggestion that makes eminent sense to me, that we have, among ourselves, as colleagues who want the Canadian public to know the level of debate and the way these issues are handled, an opportunity to watch the proceedings on television.
I can only speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party but I want to indicate that we are anxious to televise this very critical committee meeting at this point.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Just a couple of words, Mr. Speaker.

May 30, 1991
Points of Order
The suggestion that the opposition not be permitted, under the rules, to talk about what is in progress or under discussion at standing committees is a rather strange point of order for the government to raise since quite obviously the original rule in the original House of Commons in Britain was certainly to protect the responsibilities and the duties of the opposition and the accountability of the government to the people.
Certainly Question Period should be a tool, perhaps the only efficient tool we have left, to call the government accountable to the people of Canada through the House of Commons. It certainly does not help matters for the government House leader to stand here and say: "Well, now, I love the British system of Question Period". As we all know a minister must be given notice of every question asked of him a day in advance. Not only that, but he need not even show up in the Chamber except for one day a week. Perhaps that is what the government is attempting to do with this point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and make two points. First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis for raising this issue because it confirms my thought that the reason the members walked out of the committee this morning, that they had this charade here in the House of Commons, was because of the lack of television in the committee.
Secondly, I want to say this-


Marcel Prud'homme: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary for a few more words and I will then hear the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Albert Glen Cooper: Second, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this-


Marcel Prud'homme: Point of order, point of order. If not, I will make a point of personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is a veteran of this place. I will defer to his point.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, no one but the chairman of the committee of management knows how much I respect chairmanship, and in your case Speakership. However, if the hon. member for Peace River thinks he can impute motives to me, I have not-and I repeat not-since I left him this morning at the management committee spoken to any one of the people-maybe they prefer not to talk to me either, I don't know. I have not
spoken to any one of them. He may walk out if he wants-yes, he does.
You are not going to impute motives to what I am trying to propose to the House as a solution. We must find a way that is harmonious and acceptable. Every member can walk out. I would not give a damn.
I know one thing. Nobody is going to impute motives when I am on my feet explaining what I am trying to do. I was trying to help you out, Mr. Speaker.
May I say first that it seems the Al-Mashat affair is falling on a hell of a lot of nerves. We have not seen the end of it yet so I think we should be all cool.
I will keep cool, but you will provoke members by imputing motives. I have been here too long, so I know not to do any dealing or wheeling, I just follow debates. That is the British parliamentary tradition.
Mr. Speaker, you are there to allow tough debate to take place between members. That means I respect the member who just walked out, Mr. Cooper. I was listening to what he was saying. I was listening to what my colleagues were saying. I was listening to what Mr. Milliken was saying and then I thought that I should help, to participate, by saying: "Let's delay a little bit. If there is unanimous consent, we can do it this afternoon".
Unanimous consent played against me in the past. I swallowed my pride and I accepted it, so you cannot have it both ways.

So, Mr. Speaker, if some people want a big debate, please believe me when I say I am in excellent condition to give it to them, but that is not my intention unless people try to attribute motives that are completely foreign to me-and I see one member of the committee looking at me and smiling. He did not go out-I refer to Mr. Langlois. Well, we work together on the committee. We want to get along well. We want to change the mood of Parliament, but if some people want to get into petty politicking, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to accommodate them. However, I would not like myself as Marcel Prud'homme, MP, if I started to be a second-rate petty politician. There are too many petty politicians. We have more important things that should concern us, like the survival of our country, and how Mr. Paproski, Mr. MacDonald, my friend Corbett, and I should talk without getting into petty politics. We are trying to find a way and when we try to help make the House run more
May 30, 1991

smoothly, we are put down by petty politicians. Well, I will not accept that-it is as simple as that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis made a proposal to the House to allow broadcasting the committee proceedings this afternoon. Does the House agree to this proposal?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous agreement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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 Legislative Committee E.
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.
I just want to explain to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that his turn came up. I was trying to get him on just before one o'clock. Unfortunately he was not in the Chamber and there was nobody else. I had to recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have not had a speaker in two rounds, whereas the NDP-


Mr. Heap:: You do not even want to speak.


William Warren Allmand: I want to speak. I am here and I am ready to speak. It is my turn, I think.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan has the floor for debate*
Government Orders


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the election which saw me return to this place took place just two years, six months and two days ago. On the whole it has been an interesting experience, a learning experience. I try to serve my constituents as well as I can. As far as the work in this place is concerned, there have been the up days and the down days. This is an up day in the sense that I can say what I want to say about this bill over a period of 20 minutes and get it on the record for the sake of the record. But it is also a down day when I consider what we are doing, passing legislation that will enable us to take a greater part in the international distribution of arms than in the past, to be better, if you like, merchants of death. We want to do a better job so we are going to pass legislation that will make it easier to do so.
It is a shame. One should almost be ashamed to be a Canadian with this kind of legislation being considered. I am one of the products of the depression. Most of the members in this House, will not have much memory of that. I can remember how bad things were during the depression in a small community on Vancouver Island, a small coal mining town. I can remember what that depression did to my father, a very hard-working labourer who worked at farming, at coal mining. He was anxious to get ahead, anxious to raise his children the best way that he could. He was very optimistic about being in Canada and being a Canadian, although he had been on the continent since 1897. He was very ambitious and very optimistic about the future until the depression hit.
All of a sudden, though they were still the same people, there were still the same resources, there were still the same needs to be met, there was no work, no opportunity for gainful employment, to do the things he wanted to do, to look after his family the way he wanted to. That went on for years.
We started one now, we are into it, but nothing like the depression of the 1930s. It went on for years and it was not until Hitler started rearming Germany and did such a good job of it and put the continent of Europe to work, and the effect dribbled out over the rest of the world and reached South Wellington. Finally the miners in South Wellington were able to go back to work because Hitler

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
was rearming Germany. We were getting ready to fight a war or at least to supply arms and munitions, soldiers and sailors, et cetera, to help somebody else fight it. We were not sure at that time.
Because we were getting ready for a supreme war effort, all of a sudden there was all the money needed to reopen the coal mines and to reopen the rest of the economic activity that had been going on in that area previously and since. It took an approaching war to put people back to work.
One of the arguments being advanced for the legislation before us today, Bill C-6, is that if we do not open up and extend our markets for war weapons there is going to be increasing unemployment in Canada.
Have we learned nothing between 1933 and 1971? Thirty-eight years and even today we say we have to be preparing for war or for somebody to fight a war if we are going to keep people working. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you share some of my shame that a Canadian is not able to come up with a better answer for creating employment which will enable us to distribute the goods that we can produce and the goods that we import. To say that we have to have this kind of legislation, we have to open up markets of the world to what we are producing here because it is the only way we can maintain some minimum employment.
There have been several speakers ahead of me. Some have said 300 people are going to lose their jobs if we do not approve this legislation. Others said the total effect of all of this could be as much as 300,000. Whether it is
300,000	or 300 or 3, we should not have to be producing war weapons to find employment to enable those workers to feed their families.
In 1991 we are still talking the same language we were in 1933. Surely Canadians deserve better than that from our government. That is why I feel, as one of the members in this Chamber, that I am failing not only my constituents but people all over Canada when we are not able to show the government that there is another way we can produce for peace. We do not have to produce weapons of destruction. We do not need to come up with more modern ways of killing people to put a relatively small handful of our working force back to work.
The Minister of Small Businesses and Tourism spoke earlier, and I apologize to him. I did not name him
properly when I referred to him earlier. He said: "Well, it is really very limited. It is just automatic weapons, automatic rifles, if you like, and armoured vehicles. That is not very much".
I heard earlier from someone that the legislation we are changing now is legislation that has been on the books for 14 years. For 14 years it has been good enough. We have been able to export enough arms to suit somebody or other, but they have not raised this as a real issue. For 14 years we got by with it. Now, all of a sudden, it is important that we do raise it. We raise it because we are not able to sell enough of these automatic rifles and these light armoured vehicles.
We know this bill is going to pass. There are too many Tories in the House. They will pass it and Canada will be looking for more opportunities to sell more weapons. The bill will pass. Once they have this, how many years will it be before they want to extend it a little further? How much of a step is it really, from automatic rifles to field guns, to atomic weapons eventually, perhaps? How much of a step from light armoured vehicles to heavy armoured vehicles, to tanks, to gun ships? Where is the end?
Once we take this first step and we find out that it has worked, it has put a few people back to work, is there not going to be pressure from the employers concerned to expand our markets even further? Of course, the reason this is developing, we all know, is that a good deal of the world is gradually coming to its senses and is spending less of its efforts on manufacturing and obtaining war weapons, which means the market is more limited. So to get into that more restricted market, we have to relax some of the rules that have governed our country with respect to selling, manufacturing and distributing war weapons. We are doing it because the market is more restricted.
The rest of the world is beginning to come to its senses and I hope it will continue to do so at a greater rate. But when that happens, this may be the first step, automatic rifles and light armoured vehicles. What will be the second? If the Tories remain in office, and we certainly hope they do not, how long will it be before they come to us saying: "Well, we did the rifles and the light armoured vehicles and we want to go one step further now".
May 30, 1991

As my colleague from the Liberal Party suggested, the same companies will be there and the same workers, because by then they will probably be unemployed again. So there is need.
There are rules. We have been reassured by government spokesmen and certainly the Minister of Small Businesses and Tourism told us about the rules. That makes me feel much more comfortable. I know there are rules against the import of heroin, for example. It is nice to have those rules. It would be better if they worked. There are rules against all kinds of things. We regularly pass legislation and we have rules with them and they will work to a point.
However, how long are the rules on the export of weapons of war going to work? We are going to say: "You can only sell them to certain nations and those nations must not sell them to anyone else". Have we done a very good job of watching that in the past? To the best of my knowledge, we did not sell any weapons of war to the country headed by a person who, inside and outside this House, was called the Butcher of Baghdad. Our hands were not that dirty. We did not sell any weapons directly to him. We all know that we sold components that were included in weapons that were sent to him. For 20 years we were content to go on doing business, indirectly, with that person and then all of a sudden we called it quits. We decided we would put on an embargo and stop those weapons from getting to him for a relatively short period. Now we want to open up and sell them to his neighbour.
If we are really thinking seriously about stopping murder on a mass scale, which is what war is, of all the places in the world to send more weapons, surely the last should be what I call the Arabian peninsula. That is probably not the right word for it now-that group of nations in that part of the world, the powder keg, the tinder box of the whole world, the worst place I would think to send anything.
We should be expending our efforts on trying to cut back on everyone's shipments to that area rather than looking for nations within that group of nations that we feel we can trust today and maybe tomorrow, but we are not so sure about the day after.
Our hands will be dirty. Our hands are dirty now; we know that we are selling some of these arms intemation-
Govemment Orders
ally and we are proposing to look for more opportunities to sell them on a wider basis. Is that really good enough? Are we really that desperate? Can we not find useful employment here in Canada for these people who are unemployed?
There has been a great deal of talk in this House about the budget brought down by the province of Ontario. I notice that some $4.5 billion is being spent on the construction of schools, hospitals, highways. Those are useful things.
If anyone is killed there, it will be because of accidents on roads perhaps or because of accidents during construction. However those are useful endeavours.
Those kinds of things can be done all over the world. There are nations that are hungry. There are nations that are starving. We know that. We know there are all kinds of facilities that could be built there if we want to do something positive, as well as here in Canada. There is lots that can be done.
I believe it was the former head of the World Health Organization, Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, who first said that four-fifths of the world's population goes to bed hungry sometimes, but one-fifth of the world's population goes to bed hungry every day of their lives.
There is much that can be done in Canada alone and also beyond Canada in the rest of the world. We do not have to be making weapons of war to put our people to work. If we manage our economy properly, if we do our jobs properly as members of Parliament, we would not be looking for ways to sell more arms and munitions; we would be looking for ways to serve humanity, both Canadians and those outside Canada.
Those are the kinds of things that we should be working at in my opinion.
Those who spoke before me had their own points of view, and I appreciate that. I am sure each one of them was sincere, and I expect those who follow will hold sincerely the views that they espouse on the floor of this House just as I do. I am not saying anything that I have not said on other occasions, not in this House perhaps but in other places. I believe fervently that it is the route to go. I believe there is a better way for human beings to go, and we are not really demonstrating that when we pass legislation such as the legislation before us today.

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
We can come up with plans. We can come up with plans for Canada. We can come up with plans for Canada to work to help other nations that are trying to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but we are not doing it. We are giving no real thought to that, as far as I am concerned.
All we are really concerned about is the size of the deficit, which in the main acts as a way of redistributing income. The way it really works is that it takes more income from the lower and middle classes by way of interest and shifts it to those with money to invest, the higher income people. The deficit is a way of redistributing income. As long as the money is borrowed internally, there is not that much real problem in handling it. As I say, it is shifting the income in the wrong direction, but it is still handled as long as we are doing it internally.
In that regard I can go back to the advice of a former minister of finance in the province of British Columbia, a Tory as well, Herbert Anscombe, who said in the late forties, I believe, that if a government has to borrow- and it should not borrow-it should make sure that it does its borrowing within its own boundaries. In his case he was talking about B.C. In Canada we should be borrowing within Canada. We should not be borrowing outside.
We have done it before. I talked earlier about the war effort that put the people in South Wellington back into the coal mines, back working. Canada could not borrow during that war. Canadians put out a real effort to fight the Second World War. We never borrowed a nickel from abroad. There was nobody who would lend it to us then. They were all investing their own money in their own weapons manufacturing and whatever. We had a million people who were not working when our population was about, I suppose, 30 per cent or 40 per cent of what it is today, a million people in uniform contributing nothing positive, burning it up, using it up; we were producing a lot of stuff that was being sunk in the North Atlantic. However, people were working. They had jobs. There was enough for them to eat. There were clothes for them to wear. They could buy things that they could not buy before the war started, before Hitler put them all to work.
I used to listen to this very prominent spokesman for the CCF. He was not the party leader. He was a medical
doctor, Dr. Lyle Telford. He talked about how ridiculous we are in our society when there is no limit to the amount of effort that a community can be organized into producing if we are preparing for or fighting a war. But when it comes to feeding our own hungry people who do not have clothes to wear, proper accommodations and all those things, or when it comes to helping other nations of the world, we do not have the money to do it. We have the money only when we are preparing for or fighting a war.
There is a better answer. This legislation is in the old style. It is what we were preparing to do in the early 1930s and started to do later on in the 1930s. It put the coal miners to work. They were thankful. They appreciated Hitler, they really did. I am not kidding; I am not joking. They were in pretty bad shape. They recognized that it was what he was doing, as bad as it was, that put them back to work and enabled them to put food on their tables and clothing on their children and themselves.
What a way to run a country. What a failure. What a shame that in Canada today, some 58 years later, we are still only able to come up with solutions that result in murdering more people.
I am ashamed that we are going to pass this legislation, and I recognize we are. I wonder just how long it will be before we are arguing the next step down the road. There is a better route.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill before us, Bill C-6, is to amend the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code and the Export and Import Permits Act to permit the export of automatic firearms to the armed forces of other countries. That is the purpose of the bill, to permit the export of automatic firearms to the armed forces of other countries.
We are opposed to this bill as written because it is wide open. It permits the sale of these firearms to any country whatsoever. The minister, in his speech this morning, said that only those countries with which the government has an intergovernmental defence, research, development and production arrangement would be on the list of those who might be sold these weapons. But that is not how the legislation reads. The legislation reads differently than the speech of the hon. minister.
May 30, 1991

Article 2, subsection 4.1 on page 1 of the bill states:
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-
The exact words of the bill say that those countries must be included on the list, but it does not say that the list is restricted to those countries. Where in fact the legislation differs from the speech of the minister is that while the list must contain those countries with which Canada has arrangements for defence, research, development and production of weapons, it is not restricted to those countries.
If the government was to amend the legislation to restrict the list to those countries, it would at least be an improvement. It would not be totally satisfactory, but it would certainly be an improvement.
As I pointed out, I do not know if this is simply a mistake in the drafting of the legislation, but it is certainly not acceptable as it is. As I said, it is wide open. I refer to the French version of the same section. It seems to be stricter and more limiting than the English section. In any case, it is too wide open and is unacceptable in its present form.
Under the present Canadian law no business can sell arms to another country without a permit from the Canadian government under the Export and Import Permits Act.
However, in the legislation there are no guidelines or limitations to which countries we can sell these weapons. It is left totally to the discretion of the government.
I must say that over the years, both Liberal and Conservative governments have spelled out policy guidelines which they have used in deciding to which countries armaments might be sold.
If you look at the most recent report on this subject, which is called the Export of Military Goods from Canada, 1990, the first annual report on this subject, the former Secretary of State for External Affairs sets out the guidelines in that report.
These guidelines are as follows. It stated that Canada would closely control the export of military goods and technology to (a) countries which pose a threat to
Government Orders
Canada and its allies. That is pretty evident; (b) countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities; (c) countries under United Nations Security Council sanctions such as South Africa; (d) countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that these goods might be used against the civilian population.
Those are the guidelines set out by the present Conservative government for the sale of arms.
Those guidelines have never been submitted to Parliament for approval and they have never been legislated. They have not been legislated, nor have they been put in terms of a motion and debated in this House so that they could be approved.
We submit that this bill must be tightened to reflect at least the policy guidelines set out by the government in the paper that I just referred to.
We could, in this party, accept the sale of certain weapons to countries with which we have collective security agreements for defensive purposes and for peacekeeping. We certainly cannot accept the sale of these weapons to areas of conflict or imminent conflict or to areas where there are serious human rights violations.
In the Iraq-Kuwait War, 95 per cent of the arms used by Iraq were sold to it by the five permanent members of the Security Council. Ninety-five per cent of the arms used by Iraq came from those five countries which then later were at war with the same Iraq. It was a very sad situation which was decried by almost all the political leaders of the world, including our own Prime Minister, our own Secretary of State for External Affairs and many others.
It is an extremely ridiculous situation when we sell a country arms and it in turn uses those arms against us. That shows us the ludicrousness of the arms trade.
In addition, during the Iran-Iraq War, the first gulf war which took place just a few years ago, 28 countries sold weapons to both sides. Twenty-eight countries made money from the death and destruction rained on both sides in that war, a war which went on for nine years. Over 1 million people were killed.

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
Here we had mostly north western countries selling arms to an area of conflict to keep that conflict going with human beings being destroyed on all sides. This is an example of obscenity in the most extreme way.
The bill provides a list which would limit the number of countries to which these arms could be sold. We say that the legislation should limit the kinds of countries that can go on that list. The government seems to agree in principle to that. The minister said that in a speech.
As I said earlier, the words of the section do not reflect what he said. It appears that one of the potential buyers of arms as a result of this bill is Saudi Arabia. We do not have any arrangement with Saudi Arabia for intergovernmental defence, research, development or production and so I would be interested-I still do not have an answer-as to how the government would intend to proceed with that particular sale.
I must point out that Saudi Arabia, a middle eastern country, is in a region where we have had 26 wars since 1945. The Middle East is the region with the most wars, more than any other region in the world, since the end of the Second World War. Technically, Saudi Arabia is still at war with Israel. No peace agreement has been reached between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Egypt is the only Arab country in the region that has a peace agreement with Israel.
In addition, Saudi Arabia has a serious human rights problem. In the reports of Amnesty International, there are several examples of very extreme human rights violations. Saudi Arabia has no written constitution or criminal code. People are imprisoned very often without any charge, hearing, or right of defence.
One has to wonder, in view of the legislation and the expressed intentions of the government, how Saudi Arabia might be on such a list. It is possible, and we all work for and hope, that these countries will become more democratic and develop legal and democratic procedures to protect human rights and, consequently, I will not say that there could not be a day when Saudi Arabia and other countries in that region might be acceptable as countries to which we might sell arms for
defensive purposes, peacekeeping purposes and so on. That does not appear to be the case right now.
I would also like to know, and I think members of this House would like to know, which countries are on this list right now. The government must have some idea of what countries would be on this Automatic Firearms Country Control List. I think it would be helpful in the debate, or at least in committee, to know who would be on the list in accordance with its own guidelines.
If this bill goes to committee, and I presume with the majority the government has it will go to committee, we will be proposing an amendment that the list must be submitted to the standing committee on external affairs for approval before any permits are issued, and if there are any additions to the list that the proposals for addition must also be sent to the committee for approval. In this way Parliament will have some sort of control over this list of countries which would be potential buyers of weapons under this legislation.
It is hard to understand why the government is bringing in this legislation at this time. During the Iraq-Kuwait war the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs made very extreme statements opposing the arms trade. On February 8,1991, the Prime Minister said, and I quote from a speech he made in Ottawa: "One of the main lessons to be learned from this 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". That was the Prime Minister speaking.
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". Finally, he said: "Next week I will propose to the UN Secretary General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, that the United Nations convene a global summit on the instruments of war and weapons of mass destruction". That is what the Prime Minister said.
May 30, 1991

On February 20, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and I quote from his speech 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 repeated the statement of the Prime Minister that he would request a world summit on the control of arms.
Just yesterday, President Bush of the United States announced an ambitious plan to curb unnecessary and destabilizing weapons in the Middle East, including a freeze on a nuclear weapons program and an eventual ban on all missiles throughout the region. Even the President of the United States sees the need for curtailing the sale of weapons into the Middle East.
We, as a party, are proposing that certain restrictions be written into this legislation so that weapons of this kind could not be sold to any country whatsoever, especially to countries in areas of conflict and countries with serious human rights abuses. When the time comes, we will be extending that principle in a legislative way to all weapons that would be sold by this country. We now sell weapons to allies, countries with which we have collective security arrangements for defensive purposes and for peacekeeping. We, as a party, would like to see this put in a policy statement or in legislation for the House.
A country that we can look to in this sort of thing is Sweden, because Sweden is one of the largest arms producers in the world. It has very large arms producers in the names of Bufor Saab, and so on. I have here a copy of Sweden's policy on arms exports in the English language, 1989 version.
It is expressing Swedish policy. It says: "The general view has been that for reasons of security, Sweden should permit a certain volume of arms exports, but that we should at the same time be restrictive in our choice of recipient countries so as not to risk compromising Sweden's policy of non alignment by becoming involved in other country's military conflicts". It goes on. The Swedes have put into legislation certain guidelines which prevent them from selling to certain countries and allow them to sell to certain other countries, more or less along the same lines of the policies I have already referred to.
Government Orders
If you have a policy controlling the arms trade, that must go in hand with another policy dealing with disarmament. Some countries, especially Third World countries, get their arms from more developed countries, but the developed countries manufacture the arms for themselves. We must not only stop the trade of arms to Third World countries and countries which do not have their own industries, but we must also make sure that those countries which produce arms disarm themselves in an effective way so that there is balance in the world.
An arms trade policy must go hand in hand with a disarmament policy and also go hand in hand with a policy of conversion. By conversion I mean a policy whereby we assist industries which have been in the arms business to convert to more peaceful types of production.
In conclusion, let me say that we cannot support this bill in its present form. We will vote against it. If it is passed by the majority in this House and sent to committee, we will propose amendments to put limits on the list of countries that can buy weapons from Canada and to oblige that list and any addition to the list to be sent to a committee of this House for examination and approval.
That is our policy with respect to this bill.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I am very glad that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has taken part in the debate because I always want to hear what he says. On most matters, I find myself very much in agreement with him. I also find that he is a person who speaks his mind without fear.
However, I have one question for him on the basis of what he said. I understand that he and his colleagues in the Liberal caucus will oppose this bill in its present form. Further, if it is carried on second reading and referred to committee, it will seek an amendment in the committee to limit the countries to which the cabinet would be able to approve the sale of these weapons, and require these countries to meet criteria somewhat in line with criteria that were used by this government and the previous Liberal government, although they were never brought to Parliament to be approved.
In fact, I would add that when members of Parliament inquired of this government or the Liberal government which countries were on that list, they were always told

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
that it was confidential information. We could never find out which countries were on it.
I expect that the member for Victoria, our critic, will be veiy interested in the hon. member's motion in committee. I would guess, although I cannot prejudge it for him, that there is a strong likelihood he would support that amendment.
I am not clear-perhaps I did not listen carefully enough, although I did listen-as to whether the member would support the bill, if so amended.
I want to ask the member, since he is a person of legal standing, what he thinks about what has often been referred to as the Nuremberg trials, and the resulting principles.
I remember as a student hearing about them at that time. The allied powers put on trial officials of the Nazi government and officers of the Nazi armed forces, including guards and commanders at concentration camps, death camps and so on, for things they had done, which in civilian life would certainly have been considered crimes, such as murder or kidnapping and deportation.
They were called crimes against humanity. The defence that many, if not all of those officers used, civilian or military, was: "I was acting under orders. The decision was not mine. I was obligated as an officer of the forces or as an official of the government to carry out those orders. I am not responsible for anything that was wrong in what I did".
The decision as I understand it, the basic principle used at the Nuremberg trials, was that every person is responsible for what he does. If my government orders me to do something that I consider fundamentally morally wrong, then I must not do it.
In the light of that, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he supports the sale of these arms, even to a list of countries created with the restrictions that he has in mind.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I stated we have a funny feeling that this bill will pass despite our opposition. If this bill passes and is sent to committee, we will be proposing amendments which would more or less-I cannot spell out the exact amendments now-restrict the sale of such weapons to countries with which we have
collective security arrangements for defensive purposes and for peacekeeping.
We would forbid the sale to countries that are in a state of conflict internally or internationally, or where there is a strong possibility that they could be involved in such conflicts.
We would also propose another amendment whereby the government would be obliged to submit the list of countries to a parliamentary committee. Any new countries to be added to the list would be submitted to a parliamentary committee for the scrutiny and approval of that committee.
There are two kinds of amendments.
If the government was to accept those amendments- by the way those amendments would bring our law pretty much in line with what the Swedes have and what we have declared to be policy-I would agree to the legislation, because it would mean that we would be restricted to selling these kinds of weapons to countries with which we have collective security arrangements for collective defence, not for offensive purposes but collective defence, and for peacekeeping.
I am very strongly in favour of disarmament. I mentioned that. I said a policy on the arms trade must go hand in hand with a disarmament policy. I hope the day will come when we can reduce our arms on all sides and armies will not be necessary. We will probably still need peacekeeping forces.
To be honest with the hon. member, if the government was to accept the sorts of amendments we have in mind-and we have not drafted them in their final form-then I would agree to the bill. For several years I was a member of a cabinet which sold certain arms to friendly countries for defensive purposes, I did not object to that. I did not resign from cabinet. However, I do object that weapons of these kinds are sold to countries that are in a state of conflict or about to be in conflict, or that use the weapons to deny the human rights of their own citizens or crush their own citizens.
It is that sort of thing I think is intolerable and I could not accept.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak briefly. In that light I certainly would like the minister to have the
May 30,1991

opportunity to speak so I will just make my comment. Perhaps you would like the hon. minister to do so and then perhaps our colleague could answer.
Following my exchange with the minister, I was concerned regarding the kinds of equipment we are talking about now. The minister assures me that our little trucks will not cause problems and could not be used in some kind of confrontational situation. What I really wanted to know was what would happen if it was a different weapon.
Second, my colleague, whom I certainly respect and whose speech I found fascinating and certainly educational, talked about the transparency of the Swedish model. Will that put a stop to third party sales? I mean, if the Swedes decided to sell to someone, what stops them from selling those weapons to another country that we would not have been able to sell to in the first place?
I hope the minister can ask his question.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add a point of information in response to some of the points the hon. member was making.
We have agreements with the following countries: the U.K., Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Sweden and the United States.
I wanted to clarify that this is in the bill, because the suggested amendment by the hon. member asked to do this. An Order in Council would be required to add these countries to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List. Also, if we wanted to add countries to this list for other purposes, there would be the same kind of transparency.
I think a lot of what the hon. member has been suggesting is accomplished in the bill.
Also, in terms of the nature of the light armoured vehicles, they are wheeled vehicles and therefore cannot be used on the desert and are just used for defensive purposes. They cannot be used in an offensive way in the Middle East. That is by way of response to a question she asked earlier.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to look once again at the wording of the legislation. As a lawyer, I find that the wording of the legislation in section 2, proposed subsection 4.1, does not restrict the list to countries with which they have arrangements. It says:
Government Orders
"including those countries." It does not say "restricted to".
The French version is much more limiting. I raised this question this morning with the minister for foreign trade and he did not have an answer for me. It appears wide open at the present time.
I do not think that the bill deals properly with this. I know that there is a list. By the way, I suggested that we also have an amendment which would oblige the government, if it intended to put by Order in Council any country on the list, to put the proposal before the standing committee on external affairs for examination before the permit was issued. This would allow Parliament to have a say on who is on the list and who is not on the list.
In answer to the hon. member for Mount Royal, yes, in Swedish law when companies sell to other countries they have provisions in their contracts, it seems-I do not pretend to be an expert. I read Sweden's policy in this booklet where it points out that Sweden has now sued certain countries, taken certain countries to court, for transferring weapons to a third country. We can have sanctions if we want. For example, if a country broke a contract and transferred those arms to a third country, we would put them on a black list. We might sue them as the Swedes are doing but we might also say: "That is the end of it for you, fellow. No more sales to you".
There are different ways of dealing with this, but we can control to a much greater extent the end use of arms sales than we do now, and countries are attempting to do that.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to rise today in opposition to government Bill C-6. For those folks watching the proceedings in the House of Commons, as a word of explanation to those Canadians, what the government is attempting to do with the legislation it has introduced and wants to pass through the House of Commons is change the rules and regulations so that it would be in a position to export automatic weapons and certain personnel type carriers, basically to Saudi Arabia.
We in our party oppose this for a variety of reasons. First of all, I think as Canadians we were able to take some pride in Canada's historic role in being more of a peacekeeper than a major merchant of death. Canada has no great history in terms of conquest and imperial-

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
ism. We have never seen ourselves as a major military power. We have never supported a major arms industry.
Canada has a global reputation that has won us respect in all comers of the world. We have played active roles in peacekeeping. We have consciously turned down the opportunity to become a nuclear power in the past. This has been with the agreement of all parties, whether the Conservative Party under John Diefenbaker or the party of Louis St. Laurent or Mike Pearson or Trudeau.
As Canadians we have always valued our role of being peacekeepers, of trying to have a voice of sanity in the United Nations and in other international bodies.
Of course, what Bill C-6 does is begin to turn Canada away from that tradition. The irony of it is this government knows no shame. Just a few months ago we had some very brave words by the Prime Minister and by the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, exalting the need of restricting the arms race, particularly the selling of arms in the Middle East, the most volatile spot on the face of this earth.
The Prime Minister said and I quote: "There is a general view, without getting into the question of a total interdiction for the moment, that clearly a lot of these weapons, to understate the case, fell into hands that should never have had them in the first place.
"We could be much more active in that area if we wanted. We have all the technology in the world; we have all the resources we need. We could be big arms merchants. We have chosen 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 pedal it, to finance it, and then to deplore its use."
That was the Prime Minister on March 13. As well, the Secretary of State at that time stated that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the arms trade, the constant chase for spheres of influence, is something he regretted and he thought that was one of the major problems of the Middle East.
We had all these great comments by our Prime Minister and our Secretary of State. Canada was going to take a major new initiative. What is the initiative? The initiative is Bill C-6. The reality is that this government wants some of the limitations on exports of weapons removed so that it can sell and make the deal with the Saudis.
Does this government know no shame? Does this government not recognize that Canadians are not fools? It can say one thing in February or March and then totally contradict itself two months later.
Again, I have always felt that the Orwellian period started in 1984 and the actions of this government continue to reinforce that Orwellian notion of saying one thing and doing something else.
I fear the government has started down the path toward selling more and more arms. The reason, of course, is entirely economical. This government, and I must say past Liberal governments as well, have to a certain extent supported the arms industry through DIPP. Some $300 million is used from public funds to promote the defence industries.
One would tend to think that this is a sunset type industry, that with the end of the cold war the major reason for the arms race has now disappeared, or surely at least a fair-minded person would say it has substantially disappeared.
I am sure that if I could go through the quotes of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State I would find something in their statements supporting my contention that with the end of the cold war, the arms race surely has to come to an end.
Now we are left with all these industries that used to produce arms. We have cutbacks to our own defence budgets in this country and in order for these industries to be viable, they have to start exporting more. As a result we ease the restrictions to allow our defence industry to start exporting to other countries. That is the only reason. It is economic.
Instead of the government beginning to realize that the arms race is at an end, that we have to address the problem of converting the arms industry to peaceful use,
May 30, 1991

instead of extending its energy and its efforts in job retraining and the whole area of conversion, this government is trying to prop up those industries by loosening the restrictions so they can export more to countries like Saudi Arabia.
How irresponsible. How irresponsible on an international, global sense, and how irresponsible on a local economic sense. How stupid as well. Let us not continue to try to support the industries whose time has come, thank God. Let us rather be joyful that the need for the arms industry has decreased. Let us ease the transformation of the arms industry into peaceful industries. Let that be the goal and the objective of the government, rather than Bill C-6 which just gives them a greater lease on life.
Bill C-6 also damages our international credibility, as with so many other steps that this government has taken. I am sure even poor John Diefenbaker would just shake in his grave over it. We have been continually losing our creditability in the following areas: the sense of fairness and neutrality of not being an arms dealer; a country willing to work in international efforts like the United Nations Peacekeeping Organization; and a country that other countries in dispute can come to as a fair-minded mediator. Certainly Bill C-6 heightens that.
The Canadian government can no longer speak with the same type of credibility in urging international arms control. We will be laughed out of international fora when we stand up to make proposals after we pass Bill C-6.
As well, because of the economic reason of maintaining our defence industries, we are proposing to loosen the restrictions a little bit. What happens if there are further defence cutbacks in other countries as well as Canada? It is not going to be enough to maintain those industries. Will not the temptation to ease further restrictions be there? Of course it will be there, and we start down the slippery slope where we could conceivably end up being a full scale arms merchant selling to the highest bidder for whatever we can get away with.
Of course the government says it has its criteria in terms of existing legislation as to the countries to which it will deny the export of military goods and technology. Included in these four items are countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities. We are going to be
Government Orders
selling these to Saudi Arabia. In the period of 1977 to 1986,37 per cent of the global arms trade occurred in the Middle East. Fourteen wars have been fought since 1967 with more than three million dead and we are going to sell them more arms.
Does that not contravene section (b) where Canada generally denies the export of military goods and technology to countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities? I then look at section (d): "Countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens".
Surely nobody is going to stand up and claim that Saudi Arabia has a sparkling record in terms of human rights. One could very well foresee the possibility of these personnel carriers being used against the people of Saudi Arabia themselves should they ever begin to rise up and demand a more democratic system. We will see Canadian troop carriers with automatic weapons mounted on them facing the people of Saudi Arabia.
It makes no sense even under our existing guidelines.
The other point I want to make is that it is very hard to control the final use and destination. Yes, we are going to attempt to restrict the sale and export of these weapons, but can we really determine who the end users will be? Of course we cannot.
I also want to address the larger question that I commented on at the beginning of my remarks. I think there were many of us who saw some light at the end of the tunnel when it became obvious that the arms race and the cold war were going to end, that the trillions of dollars that had been spent on useless arms production could finally come to an end.
I have always maintained that the major reason for the deficits that we have in the world today, be it the Third World, France, England, the United States or Canada, is due to the arms race. The trillions of dollars of capital that the arms race has taken out of the world economy has made capital more scarce and forced up interest rates at the expense of health, education, food, social programs, pensions and so forth. Human beings throughout the world have paid a horrific price because of the arms race. The farmers going broke in my constituency because of the high interest rates in part are victims of the arms race. It is the arms race that has caused these

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
massive deficits. It is the arms race that has caused the scarcity of capital and high interest rates.
When we saw the possibility of an end to the arms race and the cold war, there were many of us who had high hopes for the so-called peace dividend. Finally nations could start redirecting their resources, not just their capital, but their scientists, their technology and their manufacturing capacities toward peaceful and human needs rather than the death industry and the production of goods and services meant to kill people.
We have been disappointed because I am afraid that the peace dividend is still veiy illusory. It is certainly not there. Perhaps we should not have been so naive. We should have realized that the arms merchants have done very well in the past in their industry and they were not going to give up that easily. They are still very active today. Certainly for them the war with Iraq was a tremendous blessing. They are hoping to regenerate an arms race, maybe a little different. Maybe they can convince the Russians and the Chinese that with the sophistication of the American weaponry, they had better start spending some more. If they start spending more, perhaps other countries will spend more. Perhaps we can pick up the arms race again and then the merchants of death will be quite happy and the whole peace dividend will start, like a mirage, to disappear.
What a tragedy that would be. What a sin that would be to all humanity. Surely we hope for the end of the arms race and that these massive human and physical natural resources can be focused on the meeting of human needs on a global scale, from the homeless in Canada and the people who stand in line at the food banks all the way around the globe to the starvation and the human suffering that occurs in many lands.
As human beings we have the resources. Never in the history of the human race have we been able as human beings to develop the capacity to meet the needs of every man, woman and child on the face of this planet. It has been the arms race that has allowed us to continue and that has forced us to live in a world of scarcity when really we should be living in a world of plenty.
In conclusion, I would like to put on the record the famous quote from former President Dwight D. Eisenhower:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the 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 house of its children - .This is not a way of life -.Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
I implore this government to back off and to recognize what it is doing with Canada's reputation, what evil it is inflicting in the world. Back off. Rethink this and for heaven's sake, do not proceed with this legislation.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief question that I would like to put to the member for Regina-Qu'Ap-pelle. I first of all want to compliment him on his excellent speech and comments that he made on Bill C-6, which the House is debating today.
I am particularly interested in the comments that the member made on the whole question of conversion. Looking at some of the information we have, Canada sold around $1.5 billion worth of arms annually in the 1980s, and I would like to hear the member speak a bit further on some of the methods or steps or ways that we might use for conversion as the way to help those workers and industries which currently produce arms to produce goods for the peaceful sector, if you like.
I would like to hear the member comment a little further on that. I think that is an important aspect of what we must try to do in Canada and in the other countries of the world if we are going to try and break the arms race.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I thank my colleague very much for the question. Unfortunately, I do not have all of my statistics with me today, but groups like some of the peace institutes have put out columns which show $1 spent on child care, $1 spent on education, $1 spent on housing, $1 spent on hospitalization and so forth. In other words, $1 spent in the peace and the social sectors creates so many more jobs than does a dollar spent in the production of arms.
Some claim that the production of arms is really the great job generator. That is not true. Partly because of the high sophistication of armaments today it is not very often job creative. To speak of the defence industry as the creator of a great number of jobs is not quite accurate.
May 30, 1991

If you spend the same amount of money on things like education or housing and health, you can create three or four times the number of jobs than with the money spent on defence.
The second point in the conversion which I think is important, and again I do not have the accurate figures with me, is that the defence industry takes a horrendous number of our intellectual resources, our scientists.
I remember once on a delegation in Washington listening to one of the vice-presidents of Hughes Aircraft saying that what is used in the defence industry is generally 10 years ahead of what is used in the domestic industry.
There are many scientific discoveries that need to be innovated and brought into daily use, opening up tremendous new possibilities in terms of manufacturing, which now are just captured by the defence industry. We have spent so much of our intellectual resources in the defence industry that if you turned them loose in the domestic industry, many of our problems such as pollution, energy, biomedical problems and so forth would be solved. Using the scientific knowledge that the defence industry has for domestic purposes could also create many more jobs.
The government can work with industry and should be working with industry in terms of converting.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment I would like to make in response to the remarks about food banks and soup kitchens made by the NDP members who spoke earlier.
I can inform the hon. member that recently, Diemaco bid on a contract to supply the Netherlands Ministry of Defence with a series of small arms, a contract worth over $120 million that might be followed by another contract worth $100 million, to supply spare parts and other maintenance items.
If the company gets the contract, this will represent 7,680 person-years of employment in Canada, a figure that might almost double for the duration of the contract. It seems this would also mean that it would be possible to continue designing new weapons systems for the Canadian Armed Forces until the year 2000.
Government Orders
There is also the General Motors Diesel Division, also located in Ontario. It seems Saudi Arabia has decided to purchase a number of light armoured vehicles, a purchase that may be followed by other orders which might create between 1,500 and 2,000 new jobs in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, according to my NDP colleague's logic, if we want to avoid soup kitchens, we have to create jobs. In the same vein, if these plants in Ontario cannot survive, they will have to close, and the United States will get those jobs, and what is now being done in Canada will be done in the United States.
My point is, there is not the slightest hint of realism in the hon. member's speech and in all the NDP speeches I have heard today. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to know the position of Bob White, who represents the United Auto Workers in Canada, and I would also like to know the position of union workers at General Motors and Diemaco, who support this bill, Mr. Speaker.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I understand the need for jobs and I understand the desperation of people, especially given the recession that has been made by this government, that to them there is an immediate job of $25 an hour as opposed to something that might happen somewhere later down the road in terms of conversion.
Their immediate needs and concerns are going to be with that job, but that is the creation and the situation you have created and that is the choice that you are giving to people. I say that is a bogus choice.
Why not use that logic and take it one step further? Why do you not legalize the growing of marijuana and the processing of heroine? You would create many jobs right across this country. Where do you stop? Where do you draw the line?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Order please.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas-Canada Post; the hon. member for Labrador-National Defence; the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel-Employment; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands-Cross-border shop-

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
ping; and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona-Edmonton International Airport.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Trinity-Spa-dina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, before I begin the debate I would like to ask if you could point out to me that there is a member of the cabinet in attendance here as the Standing Orders require.
I saw a couple before, but I do not see any member of the cabinet now. One member has returned.
The hon. minister has indicated that he wants to hear what I have to say and I am very glad of that. As he may suspect, I will be opposing this bill.
The purpose of this bill is to allow the export from Canada of automatic weapons and light-armoured vehicles armed with automatic weapons. The export of automatic weapons is now prohibited by the Criminal Code.
The bill provides in section 8 for an exemption to the code in cases approved by cabinet.
Section 8 in effect would permit the export or import of automatic weapons or components if approved by cabinet notwithstanding the other prohibitions in the code, so long as they were sent to countries which were on an approved list for the export of automatic weapons or components, and it authorizes the minister to create that list and to issue the export permits.
That is what it is about. Some of my colleagues have gone into some of the reasons for objecting to this bill, often quoting statements of this government which are in contradiction to the purpose of this bill in connection with the arms trade.
I want to go just a little bit deeper into the matter to discuss basic reasons for opposing this bill. Basically I would say that in our time, the arms trade is immoral. It is immoral because it is trade in the means of coercion; that is to say, a means of controlling people by violence or threat of violence. Means of coercion are sold by the owners of coercive power to other owners of coercive
power for the sole purpose of coercing people by violence or threat of violence.
This government and its predecessor, the Liberal government, in spite of having some alleged guidelines which were not made public, sold arms to the dictator of Indonesia, the dictator of Chile, and the dictator of Philippines, all of whom used arms against their own people.
If the Liberal amendment suggested were to be adopted in this bill, I would look at it with great interest to see which of the countries that either the Liberal government or the present Conservative government sold arms to would be excluded.
What we have here is a situation that was lampooned by Mark Twain in his novel Tom Sawyer Abroad. Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and their friends are travelling around the world in a balloon. They pass across the Sahara Desert and they look down and see bodies lying in the desert. They bring the balloon down and investigate. It looks like a caravan that had been covered over in a sand storm and smothered. People had been killed. Another wind had blown the sand off and the bodies lay where they had fallen with their clothes, their weapons, their money and their jewels.
Tom Sawyer, the leader of the group, gives a judgment: "It's our duty to take that money and those jewels, because if we don't, someone might come along and steal them". Mark TWain was writing at the time when the United States was taking some of the colonies from the Spanish empire, such as Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and so on.
That is the basic argument used now for the arms trade. Nobody seriously believes that we need it to defend Canada from an attacker. The argument is: if we do not sell it, somebody else will, and therefore it is our duty to sell it.
I am saying that this is immoral at the present time, because I did not always think so. I have had an individual struggle of conscience on this for a great many years. I came from a conventional family. My brother served in the navy. My uncle served in World War I and was gassed in a gas attack in France, and later served in Palestine. It was more or less taken for granted that when there is a war, able bodied young men join up.
May 30,1991

Before I was of age, I debated that with myself, with pastors, and with anybody else, starting with my parents. I was finally persuaded that I could see at that time no other alternative to surrendering to violence and so I joined the army. I volunteered and took the parachute training at Camp Shilo. When I was ready to go overseas the war in Europe ended. Then I volunteered for the Pacific and that ended soon.
I had made the moral decision that I was ready to go overseas and take the chance of killing people or being killed on the ground that it was necessaiy to do that for peace, good order, democracy, and basically for the survival of the civilians who were behind the front lines.
I began to rethink that when I heard about the bomb our ally dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, killing about
60,000	people, nearly all civilians. The Japanese war was already ending. They had begun to sue for peace. It seems likely that the use of the bomb was not so much to save American lives as to send a signal, a threat, to the Soviet Union that America had the monopoly on nuclear weapons.
As nuclear weapons multiplied and became the property of other countries, including the Soviet Union, I remember a sermon preached by the Rev. George Macleod, then of Iona, Scotland, who argued that if some other country is using nuclear weapons against us we do not accomplish any good by joining in the nuclear exchange. It will only ensure annihilation of all concerned. Nobody is to be protected in a nuclear war.
I was persuaded and became what he called a nuclear pacifist. I still thought that other weapons, hand weapons, small weapons, guns like rifles and so on, were fair to use. My young brother disagreed with me and said: "You are inconsistent. If you accept pistols and knives, you accept nuclear weapons". And I said: "No, we draw the line".
This year I have decided my young brother was right. I cannot tell him so now. It happens that he died in the fall. But if he was here I would tell him: "Larry, you were right and I was wrong in 1956 on that point". I see the outcome of it now. At that time, I thought that people defending their land against invaders or against dictator-
Govemment Orders
ships with guerrilla warfare, using what is called small arms weapons, were fighting a just war.
I now think that it is impossible to draw that line in our time. Perhaps it was possible in ages past. Perhaps it was possible before 1945.1 am not sure. But I do not think it is possible now to draw that line.
Somebody has mentioned at least three million people killed in wars since World War II. They were killed mostly in the south between southern countries fighting each other, but with weapons sold to them by the north.
As the Prime Minister has said, the weapons industry and weapons trade is lucrative. Arms bring some of the highest profits of any of the manufacturing industries. In fact, for example, a group like Litton Systems gave up manufacturing civilian goods entirely in order to concentrate exclusively on manufacturing war goods. It produces fewer jobs, as was also pointed out, than producing the means of life, but with more money, more profit on the dollar. It also produces more dictatorship. It shores up dictators or it causes originally democratic countries to become more dictatorial because of the secrecy and the power and the repression associated with war or with the preparation for war.
In the last two or three years I have become very interested in what I heard called the civil society. I heard about it occurring in eastern Europe, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, in Hungary, in East Germany, principally in those countries of northern eastern Europe, but also in the Baltics. Then I heard about it in the Soviet Union when I visited there nearly two years ago. I found there was a great spread of what were called "informal organizations," that is to say, they were not registered with the government. This was considered by people who talked with me to be an important advance. They said there had not been any real growth of civil society there either under the Czars or under the Bolsheviks.
In other words, they thought of the civil society as voluntary groups that sort of mediate, provide a cushion, between the state and the individuals. They considered that the growth of civil society in the Soviet Union was very hopeful. But the more clear example of that has been in Poland and Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Hungary where a tremendous change was made in the

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
relatively short while, though after long, long years of waiting, and with relatively little violence.
The Polish government was not overthrown by armed resistance, nor was the Czech government, nor was the East German government, nor was the Elungarian government. It was a civilian movement.
I visited Chile 18 months ago to observe the election there. That was not the most important vote in Chile recently. The most important vote was the year before in the plebiscite that defeated the only candidate standing then for the presidency, General Pinochet. That opened the way for a genuinely pluralistic election and that was the one I observed 18 months ago.
When I talked with people before and after voting day,
I learned that again it had not been brought about by a military overthrow of General Pinochet, who has a huge armed force for a country of only 13 million or 14 million people, far, far larger in proportion than we have in Canada, for example. He was not defeated by military power. The change was brought about by organized civilian resistance.
Something like that is also happening in El Salvador where, in between the government and the guerrillas, the FMLN, there is a growing civilian movement. In January when I visited there, I talked with peasants who have gone back to the land. I talked with peasants who have gone back to their farming, even in a conflictive zone. Some of them get killed, but they are going back in greater and greater numbers. They are coming back from other countries, from Nicaragua, from Costa Rica, from Honduras, to re-settle their lands, to do what they and their ancestors always did, grow food and raise families. They are unarmed. They take no part in the fighting on either side. That movement is growing, and I believe it is an important force in the possibility of ending the civil war there.
People were astonished a year ago in the election in Nicaragua. First of all, many were surprised-I was, but so was Ronald Reagan-that the Sandinistas lost the election to the coalition ranged against them.
But the second surprise was that the Sandinistas not only had arranged for that clean election, supervised by the United Nations, but accepted the result of it and did not attempt to block it, as has happened in El Salvador
and in so many other Latin American countries. In fact, the Sandinistas are in charge of reducing and dismantling their army.
Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is that there is now this movement for peace and it stands sharply against the stated view of the United States 43 years ago. This is the plan worked out by George Kennan in 1948 when he was head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff. He wrote, and I quote:
We have about 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task-is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this parity without positive detriment to our national security.
lb do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality-We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction-We should cease to talk about vague and-for the Far East -unreal objectives such as human rights, raising standards of living and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
My point is, the days of using power symbolized by the gun are passing. That kind of power to kill, and only power to kill, is out of date. The life of the world depends on the people who use the power to make life, like those peasants in El Salvador who have gone back into the war zones to grow food and raise families.
This bill, which we oppose, now belongs to the past and should be dropped by this government. I hope the government will consider that. There are better ways to earn a living than by preparing for killing.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to my hon. colleague who has been philosophical this afternoon. He did not embark on a tirade at all. He quietly shared with us his philosophy and how he arrived at his philosophy and why he is taking this position on this particular bill.
I do not so much want to debate him because, philosophically, he has the right to put forward his life thinking and his life experience on this subject and I do not want to criticize that at all. What I found in his presentation was an almost 19th century Robert Owen. He captured the magic of the Robert Owen 19th centuiy socialist idea of maybe being able to have a civil society
May 30, 1991

that somehow interposed between the state and individuals and sources of power in a community. Let us just look at this ideal universe towards which he would like to see the world move. Does he foresee a situation whereby there would not be a need for any police, any military however minor, and does he foresee, even in a Robert Owen world 100 years later at the end of the 20th century, no need for firearms? If so, could he explain how that world would work?
I share his Utopian view in many ways. It would be great if we did not need these firearms, but since the beginning of time we have had to have police forces with firearms. We have also had to have some defensive enclaves of a military nature in order to protect a country, including Central American countries. I just want to get a genuine sense of it. Does he see a world that has no firearms or transportation vehicles, for example, which would look after the local military, however small?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his question because it is very direct and relevant to what I was saying.
My simple answer is that I cannot draw the picture of the kind of world the minister is talking about when he suggests that is where I am heading. I might be heading there in my mind, but I have not arrived there. As I have acknowledged, my own view on the question of police forces, small arms, small wars and so on has been changing in the last 30 or 40 years. Some people might think I am a slow learner, but I have arrived at the view that it is practically impossible to keep a small war small.
I would say the Sandinistas in their little isolated patch of hills in Central America thought that. They could drive out a bloody dictator, Samoza and then be able to control their own country. The United States told them "no". The United States had purposes for Samoza, rather than some successor, and would not permit that.
The United States was prepared, and the United States is prepared now. General Colin Powell has threatened to use direct military power to resolve the negotiations between the Government of El Salvador and its army-or the army and its government because it is the army that controls the government-and the FMLN if things don't go as General Powell and President Bush think they should.
Government Orders
It is becoming more clear that even a just cause, fought defensively with limited weapons, no longer is allowed to operate in isolation.
What I am saying is that the world is moving. I am not saying that it is possible for Canada immediately to disarm totally, let alone persuade other countries immediately to disarm totally. I am saying that those of us who can should make a start, and a start is not to increase our arms exports. That is moving backward in history rather than forward.
The arms export is not for the defence of Canada, and I don't believe it is for the defence of Saudi Arabia. It is for the enrichment of the people who manufacture those arms. That is the reason for doing it. Otherwise they would put their money into something more useful: building civilian vehicles or building ships, or building other things that we need to produce life instead of to produce death.


Mr. Charles Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, the Criminal Code states that anyone who is not a member of the Canadian forces or of a police force and who imports or has in his or her possession certain weapons such as automatic rifles or firearms is guilty of an offence. It is therefore illegal to manufacture such weapons in Canada or to import them for the purpose of including them in Canadian export goods.
Canada's defence needs require Canada to have, among other things, the capacity to repair, overhaul, and improve the Canadian forces' equipment. Our forces need sufficient equipment to fulfil the tasks assigned to them, be it UN peacekeeping missions or actual combat. However, our defence budget is rather small. So, our defence industry must have access to the international defence market in order to survive. Because of foreign sales, it is less dependent on Canadian contracts and government financial support.
The legislation, when passed, will allow Canada to import, as well as manufacture and export, these weapons to countries with which Canada has signed bilateral defence production agreements.
This bill will not weaken the Canadian exports control policy. The export of these kinds of weapons will be strictly controlled using the same stringent guidelines

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
that have applied for the longest time to Canadian military equipment exports in Canada.
A country control list will also be established. The export of firearms such as those produced by Diemaco will be permitted only to the countries on this new list. As with any regulation made under the Export and Import Permits Act, it would take an Order in Council to add countries to the list. Only countries with which we have an intergovernmental defence, research, development and production arrangement would qualify.
We will adhere strictly to intergovernmental arrangements, and exports will be closely controlled to countries which pose a threat to Canada or its allies, countries involved in hostilities or under imminent threat of hostilities, countries under UN Security Council sanctions, and countries whose governments have persistent records, of human rights violations.
The same guidelines will apply militaiy exports. These criteria have been very useful in maintaining strict controls on exports. At the same time, they are sufficiently broad to require new policy development.
Mr. Speaker, Canada will continue to promote the tightening of international constraints and effective controls where exports of conventional weapons are concerned. We will ask for a meeting of the world's major arms exporters to encourage them to make an official commitment to greater restraint when exporting conventional weapons, especially to regions where the build-up of such weapons appears to be taking on alarming proportions.
However, Canada continues to recognize the right of every country to defend itself as guaranteed under Article 51 of the UN Charter. This bill will give Canadian businesses a chance to help other countries meet their legitimate defence requirements, while observing the strict limitations imposed by Canada's weapons control policy. These amendments concern the Canadian defence industry, first of all, and two companies in particular.
In 1976, Diemaco, a company in Kitchener, Ontario, was established by DND as a centre of excellence for the provision of small arms to the Canadian Armed Forces,
to ensure they would not be totally dependent on foreign suppliers in times of emergency. Its facility is unique in Canada and it is important to DND's long term operational readiness.
The awarding of a contract to produce the new family of small arms for the Canadian Armed Forces created 300 direct jobs for the company itself, 200 direct jobs at its Canadian subcontractors, and an equal number of indirect jobs. This contract is nearing completion, however, so that Canada may lose Diemaco's substantial manufacturing capability and that of its 75 subcontractors.
These are quality jobs with a focus on technology. The Canadian government's investment of $40 million in this computer based manufacturing capability contributes and will continue to contribute very substantially to Canada's competitive position.
There are a few examples of the capabilities covered by this investment: product design, engineering, metal finishing, plastic molding, precision casting, forging and machining, and extrusion techniques.
Mr. Speaker, recently, Diemaco bid on a contract to supply the Netherlands Department of Defence with a series of small arms, a contract worth more than $120 million that might be followed by another contract worth $100 million to supply spare parts and other maintenance items. A successful bid would mean 7,680 person years of employment in Canada, a figure that might almost double for the duration of the contract.
This would also mean it would be possible to continue designing new weapons systems for the Canadian Armed Forces until the year 2000. The Dutch have now entered a new testing phase for which weapons have been provided by the Department of National Defence. If this bill is not passed, it will be very hard for us to convince them to take our proposal seriously.
The U.S. Defense Department will turn to Diemaco and its subcontractors for the components required to maintain its supplies of rifles and machine guns. This could affect 20 Canadian companies and represent $5 million a year in export sales.
Diemaco and Hughes Leitz together developed an optical kit for the Canadian forces. This kit could easily be exported and create 200 person years of employment.
May 30, 1991

Without these changes, we will lose the whole small-calibre weapons industrial infrastructure before the end of 1995.
Saudi Arabia has decided to buy some light armored vehicles and it may place other orders that could create between 1,500 and 2,000 jobs. GM would have to provide automatic weapons with their vehicles. These weapons would have to be imported and then exported. It would be illogical to insist that these vehicles, made in Canada, be sent to another country to be equipped with automatic weapons.
Note that light armored vehicles are considered defensive. They are on rubber tires and are very lightly armored; they are used to patrol oil fields and pipelines. For offensive purposes, heavy tracked armored vehicles would certainly be preferred.
Not only will this bill implement stricter controls on the export of automatic weapons but it will prove that the federal government is determined to meet Canada's strategic defence needs, to ensure the survival of the facilities created as part of the North American defence industry infrastructure, to improve legitimate export prospects, and to create new jobs in Canada.
In summary, we must create and safeguard employment. We must increase competitiveness by developing and keeping leading-edge technology. Exports must increase to improve the trade balance. Small business must also be supported by keeping many subcontractors employed. Canadian capacity must be maintained for times of tension. Canada must be allowed to contribute to its allies' defence capability. The destination of automatic arms must be closely controlled. Finally, we must help Canada remain an active and competitive partner in the North American defence industry infrastructure.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I particularly enjoyed the comments on this bill from the member opposite.
As a follow-up to a question I put to the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, I would be interested in this member's comments on the point I made about the need to
Government Orders
have a conversion developed in this country. This would be a means by which, in a very realistic way, we would have a chance to get out of the arms race, giving those people working in these industries an opportunity to work in other areas that could be developed.
I think that is important. The author of a very important book entitled The Rise and Fall of Great Nations of the World made the point that one of the reasons Japan, as an example, was able to develop such a dynamic economy and put considerable resources into developing trade in its technological and automobile industries was that it did not have to allocate all those funds to armed forces.
Clearly, if it is not guns, it is butter. If a country allocates or spends in Canada some $1.5 billion annually on arms, I would be interested in knowing the member's views on conversion. What ideas does the government have on how to redirect some of those funds so that we could get out of the arms race and have people employed in the peace sector.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that Canada is not a very big player in the manufacturing of arms. We are a minor player in that field in that we do not produce on a mass level a high volume of offensive arms. We are mainly engaged in producing conventional weapons that are used for defence.
In this case the two industries that we are talking about, Diemaco and GM, are supplying the Canadian army with light vehicles and the type of weapons that are used normally in defensive action.
Those two industries, based in Ontario and employing several hundred people, would not survive by supplying only the Canadian army.
We have an opportunity to sell some of those products to friendly countries and maintain those high quality jobs in high technology.
The government would be ill-advised not to take this opportunity to enhance those jobs and solidify those two companies and their contractors.
As for the conversion aspect of my colleague's question, I certainly appreciate and agree that we should be

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
looking at ways to augment and increase jobs in our production capacity in more society-oriented products. However, since there is a market and we still have a limited capacity to access that market, the country and the government should put every effort possible together to give our manufacturing firms access to those markets in order to consolidate their base and maintain the jobs that exist in those plants at the present time.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's response to the question put by the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. I find it very interesting that he says he wants to enhance those jobs and solidify the positions of the two companies, but on the other hand he agrees that we might want to think at some time in the future about changing the role of those workers and changing the direction of those companies.
If we, as Canadians, do not agree with being in the arms race, and if we genuinely want to ensure that those workers have jobs, would it not make sense that at the same time as this government allows these contracts to be let that it begins to do some serious planning about conversion of those jobs into peace-type jobs as opposed to jobs that create war machines?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam for her question and her comments. Of course, we should be very careful not to put the country in a position where we would have to import the arms that our forces may need in the future to provide the defence of our country and to help them to fulfil the role that from time to time we will ask them to perform for the United Nations.
We should maintain in Canada a basic industrial manufacturing capacity for the type of conventional arms that our forces will need. If we do not maintain that position, one day Canada will be a net importer, a net buyer of that type of weapon. That would put in jeopardy our balance of payments, create hardship in the economy and lose jobs. I personally think that we have to maintain a level of manufacturing capacity in Canada that will assure that we can equip our Armed Forces with the type of equipment they need to perform the job that we ask them to perform.
On the other hand, we should, as the government is doing, look at alternatives, look at ways to diversify the economy in order to create the type of jobs that will benefit the Canadian economy.
I repeat, we should be very careful not to put ourselves in a position where we will have to buy the equipment we need to ensure our security.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this very important debate which we are undertaking today. Some of the most eloquent and cogent arguments I have heard on this subject in many years of following the debate on arms control and the questions of disarmament have come in the debate today.
I would like to compliment very much a number of my colleagues whom I see seated around me, particularly the member for Trinity-Spadina, the member for Regina- Qu'Appelle and others who have spoken very eloquently. I would hope that this debate reaches far beyond the limited confines of this Chamber and becomes a debate throughout Canada. It is a very important debate, one of the most important debates perhaps that we have engaged in yet, although its subject matter may seem on the surface to be relatively mundane.
What startles me the most, and has startled many of us, is the utter hypocrisy of what we are witnessing today. Many of us who were involved in the gulf war debate in January, when we were called back to debate the resolution supporting United Nations action, will remember the government saying repeatedly that the situation in the Middle East was indeed the result of actions in the past. Weapons had been sold to people who clearly should not have had them.
There were repeated references made to the fact that Saddam Hussein had been allowed, in fact encouraged, to build up a massive armaments inventory in order to counteract the growing threat of the Ayatollah in Iran some years previously. The government repeatedly assured us that our fears about engaging in the gulf war were not grounded, that what we were doing was preparing for a new world order in which these kind of conflicts would no longer take place. The government said that after the gulf war the nations of the world would see to it that a new world order was established in which weapons of destruction would no longer be circu-
May 30, 1991

Government Orders
lated or sold, that mechanisms would be put in place to control the sale of arms and that we need no longer worry.
The government said to us if only we would support its position on the gulf war, if only we would support the position of the United Nations-speaking essentially for the United States-that this war was necessary, afterward everything would be all right. We would no longer need to fear the effects of the arms race.
In fact, in the period immediately following the war, the government, seeking to assure Canadians of that, went so far as to issue statements such as the following. On March 8, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
The world cannot let a victory become a truce, an occasion for nations to rearm, regroup and return to battle. The peace which now beckons-must become a pattern.
He went on to say that to have peace in the Middle East region would require addressing the full spectrum of problems including, and I quote:
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the arms trade, the constant chase for spheres of influence.
He then went on to describe how weapons used by Iraq were supplied largely by the five members of the Security Council: Britain, France, U.S., China and the U.S.S.R., the very people who sanctioned and, indeed, spearheaded the effort to fight that Gulf War. They in fact were fighting against their own weapons.
Following that we all remember that our own Prime Minister took the opportunity when President Bush was making his visit to our nation's capital to say to President Bush very clearly, and I quote:
There's a general view-without getting into the question of total interdiction for the moment - that clearly a lot of these weapons, to understate the case, fell into hands that should never have had them in the first place. We could be much more active in that area if we wanted. We have all the technology in the world; we have all the resources we need. We could be big arms merchants; we've chosen 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".
It is very hard to believe that the government led by the people who made those statements would now be proposing Bill C-6. It would vastly increase the scope and the range of weaponry which Canada peddles in the world.
It is very hard to believe that the government should be coming forward with this bill when we heard statements during that war that these kinds of wars are inevitable if weapons are allowed to build up and the arms trade is allowed to flourish because these weapons must sooner or later be used. I recall very clearly during the gulf war, because it startled me so much, an expert on weaponry and the arms trade discussing the issue on one of the many TV programs. The expert was asked whether in fact the war would have any impact on Canadian arms exports, and whether there was an opportunity there for arms manufacturers and exporters as a result of the war. The answer that this arms trade expert gave was that there would in fact be no sales as a result of the war because this was an inventory war.
I recall very clearly, as we all do, seeing signs in different stores in our communities where we come from indicating that there is an inventory sale. They have too many shoes. They have to clean out their inventory or whatever the commodity is. Here we got to the point where we had to have an inventory war because there were so many weapons awash in that region that sooner or later the temptation to use them became overwhelming.
We have had our inventory war. We have had our commitments from the government that we were in fact going to seek a new world order based on limiting very dramatically the flow of arms around the world. But what do we get? We get Bill C-6 and we see the Minister for International Trade, when he was defending the introduction of this bill, and other members from the government who have defended the bill before us, saying there are essentially two reasons why we have to adopt this particular piece of legislation. One is that they need to protect the jobs in the industry and the other argument is that in fact they are not weapons of mass destruction. Really all they are saying when they talk about arms control is that the methods of mass destruction and these particular weapons that would be affected by this bill will not be included in it.

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
Let me deal with those arguments for just a minute. First there is the question of jobs. Certainly I do not want to underestimate the importance of jobs in our economy. I do not want to see people unemployed who currently work in the armaments industry any more than I want to see farmers thrown off their farms. I do not want to see aboriginal people whose traditional lifestyles are being undermined forced to go on welfare.
I have particular feelings for this case because in 19741 was a candidate for my party in the constituency of London East where the GM plant that is to build these weapons is located. Many of the brothers and sisters in Local 27 of the UAW are good friends of mine and I know them well. Clearly they are concerned about the loss of jobs, and well they should be.
I would like to say to those brothers and sisters in Local 27 that they are not in fact the victims of a move by the opposition to curb the arms race or to unrealistically restrict a legitimate trade in these kinds of things but rather they are victims of a whole trend which we see more and more of.
A lot of that trend is wrapped around the whole question of free trade. Certainly the concern that people feel in southwestern Ontario about the loss of jobs stems directly from the fact that there are not alternate jobs or economic opportunities in that region because of the massive devastation wreaked on that region by the free trade agreement with the United States.
Second, I think it is symbolic of the fact that we are more and more integrating our economies between Canada and the United States, and a big part of that integration will inevitably mean in my opinion that we will become more and more involved in the arms trade. That is a result of the fact that the United States depends very heavily on the arms trade. Its economy is based in large measure, in far too great a measure many Americans and many other people in the world believe, on the arms trade. We are very rapidly coming to the same position.
Many of us have seen the arguments. Even when it comes to things like Minute Man missiles and other weapons of mass destruction, we see feature stories on television and read articles in the papers about citizens of communities in California, in Georgia, and other places that depend very heavily on the arms industry. We see stories that these people will lose their jobs, that
whole communities are in danger of being wiped out. Therefore it becomes a rationale to continue even the most appalling kinds of weapons manufacture. Those kinds of things are rationalized by the need for jobs, and we are getting closer and closer to that.
The other aspect of the whole free trade philosophy involved here is the commitment and the orientation toward viewing things only in terms of the bottom line. If there is a market opportunity, if there is a buck to be made, we have to be there. That is the free trade philosophy and that is the philosophy that we are seeing today.
The second argument the minister made was that these are not weapons of mass destruction, that these LAVs, these light armoured vehicles, are really a veiy insignificant kind of weapon. Let me read a little bit about the particular weapon that we are talking about:
The light armoured vehicle is a multi-role small tank on wheels, built to operate in a wide range of environments. It is amphibious, relatively fast, capable of moving up to 63 miles an hour on a road, can climb steep slopes, can be air-lifted or dropped by transport aircraft and helicopters. In its many variations, all of which are included in the Saudi sale, it can be used as a troop carrier, a communications command centre, a towing vehicle, a mortar launcher or an anti-tank weapon.
When I see things like "having the capability of being a mortar launcher or a communications command centre", we are not talking about something that is removed from warfare that includes mass destruction. We are talking in fact about a weapon that can be very integral to warfare, including weapons of mass destruction, as we saw very clearly in the gulf war where 250 of these vehicles were used by the United States military in their operations.
There is another aspect that disturbs me about these weapons being pooh-poohed as not being weapons of mass destruction and therefore not significant. This is the fact of what will necessarily happen when we sell these to various governments with dubious human rights records and with very poor records of allowing their citizenry to have influence in the affairs of then-countries. I think we are going to see that they will be used on a widespread scale for putting down civil disturbances.
In other words, we will see people like Saddam Hussein, or the leadership in Syria, or other countries such as that, using this weaponry to quell civil disturbances, to further oppress their own people and to
May 30, 1991

further perpetuate the kind of power that they already have.
I cannot see that allowing countries with these kinds of regimes to obtain this kind of weaponry for the purpose of quelling their own populations represents a step forward for Canada in any way.
The third problem I see here is that it will become even more tempting to get involved in all kinds of Third World trouble, to pursue a strategy of intervention in Third World disputes, and in fact to foment those Third World disputes if the whole question of spheres of influence and control by the superpowers is in some way threatened.
I see this very much as being part of a new world order that might not be so much based on mutual assured destruction, the old theory of having a balance of nuclear forces. That theory is being eclipsed by the end of the cold war. What we are seeing is a new world order based very much on strategic interventions all over the world with just as destructive an effect, and perhaps more destructive because there is much less public outcry when these kinds of interventions are made.
Further, I would like to speak about the arms race in general. We had all hoped when the cold war began to thaw, when it became clear that the old power blocs were disintegrating, that there might well be a peace dividend that would accrue to the world and that would be a benefit to the world's people.
We are cutting budgets here by 5, 10, 15 per cent and saying that the activities of departments thus cut will not be affected. We are talking about a cut of 2 to 4 per cent in the arms trade which would yield over $200 trillion in the next decade. When we are talking about countries with per capita incomes of $150, $300 or $500 a year, $200 trillion is a massive amount of money. It seems quite ironic that we should be talking about increasing the arms trade while at the same time we are cutting foreign aid from our own country.
Furthermore, I would like to make the argument that the arms trade has been a big factor in creating many of the current economic problems we see world-wide. Certainly the high interest regime we have just come through has been directly related to the arms trade. There are very many credible economists who have said that the inflationary interest rate spiral we were in was
Government Orders
fuelled directly by Ronald Reagan's arms build-up during his 1980 to 1988 regime and that our own economy has suffered as a result. We are hearing arguments continuously that we have to absorb the kind of Draconian economic measures here because of high interest rates. In fact, those high interest rates were fuelled originally by the arms race.
The arms race has created a situation where very, very poor countries are in a position where they are almost forced to devote huge percentages of their Gross National Product and of their national budgets to support buying armaments to defend against others who have had arms sold to them, their neighbours and so on. Therefore, there are situations in Central America, the Middle East, and elsewhere, where poor countries are devoting huge amounts of money to the arms trade. First of all, the only thing they can afford to do in their own countries is starve their own people. Second, when they import from other countries they are importing armaments instead of other very useful commodities which we could be exporting to them.
I am worried as well about Canada's international credibility. We have consistently taken a good line when it comes to arms control, when it comes to search for peace around the world, and for new mechanisms to ensure that a new world order would be a peaceful world order. But what does it do to Canada's credibility when, so quickly after a major war which should have taught us a lesson, we are out there flogging weapons with the best of them? Surely the countries around the world that look to Canada for leadership must be very, very disappointed when they see Canada leaping with both feet into what it sees to be a small commercial opportunity, the way we are doing here.
I see you are telling me that my time has almost expired. In closing, I would like to quote a few words from a former Conservative member of Parliament from Edmonton, Douglas Roche, who was Canada's ambassador for disarmament from 1984 to 1988. Certainly members from all sides of the House recognize Doug Roche as one of the most articulate and committed people when it comes to the whole question of disarmament.
He said:
The government is rushing this legislation, trying to get it passed before the summer recess. Public opinion ought quickly to be mounted to fortify opposition efforts to defeat the bill. It was public opinion that stopped Canada from joining the U.S. Star Wars initiative, that

May 30, 1991
Government Orders
stopped West German arms manufacturers from settling in Cape
Breton, that stopped the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.
Bill C-6 is another watershed moment. It must be killed.
I agree with those sentiments. I would hope that the public of Canada becomes aware very quickly of what is happening here, that the public of Canada will make its views known very quickly to the Government of Canada and to all members of Parliament. We cannot afford to proceed with this legislation. We will be forever branded as hypocrites if we do.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to pose a question to the hon. member. He paints a rather lurid portrait of Saddam Hussein, Third World repression, and the government leaping in to the selling of arms. It is a kind of exaggerated, lurid portrait which has nothing whatsoever to do with this very technical amendment to a piece of legislation.
The hon. member should be reminded that there will be three criteria applied to the exports of automatic weapons under this bill. The three criteria, first of all are transparencies. It is very important to him that we be open about what we are doing and the transparency is in this bill. Canada will report exports of automatic weapons in its annual report on exports of military goods. It is a public document and it is also submitted to the United Nations. He made reference to the United Nations. This document will be submitted there. It is very important that he not exaggerate secrecy. This is transparent.
Second, there is consultation. We are going to initiate consultations with other countries, particularly our NATO allies and close defence partners, on controlling exports of automatic weapons.
Finally, in terms of restraint, he talks about these weapons or these firearms ending up in the hands of Saddam Hussein or somebody else. Canada will export automatic weapons only to those countries with which we have bilateral agreements. Right now, and I listed them a few hours ago, we only have agreements with 10 countries, of which Sweden is the only one that is not a member of NATO.
It is not fair of him, it is not furthering the cause of truth and openness, to paint portraits of countries such as Iraq as receiving these weapons.
These countries will be listed on the automatic firearms control list which will be available to the public. So it is very important that the House realize there is not only transparency in this bill, there is not only an undertaking to consult, but there is very great restraint on the countries that will be eligible for these firearms.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to expand a little more on some of the remarks I made. I can understand the minister's concern because the plant that is to manufacture these weapons is located in the city which he represents.
I am aware, as the minister says, that there are 1,000 CAW workers there. I know many of them personally. I had wished, though, that the minister would have explained to us what the government has done about the commitment that it made in 1987 to prepare facilities like the GM plant in London for conversion to non-military purposes. We made a clear commitment four years ago. As far as I know, there has been absolutely nothing done. We spent huge amounts of money, $300 million a year or thereabouts, gearing up for the arms trade, and nothing for conversion. I think that is one argument that needs to be made more often.
When the minister speaks about transparency and so on, the member for Mackenzie says it is so transparent we see right through it. I think there is a certain ironic truth to that.
Certainly the groups that monitor the arms business, such as Project Ploughshares and others, are not at all convinced that the mechanisms that are in place either in this bill or in other legislation are adequate. In fact, they said they are very inadequate. One of the big problems is the trans-shipment of arms from one point to another. We have no control over what happens once we have sold them to one country; they can very easily sell them to another and so on down the line. This is something that is widespread in the arms business and it happens every day.
He also says that we should accept the government's assurances about countries that are on the list and that it is a very restricted list. I am not aware that Saudi Arabia is on that list or has met any of these criteria. In fact, in a lot of people's opinion, Saudi Arabia should never be on
May 30, 1991

that kind of a list, even if you accept that the criteria are adequate.
Furthermore, I hear that countries like Thailand, which recently experienced another in a long series of military coups, is considering a purchase. I would not be at all surprised if the same arguments were made there.
We have a list of criteria that is supposed to rule out arms going to human rights violators, people in danger of imminent conflict, and others like that, but those have been around for a while. In spite of that, over the last three years we have exported military commodities to countries like South Korea, Turkey, the Philippines, Indonesia-which is still occupying East Timor in a manner very similar to the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq-Peru where a civil war is going on, and Zaire which is a notorious civil rights violator, one of the worst in the world. We have exported military commodities to those particular countries.
When I see the government exporting other kinds of military commodities to those kinds of countries, I am not reassured. I am sure many other Canadians are not reassured by the argument that this particular class of weapons will be restricted only to our very best and most trusted friends.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a comment on this matter and put a question to my friend who gave an excellent speech. It is too bad that I cannot put the question, in some way, to the minister who just posed a question. I would say to him, are these contracts we are talking about not with the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia, and did not even the government, the Department of External Affairs which has become like an international trade agency, seek out the the contract with Saudi Arabia?
I see the minister leaving the House, but I have to put the question to my friend anyway.
Government Orders
The government now brings in a bill to amend the Criminal Code which would allow arms sales in the Middle East. It is in a sticky wicket.
I want to ask the member two questions. Does he find it as ironic as I do that on the same day the government brings in legislation for arms control in Canada we are also getting legislation to export guns? I find this very strange.
Second, I would ask him to comment on this. Has he picked up the problem, as he mentioned, with workers and jobs and so on? When Diemaco, the gun manufacturer, was Canadian Arsenals, a public corporation, we could cut back the labour force. We were just making guns for Canadians and we could move them somewhere else. Once we privatized it and made it a private corporation it has got to have more arms sales. It has got to go into the foreign market. It has got to virtually sell to anybody it can. That is another result of privatization.
I wonder if the member, in the short time I have left him, could comment on those two points.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member very much for his intervention. Certainly I also note the tremendous irony of the comparison between what the government was saying during the gulf war and persuading Canadians that in fact it was serious about bringing these kinds of situations under control and particularly persuading Canadians that they needed to support the war effort because the government was committed. That was part of the strategy to bring these kinds of situations under control.
It is indeed ironic that we have today witnessed the introduction of gun control to our country which, I must confess, in my own constituency makes it much tougher for Dene hunters to obtain food for their families while, at the same time, the sultans of Saudi Arabia will be riding around with our automatic weapons.
That is truly an ironic situation which I think will not be lost on the Canadian public.
The government should face the issues squarely and The last point that the member made is also a very not mislead us. Deal with the issues squarely. The good one and I am glad he raised it. It is an important government's problem is that the Prime Minister has got part of the public debate. 1 know people in the House such a big mouth that he gets himself into trouble, not who were here when Canadian Arsenals was privatized, only in Tokyo but when he was here talking about these When the Crown corporation was privatized many of my arms deals, and the former minister of external affairs, colleagues made the argument that in fact this is precise-Mr. Clark, is clearly on the record saying: "We should ly what would happen. Rather than supplying those cut arms sales to the Middle East."	needs which we as a small peaceful country have on a

May 30, 1991
Adjournment Debate
peacekeeping basis, ensuring our own forces have what they need, produced by ourselves-it was a nice neat little industry in so far as these can be-we are now being driven by the profit imperative.
Certainly, I can sympathize with the workers in London, but when they have built for Saudi Arabia, who are they going to build for next? Are they going to build for South Korea next? Are they going to build for Guatemala next? Once we start on that slippery slope we cannot get off.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in this House I informed the minister responsible for Canada Post about the fight being waged by the community of Avonmore, Ontario, to keep its post office. Avonmore has had a post office since Confederation. It is sadly ironic that it will soon be closed at a time when Canada is seeking to preserve national unity and its federal symbols.
On May 23 over 60 residents of Avonmore stood on the steps in front of the House of Commons and held a rally to save their post office. They presented a petition with over 700 signatures, calling upon the government to rescind its decision to close their post office on June 27.
They also gave me a children's petition. It showed that the whole community has come together to voice its objections over the callous action taken by Canada Post to close the Avonmore post office.
The community of Avonmore feels betrayed by Canada Post. It is frustrated and angry that it was simply told that it was going to lose its post office and there was nothing it could do to stop it. As far as the people of Avonmore are concerned, their meeting with Canada Post representatives was a sham, nothing more than a farce.
The point I want to make today concerns the issue I was trying to get across to the minister responsible for Canada Post in my question to him last Thursday. That is, Avonmore will not only lose its post office, it will also not receive a retail postal outlet. There is only one store in the community and the owner does not want to have an RPO.
Canada Post has informed the people of Avonmore that it will be installing mailboxes when the post office is closed. However, this means that to register a letter or buy a stamp, the people of Avonmore will have to travel over 24 kilometres to the nearest post office. Postal service in Avonmore will therefore be considerably downgraded when the post office is closed.
The people of Avonmore should not have to leave their community and travel 24 kilometres to obtain such basic services as the ability to buy a stamp. This is totally unacceptable. It is a blatant contravention of Canada Post's promise to rural Canadians.
In June, 1988, Canada Post placed full-page ads in newspapers across Canada emphasizing, in its own words, that it would be "keeping our commitment to rural Canada". The ad stated that, and I am quoting: "Canada's rural communities are vital to Canada Post. In fact, one of the most important parts of our commitment is making postal products and services more accessible to rural Canadians".
This ad was nothing short of deception and propaganda. It went on to state that the corporation's commitment to its customers "will be to maintain and improve service as we evolve". Well, something must have gone terribly wrong during the evolution process. Canada Post's pledge to provide equal or better service when a post office is closed is not worth much to the people of Avonmore.
For all Canada Post and this government cares, the residents of Avonmore and other rural Canadians, who have no post office or shining RPO to serve them, could travel over 100 kilometres to buy a stamp. As long as the
May 30, 1991

master plan to eliminate over 5,200 rural post offices by 1996 goes ahead, the government and the corporation will be happy.
In conclusion, the people of rural Canada feel betrayed. Luckily they will have an opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the master plan long before 1996. The government has ignored rural Canadians far too long. As a result, it will be the government that will be closed down come the next election, closed down in the very same quick and harsh manner in which the people of Avonmore will lose their post office.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation has been working very hard to improve the efficiency and availability of postal services in Canada, to meet the expectations and changing needs of all Canadians.
Like other organizations that provide a public service, Canada Post has had to resort to new ways of providing this service in order to respond to the pressing needs of all Canadians, and it will continue to enhance the availability of postal services and products.
For instance, Canada Post meets its objectives in rural Canada by using the resources and skills of local businesses to significantly increase the number of locations offering postal services and products. Incidentally, other businesses providing services to Canadians in rural areas have made necessary adjustments by cutting some of their services. Canada Post has made every possible effort to maintain its business ties with these communities by strengthening its partnerships with local businesses with which it already had a long-standing relationship.
Furthermore, the corporation has developed a number of ways to ensure postal delivery is maintained in a community. Some examples are: mail boxes in retail postal outlets, community mail boxes at a single designated location or on individual sites.
Meanwhile, Canada Post ensures that the community retains its specific postal identity and that all customers are able to send and receive their mail locally. Recently, Canada Post reviewed postal services in the community of Avonmore which, as the hon. member of the opposi-
Adjoumment Debate
tion is no doubt aware, has been provided by a term employee since the postmaster retired.
On March 27, Canada Post sent a notice to all customers, informing them there would be changes in their community's postal services.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I raised with the minister of defence speculation in the press that the government was considering closing Armed Forces bases across the country and two bases that we now operate and have operated for some time in Europe.
This speculation has gone on for some time. It has gone on in the complete absence of any defence policy in this country whatsoever. In 1987, when the last white paper was written, it was out of date. It is even more out of date at this time. We have been operating all this time with absolutely no defence policy in Canada or no indication of the date when a defence policy may be brought forward.
Yet we go on with ad hockery in this country. We go on with the administration of defence by the Department of Finance. There are $2.5 billion worth of cuts in the last budget. This was the most severe cut to any department probably in Canadian history and certainly the most severe cut that the Canadian forces have received for some time. However, rule by the department of defence is no way to create a defence policy for this country. It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to bring forward a policy so that the people of Canada, who are now discussing the Constitution, who are now discussing native rights, will also be able to discuss how they want sovereignty to be maintained in this country and how they want security exercised in this country.
It is 1991 now and it is time not only for the government to bring forward suggestions as to the direction they want to go, but to engage the Canadian people in a public debate on those very directions.
What makes the lack of policy at this time even more reprehensible is the fact that Canadian forces have just performed well in the gulf. They performed with professionalism, they performed with competence, and they deserve better. They deserve better, as do the people

May 30, 1991
Adjournment Debate
who work at the bases we have all across this country. There are hundreds of thousands of people in Canada now whose jobs depend on those bases, either directly or indirectly, and it is not fair in a time of economic recession to keep them in suspense, to keep them in concern and in distress, and in worry about their future and the future of their jobs. That is not the way to run the country. We had the example of Summerside, where a whole province was affected very negatively by the closing of one base. There are areas of this country that depend very, very much on the presence of the Armed Forces to create jobs, particularly in areas of the country normally referred to as have not areas, less developed areas of the country.
It is important, when that policy is brought forward and when the closure of bases is contemplated, that economic and social aspects be taken into consideration. We did not see that before. Before, when the government closed bases in Canada, it used an axe where a scalpel would have been desirable. We probably do not need all bases across this country. My colleague from Toronto even called for the closing of Downsview in Toronto, and yet Downsview continues to survive and prosper in spite of the need for land, for development, and for housing in that community. It mystifies those of us on this side.


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


Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that fiscal and geostrategic realities now before us have a direct impact on national defence. A comprehensive examination of the defence policy enunciated in 1987 has been undertaken by departmental officials. Both the minister of defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence regard the review as vital to the future direction of defence in Canada. They are fully committed to formulating a policy that will set forth a balanced, workable, affordable, and appropriate plan for the Canadian forces.
has yet to be reached by cabinet. However, no part of the defence program is immune from scrutiny.
Allegations that Canada is operating within a defence policy vacuum are not valid. The principles upon which Canadian defence policy rests have remained virtually unchanged. For example, we continue to remain committed to defence and collective security, arms control and disarmament, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. All members of this House will recognize that during the crisis in the Persian Gulf, Canada accepted its responsibility as an active member of the United Nations and made a credible contribution to the multinational effort.
This review was not conducted in isolation. The government continues to listen closely to the views of Canadians and has taken these views into account-


EMPLOYMENT
André Ouellet: system to provide real protection to the workers losing their jobs; fourth, to bring forward selective income tax cuts; fifth, to come up with a tax reform that would do away with the GST and the harm it is causing the Quebec economy as well as across the country; finally, to undertake a review of the free trade agreement which is causing enormous problems, as we all know, particularly in a city like Montreal.
The CNTU told us that Montreal was like a city after an air raid. A number of industries in major sectors of the city have closed down as a direct result of the free trade agreement with the United States. As a matter of fact, 7,602 jobs have been lost in the Montreal area because of free trade.
The CNTU provided us with this list-and I will gladly pass it on to the minister or his representative-of all the businesses affected by job losses as a direct result of free trade, with the company names, date of closure or lay-off, and number of jobs lost. So this government would be well advised not to come and tell us that free trade is a good thing!
Free trade has done a lot of harm. It has seriously hurt a host of Quebec businesses. I would like the minister to reply.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I am pleased to provide some answers to the questions and points raised by my hon. colleague, the member from the Montreal area.
Mr. Speaker, I will let other more senior cabinet members answer the various initiatives proposed by the CNTU. I just found out about them when I heard the hon. member read them and I must tell you that some points certainly deserve attention and consideration, but others are not at all realistic. Removing the GST and changing the free trade agreement are not among the government's priorities. On the contrary, these measures were implemented to strengthen the economy of Canada, Quebec, and Montreal, and to make businesses more competitive.
In answer to the arguments made by my hon. colleague concerning closures and layoffs in some industries in
Adjournment Debate
Montreal, I would say it is not different from other places. In the early 1980s, the North Shore, which I represent, went through a frightful slump because the iron ore industry declined. Our iron ore exports dropped; north shore mine workers who had been there for thirty years lost their jobs. It is not unique to Montreal. It is happening across Canada.
The industrial structure of the country is changing every year and my colleague from Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel could also have listed Montreal companies that have grown and expanded and reached new markets, obviously because of free trade.


An hon. member:: Name them!


Charles A. Langlois: My colleague asks me to name them. He says that he is prepared to table a list of companies that closed down; he should be just as able to table a list of companies that have grown and progressed and created new jobs, Mr. Speaker.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that border shopping is a serious problem in eastern Ontario. Ernst and Young was commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Kingston to undertake a study concerning the crossborder traffic in the Kingston area.
It did a study for the neighbouring riding of Leeds and Grenville at the bridge at Lansdowne, Ontario, which is represented by my seatmate.
Written declarations, which are filed when someone is returning to Canada with less than $300 in goods after an absence of more than seven days, increased the first quarter of 1988 to the current year from 6,600 declarations to 19,500 declarations, an increase of 197 per cent.
B-15 forms, which are filed at the border when duty or taxe is paid, increased from 2,100 for the similar period in 1988 to 13,200, an increase of 517 per cent in the three years.
Finally, verbal declarations, which are made when someone is returning to Canada with less than $100 in goods after an absence greater than 48 hours, increased

May 30, 1991
Adjournment Debate
from a total of 46,000 for that same period in 1988 to
130,000	entries in 1991, an increase of 182 per cent.
Similarly, verbal declarations from 1990 to 1991, that is the one year period, for the same three months, increased 51 per cent.
The merchants of Kingston are well aware that Tory times are hard times. Some 33 increases in taxes since 1984 have crippled the Canadian economy. They are driving Canadians south of the border in increasing numbers, radically increasing numbers, as this study indicates.
The anticipated loss to the Kingston community to the purchases being made south of the border as a direct result of this government's ridiculous policies is about $100 million this year.
That is estimated to cost Kingstonians alone job losses of between 500 and 700 people. That is a disaster for the Kingston community. This particular problem is affecting all the communities along the St. Lawrence River that are close to the American border. It is time this government took action.
I asked the minister the other day to take action and I am asking now: what is the action going to be? We got a bafflegab answer.


Barry D. Moore: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the minister and his department have undertaken an extensive consultation process with the people who are involved in the cross-border shopping issue.
We have to deal with it, and we are dealing with it through consultation with the stakeholders, including all three levels of government, the private sector, labour and consumer organizations, and we are making headway toward a better understanding of the complexity of the situation and needs for specific solutions.
The Minister of National Revenue has spent a great deal of time and effort ensuring that we find more efficient and effective ways of dealing with this matter. He has been addressing the issue of border congestion and I can assure the hon. member that he and his department will continue to develop ways to ease congestion, better ways for the travelling public, both Canadians and Americans.
There is no one solution to this complex problem, and I think the hon. member knows this. What may well be appropriate for eastern Ontario border locations may well be inappropriate for others. As the hon. member is no doubt aware, the minister and departmental officials at all levels have been meeting with local mayors, provincial government officials, and other concerned parties to ensure that the solutions for each border office are tailored to the needs of the community served.
Canada Customs continues to perform a delicate balancing act between enforcement and protection of Canada's borders while, at the same time, providing efficient service to the travelling public.
I would emphasize that only through consultation with members of local interest groups can we come up with well thought out solutions to the varied concerns of border communities. I would urge the member to encourage his constituents to join with business, labour, governments, and consumers in dealing with this issue.


EDMONTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rose yesterday, May 29, to ask a question of the Minister of Transport and that question was: Would he include a purchase clause in the lease agreement? In other words, would he make the lease agreement for the transfer of the Edmonton International Airport to the local authority a lease to purchase agreement?
He gave me the answer: "No." He did not want to privatize the airport. He missed the question because I was not talking about privatization. I was merely asking that a purchase clause be inserted into the lease agreement so that at some point in the future the local authority, the Edmonton Airport Authority, could exercise an option or negotiate with the federal government to take over the international airport.
The reason this is important is that when the local authority will lease the airport, it will put $10 million a year into infrastructure improvements each year for 10 years. It wants a little certainty about whether the return will come to it after this time. Also the people who will lend the money to the Edmonton airport authority would like some certainty as to who is to own the assets after this 10-year period. Having a lease agreement only is not very workable now.
May 30, 1991

In fact, I would like to quote a consultant which the federal government consulted on this issue. The consultant, the Royal Bank of Canada, said: "We believe it is much cleaner to avoid these issues entirely by leaving ownership of the assets with the federal government indefinitely". They would like to have the assets owned by the federal government indefinitely. They would like a reversion clause in the lease agreement so all the infrastructure improvements might revert back to the federal government.
This is very unfair to the local authority. The government wanted to privatize it at first. It was realized that maybe some local authorities might fail and the government might wish to take it back. The government started out with a lease to purchase option. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada went to Edmonton in 1989 and signed a memorandum of agreement for a lease to purchase. T\vo years later the purchase option was taken out.
I would like an answer tonight whether the parliamentary secretary, the member for Calgary Southeast, will make a commitment to ask the Minister of Transport to put a purchase option into the lease agreement. It will not cost them anything. It is just an option that the two of them get together near the end of the lease to discuss terms and allow the airport authority to take over and purchase the airport after it has put in $100 million or more worth of infrastructure improvements.
The building is now 30 years old and a consultant hired by the local airport authority has said the building might have to be replaced. Transport Canada has been very negligent in the upkeep of the building and it is very important.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he will make a commitment to go to the Minister of Transport and have this clause added.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and also his efforts on behalf of his constituents in Edmonton to get involved in the negotiations between the department and the local airport authority.
However, my hon. friend may not be aware of all the background that went into the developing of the government's position regarding lease versus sale. I can assure
Adjournment Debate
the hon. member that the matter was thoroughly examined and not just by bureaucrats.
As you may recall, when the government approved the principles for the creation and operation of local airport authorities in May, 1989, it gave a specific negotiating mandate to the Minister of Transport. This mandate states that the airports are to be transferred on terms to be negotiated to newly created community based nonprofitable organizations, the local airport authorities. In other words, they were not to be privatized.
This is not to say that the transfer will disregard sound business principles. On the contrary, the mandate also requires that the airports be transferred on the basis of fair market value with appropriate consideration for their future earning potential.
Finally, the government, not the department, decided for several reasons that negotiations were to be initiated on the basis of transfer by way of long-term lease for a number of reasons.
For one, it was felt that the sale of airports to new and unproven business organizations might be seen by the public as putting at risk these essential elements of our transportation infrastructure.
As the hon. member noted, early in 1989 Transport Canada's airport transfer task force retained the corporate finance division of the Royal Bank of Canada to report on the financing for local airport authorities. The report considered the question of lease versus sale from the perspective of lenders and investors and took into account the legal, financial, and perceptual implications.
To put it succinctly, the Royal Bank found that from a technical perspective for financiers, it does not matter if the airport authority owns or leases the property and assets as long as it has the unfettered right to use the facilities and, more importantly, the authority to generate revenues from the airport's assets.
They also concluded that they believed it to be preferable in Canada for the airports to be leased to the local airport authorities rather than sold.
I can also add that the conclusion that leasing is preferable to an outright sale has been strongly endorsed by the airport authority advisory board. This board was constituted in 1989 to provide the Minister of Transport with advice from a private sector perspective on all aspects of the airport transfer initiative.

May 30, 1991
Adjournment Debate
Officials at Transport Canada and the Department of Justice are meeting regularly with the four local airport authorities and I believe that progress has been made within the framework set out by the government.
The hon. member's interest in this matter is most appreciated, and I sincerely hope that my comments have alleviated his concern.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock a.m. tomorrow pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 31,1991